<table><caption>**Table 25.** Type of communication means used by the initiatives for their general communication</caption><thead><tr><th>Type of general communication</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th><th>Declared communication %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Workshops/trainings</td><td>25</td><td>32.1</td><td>32.9</td></tr><tr><td>Sales point display</td><td>17</td><td>21.8</td><td>22.4</td></tr><tr><td>Posters</td><td>12</td><td>15.4</td><td>15.8</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>9</td><td>11.5</td><td>11.8</td></tr><tr><td>TV</td><td>5</td><td>6.4</td><td>6.6</td></tr><tr><td>Radio</td><td>4</td><td>5.1</td><td>5.3</td></tr><tr><td>No communication</td><td>2</td><td>2.6</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of communication means selected by initiatives not limited

### Q4.1 and Q4.6: Number of general communication means used by type of initiative

<table><caption>**Table 26.** Number of communication means used by the initiatives for their general communication</caption><thead><tr><th># general communication means used</th><th>Farmer n</th><th>Intermediate n</th><th>Other n</th><th>Processor n</th><th>Shop n</th><th>All n</th><th>Farmer %</th><th>Intermediate %</th><th>Other %</th><th>Processor %</th><th>Shop %</th><th>All %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>2.9</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>14</td><td>14.3</td><td>18.2</td><td>28.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>29.4</td><td>17.9</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>11</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>20</td><td>31.4</td><td>36.4</td><td>0.0</td><td>37.5</td><td>11.8</td><td>25.6</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>12</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>24</td><td>34.3</td><td>27.3</td><td>42.9</td><td>25.0</td><td>23.5</td><td>30.8</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>8.6</td><td>9.1</td><td>28.6</td><td>12.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>17.6</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.9</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>35</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>78</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Almost all of the initiatives communicate about the products that they sell. Only two initiatives declared that they do not communicate. These are one individual farmer with a small 4-hectare farm and a processor with strong activity linked to seed and raw materials in Italy.

Diversity again reigns in terms of communication strategies. Most initiatives use three to four communication media (n=44; 57.9% of those who communicate) and six initiatives (7.9%) are found to use from six to nine media to communicate. These highly communicative initiatives are four shops (a bulk store in Sweden, one in a third place, and two consumer run shops in France) and two farmers (an individual farmer under the ProSpecieRara label in Switzerland and a farmer and citizen collective in France).

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>
The most cited combinations of communication used are: Online platforms and Word of mouth and Labels (n=9, 11.8%); Online platforms and Word of mouth (n=7, 9.2%); Online platforms and Word of mouth and Labels and Workshops/trainings (n=5, 6.6%).

We have only one online platform, who is focused on creating a solidarity economy network, that did not select one of the three main forms of communication found across the sample (i.e., online platform, word of mouth and label). This online platform communicates via "Workshops/trainings", demonstrating that there is indeed a distinction about the purpose of digital tools and the role that they can play in valuing NUCs. In other words, having an online platform does not mean that marketing function is the same as the communication or information function.

Three additional initiatives do not communicate via online platforms. They are two individual farmers in France communicating via Word of mouth, Labels, Brochures, labels, brochures, ales point displays and one shop in Denmark where they communicate via Word of mouth.

Sale point displays are rarely used by the initiatives included in our sample, being cited by only 17 initiatives (22.4%), with no clear difference across actor types or countries.

## Q4.2: Which platforms do you use?

<table><caption>**Table 27.** Type of online platforms used by the initiatives for their general communication</caption><thead><tr><td>Type of general communication</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Declared online communication %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Facebook</td><td>59</td><td>75.6</td><td>81.9</td></tr><tr><td>Your own website</td><td>56</td><td>71.8</td><td>77.8</td></tr><tr><td>Instagram</td><td>47</td><td>60.3</td><td>65.3</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>10</td><td>12.8</td><td>13.9</td></tr><tr><td>YouTube</td><td>9</td><td>11.5</td><td>12.5</td></tr><tr><td>Whatsapp</td><td>9</td><td>11.5</td><td>12.5</td></tr><tr><td>LinkedIn</td><td>9</td><td>11.5</td><td>12.5</td></tr><tr><td>TikTok</td><td>8</td><td>10.3</td><td>11.1</td></tr><tr><td>Another company's website</td><td>2</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>X - Twitter</td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>No use of online platforms</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of online platforms selected by initiatives not limited

The initiatives mainly use several online tools for general communication. Here again, diversity is an important communication strategy as only 11 initiatives reported that they used only one tool (15.3% of those using online platforms). To the extreme, eight initiatives (11.1%) communicated using five and up to eight tools (three "3 others": associations in France and Switzerland and a seed company in Portugal), two shops (a cooperative store in Portugal, and a bulk store in Sweden), one processor and two farmers working with partners in France and in Italy).

<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>
The most cited combinations of online tools were: Own website and Facebook and Instagram (n=12, 16.6%); own website and Facebook (n=7, 9.7%); Own website and Facebook and Instagram (n=6, 8.3%), Instagram and Whatsapp (n=6, 8.3%).

Overall, Facebook and their Own company website, were the most often selected by the initiatives (respectively n=59, 81.9% and n=56, 77.8%). Only two initiatives didn't select at least one of these two tools: an individual farmer in France (using only an open-source tool dedicated to CSA management) and a baker/café in Sweden, using only Instagram.

### Q4.4: For which of the following purposes do you use online platforms?

<table><caption>**Table 28.** Purpose of online platforms used by initiatives for their general communication</caption><thead><tr><td>Purpose of online communication</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Declared online platforms %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Information/content sharing</td><td>59</td><td>75.6</td><td>81.9</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing/selling purposes</td><td>55</td><td>70.5</td><td>76.4</td></tr><tr><td>Create/maintain a community around your initiative</td><td>51</td><td>65.4</td><td>70.8</td></tr><tr><td>Activism</td><td>19</td><td>24.4</td><td>26.4</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>No use of online platforms</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of purposes selected by initiatives not limited

The use of social media platforms was mostly multi-purpose. Only 13 initiatives (18.1%) selected one unique purpose and to the extreme, 13 selected four to five purposes.

The most cited combinations of use included: Marketing/selling purposes and Information/content sharing and create/maintain a community around your initiative (n=22, 30.6%); the same three uses plus activism (n=12, 16.6%); Marketing/selling purposes and Information/content sharing (n=9, 12.5%).

There was only one initiative that did not select the three most cited purposes. This was a farmer who is part of a network of committed growers in Sweden, who declared that he used its "own and others' e-platforms for increased accessibility."

There are 17 initiatives who do not use online platforms for "marketing" purposes. This group includes all of the "other" actor types, except for the two seed companies, and one single organic shop in Portugal.

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /></figure>
### Q4.8: Do you actively promote the consumption of NUCS/NUC-based products?

<table><caption>Table 29. Number of initiatives that actively promote NUCS' consumption</caption><thead><tr><td>Promotion of NUCS</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>56</td><td>71.8</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>15</td><td>19.2</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>78</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Q4.9: Which of the following qualities of NUCS/NUC-based products do you promote?

<table><caption>Table 30. NUCS' qualities promoted by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td>NUCS qualities promoted</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Declared guarantee system %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Environmental/landscape preservation</td><td>43</td><td>55.1</td><td>76.8</td></tr><tr><td>Promoting local agriculture</td><td>43</td><td>55.1</td><td>76.8</td></tr><tr><td>Health and nutrition</td><td>42</td><td>53.8</td><td>75.0</td></tr><tr><td>(Agro)biodiversity conservation/restoration</td><td>40</td><td>51.3</td><td>71.4</td></tr><tr><td>Culture and gastronomy</td><td>28</td><td>35.9</td><td>50.0</td></tr><tr><td>Diet transition towards vegan/vegetarian</td><td>12</td><td>15.4</td><td>21.4</td></tr><tr><td>Good value for money</td><td>10</td><td>12.8</td><td>17.9</td></tr><tr><td>Affordable price</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td><td>12.5</td></tr><tr><td>Medical properties</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td>10.7</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>4</td><td>5.1</td><td>7.1</td></tr><tr><td>No NUCS' promotion or Don't know</td><td>22</td><td>28.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of qualities selected by initiatives not limited

### Q4.9: Number of NUCS' qualities promoted by type of initiative

<table><caption>Table 31. Number of NUCS' qualities promoted by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td># of NUCS qualities promoted</td><td>Farmer n</td><td>Intermediate n</td><td>Other n</td><td>Processor n</td><td>Shop n</td><td>All n</td><td>Farmer %</td><td>Intermediate %</td><td>Other %</td><td>Processor %</td><td>Shop %</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>22</td><td>25.7</td><td>36.4</td><td>28.6</td><td>25.0</td><td>29.4</td><td>28.2</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>5.7</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>28.6</td><td>12.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>12</td><td>14.3</td><td>18.2</td><td>28.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>17.6</td><td>15.4</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>16</td><td>28.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>14.3</td><td>37.5</td><td>11.8</td><td>20.5</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>11</td><td>14.3</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>23.5</td><td>14.1</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>8.6</td><td>18.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2.9</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>11.8</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>35</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>78</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /></figure>
The majority of initiatives (n=56, 71.8%) included in this sample are actively promoting the consumption of NUCs. There is no major difference among countries or actor types for those who do not know or do not promote NUCs.

When initiatives do communicate about NUCs, most of them highlight between three to five qualities (n=39, 69.6% of the initiatives that do active promotion of NUCS). The four initiatives that communicate on the greatest number of qualities (i.e. eight qualities) are: an online platform in France (with the mission of supporting sustainable agriculture), a farmer implicated in a network of committed growers in Sweden, a shop in a third place, and a consumer-run shop in France).

The most cited combinations of qualities that the initiatives promote are: Health and nutrition and Environmental/landscape preservation and (agro)biodiversity conservation/restoration and Culture and gastronomy (preserving identity and heritage) and Promoting local agriculture (n=8; 14.3% of the initiatives that communicate). The second most commonly found combination of qualities are: Health and nutrition, and Environmental/landscape preservation and (agro)biodiversity conservation/restoration and Promoting local agriculture (n=4; 7.1%). The third most frequent combination is Health and nutrition (e.g. rich in iron, fibre and protein) and Environmental/landscape preservation and (agro)biodiversity conservation/restoration (n=3, 5.4%).

Overall, the four qualities, Environmental/landscape preservation, Promoting local agriculture, Health and nutrition, and (agro)biodiversity conservation/restoration, are the most cited by the initiatives (from 71.4 to 76.8% of the initiatives that communicate about NUCs). Only two initiatives don't cite any of these four qualities. The first is a shop in France that works in close collaboration with a farmer and communicates "Good value for money" and how NUCs can stimulate a "diet transition towards vegan/vegetarian." The other is a farmer in Hungary that promotes their NUCs as part of "Culture and gastronomy."

In sum, this data also supports the previously cited result about the initiatives' social missions. The majority of those are promoting NUCs for their environmental benefits, but in communication to consumers, we do see a higher frequency of health-related messages.

### Q4.11: What communication channels do you use to promote NUCs/NUC-based products?

<table><thead><tr><td>Communication means for NUCS promotion</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Declared NUCS communication %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Online platforms</td><td>48</td><td>61.5</td><td>85.7</td></tr><tr><td>Word of mouth</td><td>35</td><td>44.9</td><td>62.5</td></tr><tr><td>Labels</td><td>25</td><td>32.1</td><td>44.6</td></tr><tr><td>Brochures/flyers</td><td>16</td><td>20.5</td><td>28.6</td></tr><tr><td>Workshops/trainings</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td><td>23.2</td></tr><tr><td>Sales point display</td><td>8</td><td>10.3</td><td>14.3</td></tr><tr><td>Posters</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td>10.7</td></tr><tr><td>TV</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td>10.7</td></tr><tr><td>Radio</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td><td>5.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 32.** Type of communication means used by the initiatives for NUCS promotion</caption><thead><tr><th>Communication means for NUCS promotion</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th><th>Declared NUCS communication %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Other</td><td>2</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>No active promotion of NUCS</td><td>15</td><td>19.2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Don't know if active promotion of NUCS</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of communication means selected by initiatives not limited

### Q4.11: Number of communication means used for NUCS' promotion by type of initiative

<table><caption>**Table 33.** Number of communication means used by initiatives for NUCS promotion</caption><thead><tr><th># of communication means for NUCS promotion</th><th>Farmer n</th><th>Intermediate n</th><th>Other n</th><th>Processor n</th><th>Shop n</th><th>All n</th><th>Farmer %</th><th>Intermediate %</th><th>Other %</th><th>Processor %</th><th>Shop %</th><th>All %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>22</td><td>25.7</td><td>36.4</td><td>28.6</td><td>25.0</td><td>29.4</td><td>28.2</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>14.3</td><td>18.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>19</td><td>14.3</td><td>18.2</td><td>28.6</td><td>37.5</td><td>41.2</td><td>24.4</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>14</td><td>28.6</td><td>9.1</td><td>14.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>11.8</td><td>17.9</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>8.6</td><td>18.2</td><td>28.6</td><td>25.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>11.5</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>11.8</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.9</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>35</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>78</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

There is no major difference in communication patterns when the initiatives promote NUCS or when they communicate more generally about their initiative (see Table 32): online platforms and word of mouth are the most often used (respectively n=48, 85.7% of the initiatives which promote NUCS and n=35, 62.5%); poster, radio, TV, and "other" were selected by less than 11% of the initiatives. However, the proportion of initiatives communicating specifically about NUCS is lower (n=56, 71.8% of the sample) than the proportion of initiatives that communicate more generally (n=76, 97.4%).

When initiatives do communicate about NUCS, they also tend to use fewer forms of communication than the number used for the general communication. The distribution is as follows: 19 initiatives gave the same number of modes of communication for NUCS and for their general communication (33.9% of the initiatives that communicate on NUCS); 18 had one more form for general communication (32.1%), while 15 (26.9%) had two to four more means for their general communication than they used to promote NUCS. There were only four initiatives (7.1%) that had one to three more communication modes for NUCS compared to their general communication strategy. We found here: an online platform in Italy that is building a solidarity economy network, a seed producer in Switzerland, an individual farmer in Sweden that is part of

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /></figure>
a network of committed growers, and an individual farmer in Switzerland working with the ProSpeciRara label.

The majority of initiatives used two to three communication means for promoting NUCS (n=33; 58.9% of the initiatives that communicate on NUCS), with only six initiatives (10.7%) using five to nine means of communication: these are three shops (a bulk purchasing store in Sweden, an in third place, and a consumer run store in France), three farmers (an individual under ProSpecieRara label in Switzerland, a social farm with strong educational activities in Italy, and a collective of farmers and citizens in France).

The most cited combinations of means of communication were: Online platforms and Word of mouth and Labels (n=7, 12.5% of those doing NUCS promotion); Online platforms selected alone (n=6, 10.7%); Online platforms and Word of mouth (n=6, 10.7%); Online platforms and Labels (n=5, 8.9%).

Only a processor (a company in France specialised in the sorting and packaging of dried legumes and cereals) didn't select one of the three main means of communication found across the sample (i.e. online platforms, word of mouth, and labels). Instead, it communicates about NUCS via "Posters and TV". We also found that seven initiatives do not communicate via online platforms, all of whom are farmers (five in France, and one in Hungary, and in Portugal).

As noted for the general communication, sales point displays are rarely used (cited only by eight farmers or shops, 14.3% - only one of them didn't declare this entry for its general communication). Tasting campaigns were carried out by five initiatives, loyalty promotion by two initiatives, and promotional bundles or placing NUCS on display inside the stores was mentioned only once. A single initiative declared "other" forms of promotion of NUCS and indicated an engagement of the "Local origin producer".

### Q4.15: Do you do any of the following to promote NUCS/NUC-based products?

<table><caption>**Table 34.** NUCS promotional actions carried out by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><th>NUCS promotion Actions</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th><th>Declared NUCS promotion actions %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Talks/speeches</td><td>28</td><td>35.9</td><td>71.8</td></tr><tr><td>Cooking demonstrations</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td>Teaching</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td>Activism</td><td>9</td><td>11.5</td><td>23.1</td></tr><tr><td>Campaigning</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td>15.4</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>4</td><td>5.1</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><td>None of the above</td><td>17</td><td>21.8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No active promotion of NUCS or Don't know</td><td>22</td><td>28.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of promotional actions selected by initiatives not limited

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /></figure>
Of the 56 initiatives who actively promote NUCs, 39 (69,6%) do additional promotional activities. About half of them (n=19), do only one additional promotional activity, but there were three initiatives who had conducted four or five supplementary promotional activities for NUCs.

Here again we see a number of combinations of promotional activities that repeat across the initiatives.

Most cited combinations of promotion actions were: Talks/speeches selected alone (n=12, 30.8% of those additional doing promotion actions); Cooking demonstrations selected alone (n=3, 7.7%); Talks/speeches and activism (n=3, 7.7%); Talks/speeches and teaching (n=3, 7.7%).

Overall, talks/speeches are the most common additional activity that was reported by 71.8% of the initiatives (n=28).

### Q4.17: Where do you do these activities?

<table><caption>**Table 35.** Locations of the NUCs' promotional actions carried out by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><th>NUCS promotion actions locations</th><th>All_n</th><th>All_P</th><th>Declared NUCS additional promotion actions %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>In local events</td><td>25</td><td>32.1</td><td>64.1</td></tr><tr><td>In your main location</td><td>24</td><td>30.8</td><td>61.5</td></tr><tr><td>On social media</td><td>18</td><td>23.1</td><td>46.2</td></tr><tr><td>In a public venue</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td>In regional events</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td>In national events</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td><td>17.9</td></tr><tr><td>In your other locations</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td>15.4</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>In international events</td><td>2</td><td>2.6</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>No active promotion of NUCS or don't know or don't do this type of actions</td><td>39</td><td>50.0</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of locations selected by initiatives not limited

Among the initiatives doing additional promotional activities (n=39), only nine initiatives (23.1%) selected only 1 location. Six initiatives choose between five and up to seven locations.

The top three locations were: "In local events" (n=25, 64.1%), "In your main location" (n=24, 61.5%) and "On social media" (n=18, 46.2%), showing that very local rentals and online events are preferred for this type of action.

International events were cited by two initiatives only and in combination with six other locations, being: an individual farmer in Hungary (a small-scale vegetable farm focused on diversity) and a social farm in Italy.

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /></figure>
### Q4.19: Do you solicit feedback from consumers?

<table><caption>**Table 36.** Number of initiatives seeking consumers' feedback</caption><thead><tr><th>Consumers feedback</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>34</td><td>43.6</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>39</td><td>50.0</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know</td><td>5</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>78</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Q4.20: What communication channels do you use to solicit feedback from consumers?

<table><caption>**Table 37.** Consumers' feedback systems used by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><th>Consumer feedback mechanisms</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th><th>Declared challenges %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Through direct exchanges with the customer</td><td>28</td><td>35.9</td><td>82.4</td></tr><tr><td>E-mail</td><td>12</td><td>15.4</td><td>35.3</td></tr><tr><td>Through interaction on social media</td><td>10</td><td>12.8</td><td>29.4</td></tr><tr><td>Your own website</td><td>8</td><td>10.3</td><td>23.5</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Another company's website</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td></tr><tr><td>No consumers' feedback collected</td><td>44</td><td>56.4</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of feedback systems selected by initiatives not limited

Only 34 initiatives (43.6%) collect consumer feedback. There are no major differences among countries and actor types for those initiatives who responded "No" and "Don't know."

Among the initiatives that collect consumers' feedback (n=34), 17 initiatives (50%) selected only one way to solicit feedback as compared to the other 50% (n=17) that had selected between two and four mechanisms.

The most cited combinations of feedback mechanisms are: Direct exchanges as the only selected option (n=14, 41.2%); e-mail and direct exchanges (n=4, 11.8%); and interactions in social media and direct exchanges (n=4, 11.8%).

Overall, the most frequently used mechanism was through direct exchanges with the consumer (n=28, 82.4% of those declaring a consumer feedback), which is in line with the results regarding the supply chains, whereby the majority of our initiatives are engaged in direct sales.

We found only six initiatives that didn't select "Direct exchanges with consumers." Instead, they selected online communication means (i.e., own website, social media interaction and/or e-mail), there are found in all countries, except for Denmark and Sweden and among all actor types, except processors.

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /></figure>
### 5.3.4 Production, quality and prices

The literature on value chains noted a 'quality turn' that has occurred since the 1980s in particular, but has grown significantly since the turn of the millennium. The literature demonstrates that many farmers and intermediaries began to compete on a range of qualities that were signalled to consumers through a range of labels. This shifted the competition from being mostly about price, towards a competition whereby price was understood in relation to the quality that was being communicated. In the questionnaire, we therefore constructed a series of questions that allowed us to better understand this relationship between quality and price and how this translated into perceived benefits from the sale of NUCs.

#### Q5.1: Do you guarantee the quality of the NUCs/NUC-based products you sell or promote?

<table><caption>**Table 38.** Number of initiatives guaranteeing NUCs' quality</caption><thead><tr><th>Guarantee quality</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>52</td><td>66.7</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>26</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>78</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

#### Q5.2: How is this quality of NUCs/NUC-based products guaranteed?

<table><caption>**Table 39.** NUCs' guarantee systems used by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><th>Guarantee systems</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th><th>Declared guarantee system %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Third party certification</td><td>37</td><td>47.4</td><td>71.2</td></tr><tr><td>Consumer feedback</td><td>24</td><td>30.8</td><td>46.2</td></tr><tr><td>Self-declaration</td><td>12</td><td>15.4</td><td>23.1</td></tr><tr><td>Social control</td><td>4</td><td>5.1</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>Business-to-business (B2B) verification</td><td>4</td><td>5.1</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>Participatory guarantee system</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td><td>5.8</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>No guarantee systems</td><td>26</td><td>33.3</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of guarantee systems selected by initiatives not limited

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>
## Q5.2: Number of guarantee systems used for NUCS by type of initiative

<table><caption>**Table 40.** Number of NUCS' guarantee systems used by initiatives</caption><thead><tr><th># of NUCS guarantee systems</th><th>Farmer n</th><th>Intermediary n</th><th>Other n</th><th>Processor n</th><th>Shop n</th><th>All n</th><th>Farmer %</th><th>Intermediary %</th><th>Other %</th><th>Processor %</th><th>Shop %</th><th>All %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>26</td><td>25.7</td><td>36.4</td><td>57.1</td><td>37.5</td><td>35.3</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>16</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>29</td><td>45.7</td><td>18.2</td><td>14.3</td><td>37.5</td><td>41.2</td><td>37.2</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>22.9</td><td>18.2</td><td>28.6</td><td>12.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>17.9</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>5.7</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>17.6</td><td>9.0</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0.0</td><td>18.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>35</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>78</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

One third of the initiatives in our sample (n=26; 33.3%) does not use a guarantee system. When initiatives do provide a guarantee, they typically use only one certification system (n=29; 55.7% of the initiatives that certify), with only seven and two initiatives using respectively three and four certification systems. These triple-guaranteed actors are two farmers in Switzerland (one under the ProSpecieRara label), three shops (two cooperatives with consumers implication and a bulk shop respectively in Portugal, France and Denmark), one processor (baker specialised in traditional cereals in Italy), and an online platform in France (aiming at support sustainable agriculture). The quadruple-guaranteed initiatives are two online platforms (one in Hungary and one in Italy).

The most cited combinations of certification systems used include: Third-party selected alone (n=19; 36.5% of the initiatives that certify) followed by Third party certification and Consumer feedback (n=7; 13.5%); Consumer feedback selected alone (n=5; 9.6%); Self-declaration selected alone (n=4; 7.7%).

Overall, Third-party certification predominates the sector, with only 15 initiatives (28.8%) found in all countries, except Portugal and Switzerland, using other forms of guarantee.

Among these 15 initiatives, seven are farmers who use consumer feedback and/or self-declaration. Of the four intermediaries, three are online platforms using self-declaration or a mix of consumer feedback and business-to-business (B2B) verification or a mix of participatory guarantee systems (PGS) and consumer feedback and business-to-business (B2B) verification and Self-declaration. One is a market/CSA organiser using consumer feedback. The last two intermediaries are processors, one is a baker-café that uses a certification from its supplier, while the other is a restaurant that uses self-declaration. The final two initiatives are shops: a farmers' shop using self-declaration and a bulk store using consumer feedback.

Social control, B2B verification and participatory guarantee systems were less selected, either in isolation or in combination by nine initiatives (17.3%).

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /></figure>
### Q5.4: What are these guaranteed qualities of NUCs/NUC-based products?

<table><caption>**Table 41.** NUCs' qualities guaranteed by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td>NUCS certified qualities</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Declared guarantee system %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Organic</td><td>46</td><td>59.0</td><td>88.5</td></tr><tr><td>Place/origin</td><td>32</td><td>41.0</td><td>61.5</td></tr><tr><td>Taste</td><td>27</td><td>34.6</td><td>51.9</td></tr><tr><td>Nutrition benefits</td><td>21</td><td>26.9</td><td>40.4</td></tr><tr><td>Ecosystem services</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td><td>25.0</td></tr><tr><td>Colour</td><td>10</td><td>12.8</td><td>19.2</td></tr><tr><td>Tradition</td><td>10</td><td>12.8</td><td>19.2</td></tr><tr><td>Size</td><td>8</td><td>10.3</td><td>15.4</td></tr><tr><td>Vegan</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td>11.5</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>5</td><td>6.4</td><td>9.6</td></tr><tr><td>Medical properties</td><td>4</td><td>5.1</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>Easy to cook/process</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td><td>5.8</td></tr><tr><td>Known recipes</td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>Psychedelic properties</td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>Religion</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Weight loss</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td></tr><tr><td>No guarantee systems</td><td>26</td><td>33.3</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of qualities selected by initiatives not limited

When initiatives use guarantee systems, they typically guarantee less than three qualities (one quality certified (n=11; 21.2%); two qualities certified (n=10; 19.2%); three qualities certified (n=10; 19.2%). Only seven initiatives (13.5%) certify more than seven qualities and up to nine. They are four farmers (two are Swiss farmers, one of whom work with the ProSpecieRara label and 2 in France present huge processing activities and work in collaboration with partners), an online platform in France (aiming at support sustainable agriculture); a processor (baker specialised in traditional cereals in Italy) and a shop (cooperative with consumers implication in Portugal).

The most cited qualities certified combinations are: organic selected alone (n=8; 15.4% the initiatives declaring a certification system); Place/origin + organic (n= 5; 9.6%); Taste + Place/origin + organic (n=4; 7.7%).

Overall, organic quality certification predominates in the sector, with only six initiatives not declaring this quality. They are two "other" initiatives (a seed company and an association promoting seeds/genetic that certified authenticity or seeds qualities - as disease tests), two intermediaries (a market/CSA organiser and an online platform in Hungary), a processor (baker-café in Sweden), and a bulk store in France. Place/origin, taste and nutrition qualities are the following most selected qualities (cited by more than 40% of the initiatives). These results confirm the results from a previous study that focused on short food value chains in the EU (Loconto et al. 2023).

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /></figure>
### Q5.6: Do you provide information to consumers about how NUCs are grown?

<table><caption>**Table 42.** Number of initiatives providing NUCs' growing information</caption><thead><tr><td>Growing information</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>53</td><td>67.9</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>25</td><td>32.1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>78</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

A majority (n=53, 67.9%) of the surveyed initiatives claim to provide information to their consumers about how NUCs are cultivated. This proportion is equivalent as the one found for NUCs promotion.

However, those initiatives that are promoting NUCs and those declaring that they transmit information about how the NUCs are grown, are not all the same initiatives. In other words, among the 22 initiatives that do not promote NUCs actively, 13 of them do provide information to consumers about the growing conditions. While among the 56 that do promote NUCs, 16 of them do not communicate how the NUCs are grown. Farmers and processors tend to present highest proportion of initiatives communicating on growing (more than 77% of them, while this proportion is around 50% for the other initiatives).

### Q5.8: How do you share this information?

<table><caption>**Table 43.** NUCs' growing information communication means used by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td>NUCS growing communication means</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Declared growing information %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Word of mouth</td><td>39</td><td>50.0</td><td>73.6</td></tr><tr><td>Online platforms</td><td>32</td><td>41.0</td><td>60.4</td></tr><tr><td>Labels</td><td>21</td><td>26.9</td><td>39.6</td></tr><tr><td>Workshops/trainings</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td><td>24.5</td></tr><tr><td>Sales point display</td><td>9</td><td>11.5</td><td>17.0</td></tr><tr><td>Brochures/flyers</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td><td>13.2</td></tr><tr><td>Posters</td><td>4</td><td>5.1</td><td>7.5</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>4</td><td>5.1</td><td>7.5</td></tr><tr><td>Radio</td><td>2</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>TV</td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>No growing information provided</td><td>25</td><td>32.1</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of communication means selected by initiatives not limited

The responses to this question are fully aligned with the responses received for the general communication and with the NUCs promotion. The only slight difference observed is that word of mouth communication is slightly more cited than online platforms (n=39, 73.6%) for the growing information.

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>
As found in the case of the promotion of NUCs, the majority of respondents used two to three communication means (n=33; 62.3%), while only 12 (22.6%) initiatives used just one form of communication. We found just three initiatives (5.7%) that used a large diversity of communication channels (five or seven). These are farmers (one in Switzerland under the ProSpeciRara label and one collective of farmers and citizens in France), and a participatory non-profit supermarket in France.

The most frequently cited combinations of communication channels are: Online platforms and word of mouth (n=9, 16.9%); Word of mouth without another option selected (n=7, 13.2%).

### Q5.10: What benefit(s) does the sale or promotion of NUCs/NUC-based products provide for your initiative?

<table><caption>**Table 44.** Benefits of NUCs' promotion/sale perceived by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td>Benefits of NUCS sales</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Declared benefits %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Environmental</td><td>51</td><td>65.4</td><td>79.7</td></tr><tr><td>Cultural</td><td>30</td><td>38.5</td><td>46.9</td></tr><tr><td>Economic</td><td>27</td><td>34.6</td><td>42.2</td></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td>25</td><td>32.1</td><td>39.1</td></tr><tr><td>Political</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td><td>20.3</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>9</td><td>11.5</td><td>14.1</td></tr><tr><td>Provide(s) no additional benefits</td><td>14</td><td>17.9</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of benefits selected by initiatives not limited

### Q5.10: Number of perceived benefits of NUCs promotion/sale by type of initiative

<table><caption>**Table 45.** Number of perceived benefits of NUCs' promotion/sales by type of initiative</caption><thead><tr><td># of benefits for NUCS sells</td><td>Farmer n</td><td>Intermediate n</td><td>Other n</td><td>Processor n</td><td>Shop n</td><td>All n</td><td>Farmer %</td><td>Intermediate %</td><td>Other %</td><td>Processor %</td><td>Shop %</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>14</td><td>17.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>14.3</td><td>12.5</td><td>35.3</td><td>17.9</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>16</td><td>14.3</td><td>36.4</td><td>28.6</td><td>25.0</td><td>17.6</td><td>20.5</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>13</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>26</td><td>37.1</td><td>54.5</td><td>14.3</td><td>50.0</td><td>11.8</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>14.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>14.3</td><td>12.5</td><td>17.6</td><td>12.8</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>11.4</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>5.7</td><td>9.1</td><td>14.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>17.6</td><td>9.0</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>14.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>35</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>78</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

An important finding is that only 14 initiatives (17.9% of the whole sample) declared not to make any profit from the sale or the valorisation of NUCs. These initiatives are found across all countries and initiative types, except for intermediaries.

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /></figure>
When they declared benefits, a majority of them selected one to two choices (n=42; 65.6% of those which perceived benefits). We also found a dedicated group of 12 (18.8%) initiatives that perceived between four to six benefits from their sales of NUCs.

The most frequently cited combinations of benefits are: Environmental selected alone (n=8; 12.5%), followed by all five benefits selected (n=7; 10.9%); Economic and Environmental (n=7; 10.9%); Cultural and Environmental (n=6; 9.4%); Social and Environmental (n=5; 7.8%).

Overall, as is the case with the results related to the social missions and the qualities communicated about NUCs, the environmental benefits predominate among our responses (selected by n=51, 79.7%). Only 13 initiatives in France, Hungary, Italy and Portugal did not select receiving an environmental benefit (20.3% - of all types of initiatives).

### Q5.17 Do you sell or promote NUCS/NUC-based products only when they are in season?

<table><caption>**Table 46.** Number of initiatives promoting or selling NUCs only in season</caption><thead><tr><th>NUCS in season promotion sells</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>28</td><td>35.9</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>33</td><td>42.3</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know</td><td>17</td><td>21.8</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>78</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

The responses given by initiatives in response to this question are mixed and are essentially guided by the type of products they dealt with (fresh vs. dried/processed products).

### 5.3.5 Price, competition, demand and challenges

The literature on value chains also attempts to understand how value is created within food environments that can offer enabling or disabling conditions for the sale of NUCs. While NUCs are, by definition, quite rare and incomparable to other products because they are neglected, and thus both supply and demand are typically low, it is important to try to look at their markets in context in order to better understand how value is created.

We therefore used these final questions of the questionnaire as a mean to understand whether or not there are enabling food environments of NUCs in the 7~seven countries that we studied.

### Q5.19: How do the consumers prices of NUCs/NUC-based products compare to similar non-NUC products?

<table><caption>**Table 47.** Estimated NUCs consumers' price by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><th>NUCS consumers price</th><th>Farmer n</th><th>Intermediate n</th><th>Other n</th><th>Processor n</th><th>Shop n</th><th>All n</th><th>Farmer %</th><th>Intermediate %</th><th>Other %</th><th>Processor %</th><th>Shop %</th><th>All %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Higher</td><td>25</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>12</td><td>52</td><td>71.4</td><td>45.5</td><td>42.9</td><td>87.5</td><td>70.6</td><td>66.7</td></tr><tr><td>Lower</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>11.8</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>The same</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>22</td><td>25.7</td><td>54.5</td><td>57.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>17.6</td><td>28.2</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>35</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>78</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /></figure>
A majority of initiatives (n=52; 66.7%) consider the consumer price of NUCs to be higher when compared to similar non-NUCs products. This higher proportion is found across all types of initiatives and countries. Only four initiatives found NUCs to be cheaper. These were three in Denmark: an organic shop, a bulk store selling various NUCS such as ancient grains, and a restaurant selling lentils, chickpeas, and red and purple wheat. The last initiative was a farmer in Italy that is developing a quinoa value chain.

### Q5.20: How do the profit margins you make for NUCs/NUC-based products compare to similar non-NUC products?

<table><caption>**Table 48.** Estimated NUCs margin by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><th>NUCS<br>margin</th><th>Farmer n</th><th>Intermedi<br>ary n</th><th>Other n</th><th>Processor<br>n</th><th>Shop n</th><th>All n</th><th>Farmer %</th><th>Intermedi<br>ary %</th><th>Other %</th><th>Processor<br>%</th><th>Shop %</th><th>All<br>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Higher</td><td>11</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>17</td><td>31.4</td><td>18.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>37.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>21.8</td></tr><tr><td>Lower</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>21</td><td>25.7</td><td>9.1</td><td>28.6</td><td>50.0</td><td>29.4</td><td>26.9</td></tr><tr><td>The<br>same</td><td>15</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>40</td><td>42.9</td><td>72.7</td><td>71.4</td><td>12.5</td><td>64.7</td><td>51.3</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>35</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>78</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Half of our respondents (n=40, 51.3%) found that the profit made from NUCs is similar to that made from similar non-NUCs products. The proportion of answers for this question seems to be smaller for farmer and processor categories.

### Q6.2: How high is the competition?

<table><caption>**Table 49.** Estimated level of competition for NUCS' by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><th>NUCS<br>competiti<br>on</th><th>Farmer n</th><th>Intermedi<br>ary n</th><th>Other n</th><th>Processor<br>n</th><th>Shop n</th><th>All n</th><th>Farmer %</th><th>Intermedi<br>ary %</th><th>Other %</th><th>Processor<br>%</th><th>Shop %</th><th>All<br>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>High</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>8.6</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>25.0</td><td>11.8</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><td>Low</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>11</td><td>14.3</td><td>27.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>11.8</td><td>14.1</td></tr><tr><td>Medium</td><td>12</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>20</td><td>34.3</td><td>18.2</td><td>14.3</td><td>12.5</td><td>23.5</td><td>25.6</td></tr><tr><td>No<br>competi<br>tion</td><td>13</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>28</td><td>37.1</td><td>27.3</td><td>28.6</td><td>50.0</td><td>35.3</td><td>35.9</td></tr><tr><td>Don't<br>know if<br>competi<br>tion</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>11</td><td>5.7</td><td>18.2</td><td>57.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>17.6</td><td>14.1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>35</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>78</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

The level of competition of NUCS is widely perceived as non-existent or low (n=39, 50% of the initiatives vs. only eight (10.3%) considering the level of competition as high). These eight initiatives facing high competition are: two shops (a bulk store in Hungary, and a participatory non-profit supermarket in France); two processors (a baker specialised in traditional cereals in Italy; and a bread factory in Denmark); an online platform in Italy that is developing a solidarity economy network; and finally, three farmers (a social farm in Italy, a farm in Portugal with many activities, a farmer in France with strong processing activities and working in close collaboration with partners).

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /></figure>
### Q6.3: What are the main challenges of producing NUCs?

<table><caption>**Table 50.** NUCs' production challenges perceived by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td>NUCS production Challenge</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Declared challenges %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lack of markets</td><td>45</td><td>57.7</td><td>69.2</td></tr><tr><td>Unavailability of seeds</td><td>27</td><td>34.6</td><td>41.5</td></tr><tr><td>Unfavourable agronomic conditions</td><td>21</td><td>26.9</td><td>32.3</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td><td>10.8</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of integrated cropping systems</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td>9.2</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of organic inputs</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><td>No specific NUCs production challenges</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of challenges selected by initiatives not limited

Only 13 initiatives (16.7% of the whole sample) declared no specific production challenge linked to NUCs. These responses were found across all countries except for Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland and all initiatives' types except the 'other' category.

Half of those declaring production challenges selected one modality (n=34; 52.3%). Maximum number of challenged observed is for an initiative who declared facing four challenges. This initiative is the online platform aiming at develop a solidarity economy network in Italy.

The most cited combinations of challenges identified are: Lack of market selected alone (n=20; 30.8%) followed by Unavailability of seeds and of markets selected alone (n=7; 10.8%); by Unfavourable agronomic conditions and Lack of markets (n=7; 10.8%); and by Unavailability of seeds selected alone (n=6, 9.2%).

Overall, the lack of a market is the most frequently cited challenge for producing NUCs, with only 21 initiatives (32.3%) not selecting this option. The initiatives were of all types and found in all countries, except Denmark. This response confirms some of our earlier interpretation of the results about the absence of long-term contracts among our initiatives, most likely due to a lack of demand and supply.

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /></figure>
### Q6.6: What are the main challenges of processing NUCS?

<table><caption>**Table 51.** NUCS' processing challenges perceived by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><th>NUCS processing<br>Challenge</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th><th>Declared<br>challenges<br>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Insufficient demand</td><td>27</td><td>34.6</td><td>55.1</td></tr><tr><td>Physical qualities</td><td>12</td><td>15.4</td><td>24.5</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>9</td><td>11.5</td><td>18.4</td></tr><tr><td>Insufficient supply</td><td>8</td><td>10.3</td><td>16.3</td></tr><tr><td>Too much competition among products</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td><td>14.3</td></tr><tr><td>Organoleptic qualities</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td>12.2</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of tasty recipes</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td><td>6.1</td></tr><tr><td>No specific NUCS processing challenges</td><td>29</td><td>37.2</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of challenges selected by initiatives not limited

A little more than a third of the initiatives (n=29, 37.2%), declared no specific processing challenge linked to NUCS. This response was found across all countries and all types of actors.

The majority of those declaring processing challenges selected one option only (n=31; 63.2). The maximum number of challenges is observed for an independent knowledge hub in Switzerland, who declared that they faced four challenges.

The most cited combinations of challenges found are: Insufficient demand selected alone (n=14, 28.6%); Other selected alone (n=5, 10.2%).

Overall, "Insufficient demand" was the most often chosen by the initiatives (n=27, 55.1%). This most cited challenge is in line with those observed for production and selling. This result further confirms an earlier analytical point in that there remains a lack of demand through the value chain, which in turn can partly explain the reliance on one's 'own production' and direct sales so to ensure the consistency of supply to loyal consumers.

### Q6.9: What are the main challenges of selling NUCS?

<table><thead><tr><th>NUCS selling challenge</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th><th>Declared<br>challenges<br>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lack of consumers awareness</td><td>52</td><td>66.7</td><td>88.1</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of consumers knowledge of how to cook them</td><td>31</td><td>39.7</td><td>52.5</td></tr><tr><td>Too much competition among products</td><td>14</td><td>17.9</td><td>23.7</td></tr><tr><td>Limited product range</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td>10.2</td></tr><tr><td>Physical qualities</td><td>5</td><td>6.4</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of tasty recipes</td><td>5</td><td>6.4</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Organoleptic qualities</td><td>2</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.4</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>Table 52. NUCs' selling challenges perceived by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td>NUCS selling challenge</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Declared challenges %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No specific NUCs/NUC based-products selling challenges</td><td>19</td><td>24.4</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of challenges selected by initiatives not limited

Nineteen initiatives (24.4%) declared no specific selling challenge linked to NUCs, independent of their country of origin or their actor type.

The majority of those declaring selling challenges selected several options (n=40; 67.8%). The maximum number of sales challenges is observed in two initiatives declaring four challenges: an online platform that supports sustainable agriculture in France and a farmer also in France with multiple activities.

The most frequently cited combinations of challenges found are: Lack of consumer awareness and Lack of consumer knowledge of how to cook them (n=14, 23.7%); Lack of consumer awareness selected alone (n=13, 22.3%); Too much competition among products and Lack of consumer awareness and Lack of consumer knowledge of how to cook them (n=7, 11.8%).

Overall, the most selected challenge is in line with the ones observed for production and processing ("Lack of consumer awareness", n=52, 88.1%), although this was more selected for selling than for production and processing. In this context, it was framed as a "Lack of consumer awareness" as it is indeed the consumers themselves that constitute the demand further upstream.

## 5.4 Conclusions from reading the descriptive statistics of the survey

The main conclusions that we can draw from the analysis of the responses to this survey is that NUCs are currently being valued in food environments that are not very well suited to their promotion. Competition with non-NUC comparable products exists, but the main problem is a lack of demand for these products.

We have found rather surprising similarities across the seven countries studied, with the majority of differences being found between different actor types.

With regards to the objective of better understanding the food chains that are valuing (agro)biodiversity, we must start from the observation that the vast majority of these chains are short or mid-tier chains. We see producers who are adding on intermediary functions to their own work and thus creating short chains for processed goods (e.g., bread). We also observe a large category of intermediary actors who are sourcing both directly and indirectly from farmers and selling both directly and indirectly to consumers. The origins of the NUCs that are sold are generally multiple and thus span from the same municipality to the same country for the majority of initiatives. This observation suggests that there may be a number of elements linked to how these initiatives are setup and governed that might provide a more nuanced understanding of how value is created.

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>
We develop a value chain typology in the next section in order to advance this more nuanced
understanding of values creation.

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /></figure>
# 6. Typology of short and mid-tier chains valuing (agro)biodiversity

As described in Section 1, one of the objectives of Task 1.2 is to explore the relevance and prevalence of NUCs in the food environments of the seven project countries. Specifically, we aim to understand the significance of NUCs and NUC-based products in various short and mid-tier value chains, and how these value chains, in turn, contribute to the penetration of NUCs in food environments.

To this end, we developed a typology of chains that successfully value (appreciate, incorporate, sell) NUCs, based on data collected from various online resources and via our online survey. The typology focuses on short and mid-tier value chains that are valuing NUCs, specifically those related to our project, namely legumes and minor cereals. The typology helps to understand the characteristics of the different value chains that successfully value NUCs and offer insights and best practices for value chain actors on how to effectively introduce and deliver these products to consumers.

As introduced in the literature review, we have identified a number of characteristics of value chains that can help us to identify patterns and trends in how (agro)biodiversity, and NUCs in particular, are being valued in current food environments.

We draw upon the four foundational theories of value chains presented in section two and we operationalised these into a series of variables that enabled us to cluster the initiatives and identify subtle differences in how the value chains are organised.

The first characterisation that is needed for describing a value chain is the identification of the primary activities that are carried out. Porter (1985) had identified four key activities: inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, marketing & sales and services. We used the identification of these aspects in our approach to identify the **actor type** according to the core focus of their operations. We have consolidated theses into the following types: farmer, intermediary (online platform or CSA), processor (including restaurants), shop and other (including research, education, tourism).

We also identified the way in which inbound and outbound logistics are organised by identifying the number of **intermediaries** supplying inputs/products and those that are responsible for on-selling the products. This enabled us to identify the lengths of the chains in a rather rudimentary way. An important point to remember while reading this typology is that our sampling bias means that we are dealing mostly with short and mid-tier chains. We have not included in our sample the long value chains that may be linking the production of legumes and cereals with supermarkets across Europe. Future research should be conducted through interviews with the initiatives in our database in order to gain more detailed information about the nature of the intermediaries who are supplying and on selling NUCs in the longer chains that we identified here.

The marketing, sales and services activities are captured in our data through the identification of **communication strategies**. The literature (Garrido-Garza et al. 2024) suggests that

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /></figure>
communication, and digital market infrastructures in particular, are being used in value chains in order to market/sell products and services, but also to provide information, which can lend itself to education or advocacy activities.

An important point, which is indeed the main pivot point in distinguishing the four types of value chains, is the role of what has been referred to as the “supply chain captain”. This is the key actor who governs the value chain and is thus considered to be the initiative that has been included in our study. Following Gereffi’s (1994) governance typology that separates the way in which this captain coordinates (i.e., drives) the activities upstream and downstream from their operation, five modalities may be defined: hierarchy, captive, relational, modular, and market. These governance forms indicate the extent to which the value chains are vertically integrated or based on market and other economic relations. In our typology, we clarified the types of contracts with suppliers and the types of interactions with consumers.

Moreover, in an attempt to better understand the values aspect of value chains, we looked to the recent literature on values-based supply chains (Feenstra and Hardesty 2016; Ostrom et al. 2017) and van der Ploeg’s (2012) notion of nested markets (Osti and Carrosio 2020; van der Ploeg and Schneider 2022). The question of the nature and types of the quality guarantees and the competitive nature of prices for NUCs, open up the possibilities for understanding the extent to which transparency, fairness and other social values are combined within the market exchanges.

Finally, recent literature has opened up the debate about mission first companies within values-based chains that are increasingly changing the nature of how organisations prioritise the way they manage their businesses and how they engage in their broader communities (Low and Davenport 2009; Collins and Kahn 2017). We have taken this into consideration as we explored the **number and types of missions declared** and the way that these interact with the declared **benefits from selling NUCs**.

In sum, we identified discriminating characteristics among the ‘captains’ who are valuing NUCs as they manage the relations up and down the value chains that link producers and consumers. They are grouped together under the following four characteristics:

* Primary activities

* Governance and coordination among actors

* Transparency and communication

* Missions

We conducted cluster-based statistical analysis of our data in order to group these captains within four discrete types of chains that value (agro)biodiversity. Based on a first clustering, we organised a participatory modelling workshop whereby we presented this typology and received feedback from project participants and external experts, including ‘consumption influencers’ (see glossary for definition). The experts’ feedback led us to draw up a second typology, which we submitted to the DIVINFOOD partners for validation at the project’s annual meeting in June 2024. A summary and additional material on these workshops are available in Appendix 6 of this document and in the space dedicated to DIVINFOOD in the Zenodo open access directory (see links in Appendix 6).

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /></figure>
## 6.1 Characterisation of the ideal type clusters

As previously explained, in an attempt to assess whether the profiles of initiatives can be identified taking into account variables that may reflect key concepts found in the value-based chains literature. What we know from this literature is that values-based food supply chains pay attention to three core elements: the level of transparency in the communication of quality, the ways in which coordination among actors is carried out, and the concern over paying fair prices to producers.

When we read our empirical data according to these characteristics, we can identify two aspects that have set the initiatives, and the value chains that they lead, apart. These are the degree to which they are communicating about the qualities and benefits of NUCs up and down their chains between producers and consumers on the one hand, and on the other hand, the extent to which NUCs are embedded within the core mission of the supply chain captain. The hypothesis here is that the greater the embeddedness within the mission of the lead organisation coordinating the supply chain, and the greater the transparency and communication about the quality up and down that chain, the higher the benefits of agrobiodiversity in food environments.

<table><caption>**Table 53.** Typology of chains that value NUCS</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Quality Communicators</th><th>Active Promoters</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Communication about NUCS</th><td>High level of communication about NUCs<br>Low level of integration of NUCs into<br>their core mission</td><td>High level of communication about NUCS<br>High level of integration of NUCS into their<br>core mission</td></tr><tr><th></th><td><strong>Silent Sellers</strong><br>Low level of communication about NUCS<br>Low level of integration of NUCS into<br>their core mission</td><td><strong>Mission First</strong><br>Low level of communication about NUCS<br>High level of integration of NUCS into their<br>core mission</td></tr><tr><th></th><td colspan="2">Integration of NUCS in the core mission of the supply chain captain</td></tr></tbody></table>

Based on the above matrix, we developed four clusters using the responses to the following question as proxies for the degree of active promotion of NUCs and the degree of separating the NUCs from the core mission of the supply chain captain. The criteria we used were: declared social missions (Q2. 13), perceived benefits of NUCSs sales/valorisation (Q5.10), communications channels used to promote NUCSs (Q4.11), promoted qualities of NUCS (Q4.9), certification systems used for NUCS (Q5.2) and certified qualities of NUCS (Q5.4). Each question was recorded by determining the number of modalities chosen by the initiative to answer to the question, in order to transcribe the extent of how initiatives are missions driven, the extend of perceived benefits of agrobiodiversity, their level of communication and certification. The matrix was then submitted to a Hierarchical Cluster Analysis by using the Ward's method (Factoextra package in R) grouping the initiatives into four different profiles. To understand what defines the four profiles, score means of each question were calculated for each of them (Table 54).

<figure><img src="image_106.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 54.** Average score per cluster for social missions, NUCs' perceived benefits, NUCs' communication and NUCs' certification questions</caption><thead><tr><th>Cluster</th><th>nb social missions</th><th>nb benefits selling nucs</th><th>nb nucs communications</th><th>nb quality promoted</th><th>nb certifications</th><th>nb guaranteed qualities</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1 (n=21)</td><td>4.86</td><td>2.86</td><td>3.14</td><td>4.48</td><td>2.43</td><td>5.19</td></tr><tr><td>2 (n=26)</td><td>2.58</td><td>1.38</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>3 (n=16)</td><td>0.12</td><td>1.25</td><td>2.62</td><td>4.62</td><td>0.62</td><td>2.56</td></tr><tr><td>4 (n=15)</td><td>7.27</td><td>2.60</td><td>3.13</td><td>4.00</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.87</td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: In the table, nb is an abbreviation for number.

Cluster 1, which we have labelled as **Active Promoters** Type, is characterised by **the greater use of certification systems** (no initiative in this cluster does not certify; 95% of them declare at least two certification systems) and by **the certification of a high number of qualities** (almost all initiatives certifying more than four qualities are found in this cluster - these initiatives represent 81% of the cluster's headcounts). Furthermore, this cluster tends to declare a rather high number of social missions (62% of them declare four missions or more; the cluster obtains the second highest average on this indicator); to perceive a high number of benefits from the sale/valorisation of NUCS (57% of them declare at least three benefits; highest average on this indicator); to declare several communication channels (this cluster presenting the highest proportion of initiatives using three to four means of communication; highest average obtained for this indicator together with Cluster 4); and to promote a high number of qualities (67% of them declare promoting four or more qualities, second highest average on this indicator).

Cluster 2, or the **Silent sellers** cluster, is characterised by initiatives **that do not communicate** (81% of them declare no means of communication; those that do communicate use a maximum of two means of communication, with few qualities promoted - maximum two). In addition, this cluster tends to declare none or fewer social missions (39% declare no social mission and 27% declare three or fewer social missions, median score obtained on this indicator); to perceive none or fewer benefits (31% of them perceive no benefits; 58% one to two benefits; lowest average obtained on this indicator together with Cluster 3). The profile in terms of certification is shared as for Clusters 3 and 4 - with 46% of them not certifying - the slightly higher average obtained for this cluster is explained by the presence of a few initiatives (11% of the cluster) using two or three certification systems. When they certify, they guarantee few qualities (46% one or two qualities and a maximum of three qualities; lowest average obtained together with Cluster 4).

**The Quality communicators** found in Cluster 3 are characterised by initiatives that **do not declare any social missions** (only one initiative in this cluster declared two social missions). In addition, this cluster tends to perceive none or fewer benefits (19% of them perceive no benefits; the rest declare a maximum of two benefits; lowest average score on this indicator together with Cluster 2); to use a limited number of communication channels (this cluster presents the highest proportion of initiatives using one or two communication systems); on the other hand, they **communicate on a significant number of qualities** (at least three qualities promoted; highest average score for this indicator). Compared with Clusters 2 and 4, this cluster has the lowest proportion of initiatives that do not certify (38%; those that do certify declare only one certification system), and certifies a greater number of qualities than the two previous Clusters (higher proportion of initiatives certifying two or more qualities).

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /></figure>
Cluster 4 is characterised by **Mission first** initiatives **declaring a high number of social missions** (they declare at least four social missions; 60% of them declare more than seven social missions). In addition, this cluster tends to perceive a high number of benefits (47% declare at least three benefits, second highest average for this indicator); to declare several communication channels (second highest proportion of initiatives using three to four means of communication; highest average obtained together with Cluster 1) but on a smaller number of qualities than Clusters 1 and 3 (67% with three to four qualities). Compared with Clusters 2 and 3, it has the highest proportion of initiatives that do not certify (53%; those that do certify declare only one certification system); it certifies only on a limited number of qualities, 33% with one or two qualities and a maximum of three qualities).

## 6.2 Descriptive statistics per type

In order to assess if some characteristics can explain the four identified profiles, descriptive statistics for each of them have been calculated on the other main questions of the survey (Table 55). This has not revealed any specific characteristics among clusters, with the exception of the number of NUCS categories treated, which seems to be greater for Cluster 1, with a higher proportion of initiatives being specialised in legumes-cereals NUCS.

<table><thead><tr><th>**Characteristic**</th><th>**CL 1**, N = 21</th><th>**CL 2**, N = 26</th><th>**CL 3**, N = 16</th><th>**CL 4**, N = 15</th><th>**All** (total= 78)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Country</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>1 (4.8%)</td><td>3 (12%)</td><td>1 (6.2%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>5 (6.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>8 (38%)</td><td>6 (23%)</td><td>8 (50%)</td><td>8 (53%)</td><td>30 (38%)</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>2 (9.5%)</td><td>8 (31%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>13 (17%)</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>4 (19%)</td><td>2 (7.7%)</td><td>3 (19%)</td><td>1 (6.7%)</td><td>10 (13%)</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>2 (9.5%)</td><td>3 (12%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>2 (13%)</td><td>7 (9.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>1 (3.8%)</td><td>4 (25%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>5 (6.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>4 (19%)</td><td>3 (12%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>1 (6.7%)</td><td>8 (10%)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Initiative's type</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Farmer</td><td>9 (43%)</td><td>10 (38%)</td><td>10 (62%)</td><td>6 (40%)</td><td>35 (45%)</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediary</td><td>4 (19%)</td><td>5 (19%)</td><td>1 (6.2%)</td><td>1 (6.7%)</td><td>11 (14%)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2 (9.5%)</td><td>3 (12%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>2 (13%)</td><td>7 (9.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Processor</td><td>2 (9.5%)</td><td>3 (12%)</td><td>3 (19%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>8 (10%)</td></tr><tr><td>Shop</td><td>4 (19%)</td><td>5 (19%)</td><td>2 (12%)</td><td>6 (40%)</td><td>17 (22%)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Year funded</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;= 2000</td><td>3 (14%)</td><td>7 (27%)</td><td>3 (19%)</td><td>1 (6.7%)</td><td>14 (18%)</td></tr><tr><td>2001-2010</td><td>4 (19%)</td><td>3 (12%)</td><td>3 (19%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>13 (17%)</td></tr><tr><td>2011-2020</td><td>13 (62%)</td><td>14 (54%)</td><td>10 (62%)</td><td>8 (53%)</td><td>45 (58%)</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;= 2021</td><td>1 (4.8%)</td><td>2 (7.7%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>6 (7.7%)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Number of food categories treated</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>3 (14%)</td><td>1 (3.8%)</td><td>2 (12%)</td><td>4 (27%)</td><td>10 (13%)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>1 (4.8%)</td><td>7 (27%)</td><td>4 (25%)</td><td>1 (6.7%)</td><td>13 (17%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>4 (19%)</td><td>6 (23%)</td><td>5 (31%)</td><td>1 (6.7%)</td><td>16 (21%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th>**Characteristic**</th><th>**CL 1**,<br>N = 21</th><th>**CL 2**,<br>N = 26</th><th>**CL 3**,<br>N = 16</th><th>**CL 4**,<br>N = 15</th><th>**All**<br>(total= 78)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4</td><td>2 (9.5%)</td><td>2 (7.7%)</td><td>2 (12%)</td><td>2 (13%)</td><td>8 (10%)</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>4 (19%)</td><td>1 (3.8%)</td><td>1 (6.2%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>9 (12%)</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>5 (24%)</td><td>7 (27%)</td><td>2 (12%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>17 (22%)</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>2 (9.5%)</td><td>2 (7.7%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>1 (6.7%)</td><td>5 (6.4%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Number of NUCs<br>categories treated</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>NUCS cereals</th><td>5 (24%)</td><td>10 (38%)</td><td>9 (56%)</td><td>6 (40%)</td><td>30 (38%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>NUCS legumes</th><td>4 (19%)</td><td>12 (46%)</td><td>6 (38%)</td><td>5 (33%)</td><td>27 (35%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>NUCS legumes cereals</th><td>4 (19%)</td><td>1 (3.8%)</td><td>1 (6.2%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>9 (12%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>NUCS other</th><td>5 (24%)</td><td>2 (7.7%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>7 (9.0%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>NUCS' specialisation</th><td>7 (33%)</td><td>16 (62%)</td><td>9 (56%)</td><td>7 (47%)</td><td>39 (50%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>NUCS cereals</th><td>0 (0%)</td><td>3 (12%)</td><td>3 (19%)</td><td>4 (27%)</td><td>10 (13%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>NUCS legumes</th><td>14 (67%)</td><td>6 (23%)</td><td>4 (25%)</td><td>4 (27%)</td><td>28 (36%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>NUCS other</th><td>0 (0%)</td><td>1 (3.8%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>1 (1.3%)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>NUCS' share activity</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>&lt;5%</th><td>3 (14%)</td><td>9 (35%)</td><td>3 (19%)</td><td>5 (33%)</td><td>20 (26%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>5 - 25%</th><td>8 (38%)</td><td>10 (38%)</td><td>4 (25%)</td><td>4 (27%)</td><td>26 (33%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>26 - 95%</th><td>6 (29%)</td><td>5 (19%)</td><td>7 (44%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>21 (27%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>&gt;95%</th><td>4 (19%)</td><td>2 (7.7%)</td><td>2 (12%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>11 (14%)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>NUCS' share activity</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>&lt;5%</th><td>3 (14%)</td><td>9 (35%)</td><td>3 (19%)</td><td>5 (33%)</td><td>20 (26%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>5 - 25%</th><td>8 (38%)</td><td>10 (38%)</td><td>4 (25%)</td><td>4 (27%)</td><td>26 (33%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>26 - 95%</th><td>6 (29%)</td><td>5 (19%)</td><td>7 (44%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>21 (27%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>&gt;95%</th><td>4 (19%)</td><td>2 (7.7%)</td><td>2 (12%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>11 (14%)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Supply sales chains</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Own producer; own producer hybrid</th><td>5 (24%)</td><td>6 (23%)</td><td>6 (38%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>20 (26%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Direct supply chain only</th><td>11 (52%)</td><td>7 (27%)</td><td>4 (25%)</td><td>3 (20%)</td><td>25 (32%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Other</th><td>5 (24%)</td><td>13 (50%)</td><td>6 (38%)</td><td>9 (60%)</td><td>33 (42%)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Sales chains</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Direct sales only</th><td>14 (67%)</td><td>15 (58%)</td><td>9 (56%)</td><td>6 (40%)</td><td>44 (56%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Hybrid, short or medium sales chain</th><td>4 (19%)</td><td>7 (27%)</td><td>7 (44%)</td><td>8 (53%)</td><td>26 (33%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Not concerned by food sales</th><td>3 (14%)</td><td>4 (15%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>1 (6.7%)</td><td>8 (10%)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>NUCS' consumer price</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Lower</th><td>1 (4.8%)</td><td>1 (3.8%)</td><td>2 (12%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>4 (5.1%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>The same</th><td>4 (19%)</td><td>10 (38%)</td><td>4 (25%)</td><td>4 (27%)</td><td>22 (28%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Higher</th><td>16 (76%)</td><td>15 (58%)</td><td>10 (62%)</td><td>11 (73%)</td><td>52 (67%)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>NUCS' margin profit</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Lower</th><td>8 (38%)</td><td>5 (19%)</td><td>6 (38%)</td><td>2 (13%)</td><td>21 (27%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>The same</th><td>9 (43%)</td><td>16 (62%)</td><td>7 (44%)</td><td>8 (53%)</td><td>40 (51%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Higher</th><td>4 (19%)</td><td>5 (19%)</td><td>3 (19%)</td><td>5 (33%)</td><td>17 (22%)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### NUCS' competition

<figure><img src="image_109.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 55.** Summary of descriptive statistics per cluster (Percentage by column)</caption><thead><tr><th>**Characteristic**</th><th>**CL 1**,<br>N = 21</th><th>**CL 2**,<br>N = 26</th><th>**CL 3**,<br>N = 16</th><th>**CL 4**,<br>N = 15</th><th>**All**<br>(total= 78)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Low</td><td>6 (29%)</td><td>2 (7.7%)</td><td>3 (19%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>11 (14%)</td></tr><tr><td>Medium</td><td>5 (24%)</td><td>8 (31%)</td><td>5 (31%)</td><td>2 (13%)</td><td>20 (26%)</td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td>4 (19%)</td><td>2 (7.7%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>2 (13%)</td><td>8 (10%)</td></tr><tr><td>No competition</td><td>4 (19%)</td><td>8 (31%)</td><td>7 (44%)</td><td>9 (60%)</td><td>28 (36%)</td></tr><tr><td>Don't know if competition</td><td>2 (9.5%)</td><td>6 (23%)</td><td>1 (6.2%)</td><td>2 (13%)</td><td>11 (14%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_110.png" /></figure>
## 6.3 Case studies that illustrate the typology

In order to better understand the characteristics of each type of initiative that we have identified, we present in Appendix 7 a short description of initiatives found in our database that represent the characteristics of each of the four types of short and mid-tier chains that value agrobiodiversity.

One of the largest challenges that we faced creating the typology was the specificity of each initiative and finding patterns that could exemplify the diversity found in the value chains. We present seven initiatives for each of the four types of value chain; thus, we have selected one of each type in each of our seven countries. The purpose of this selection is to illustrate the diversity found across initiatives; we do not make the claim that the cases presented here are necessarily representative of all of the initiatives in the database. However, they are rather typical for each cluster (Table 56).

The fact that some countries do not have a case example for each type of value chain is most likely due to the low response rate and not due to an absence of this type of initiative in the country.

<table><caption>Table 56. Selected case studies</caption><thead><tr><td></td><td>Active promoters</td><td>Silent sellers</td><td>Quality communicators</td><td>Mission first</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>Genfyld - Emballagefri købmand</td><td>Kornsang</td><td>Torup Spisehus</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>Odyssee d'engrain</td><td>Les Champs de blé earl</td><td>Earl la Ferme du Bois du Treuil</td><td>La Cagette de Montpellier</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>Farm2Fork Kft.</td><td>Jóllét Muhely Egyesület</td><td>n/a</td><td>MagosVölgy Ökológiai Gazdaság</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>UnSacco, pieni di grani antichi</td><td>Azienda agricola Zordan Tiziano</td><td>Toscanatura Bio</td><td>Tularù Società Agricola</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>Quinta dos 7 Nomes CRL</td><td>Terra bio Lda</td><td>n/a</td><td>Quinta do Arneiro</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>n/a</td><td>Boställets vedugnsbageri</td><td>Artisan Bread AB</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>Biohof Las Sorts+ Bergkartoffeln aus dem Albulatal</td><td>Verein Erlebniswelt Roggen Erschmatt</td><td>n/a</td><td>AGRIDEA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_111.png" /></figure>
## 6.4 Challenges for valuing NUCs in food environments

As part of the survey, we asked respondents to reflect upon the challenges that they faced in producing, processing and selling NUCs up and down their value chains. The largest challenges that were reported were the following (see Q6.3 to Q6.9 sections for more details):

<table><caption>**Table 57.** Value chain challenges for NUCs</caption><thead><tr><td>Challenge</td><td>Value Chain Activity</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Unfavourable agronomic conditions</td><td>Production</td></tr><tr><td>Unavailability of seeds</td><td>Production</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of integrated cropping systems</td><td>Production</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of organic inputs</td><td>Production</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of markets/Insufficient demand</td><td>Production, Processing, Selling</td></tr><tr><td>Physical qualities</td><td>Processing, Selling</td></tr><tr><td>Organoleptic qualities</td><td>Processing, Selling</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of tasty recipes</td><td>Processing, Selling</td></tr><tr><td>Too much competition among products</td><td>Selling</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of consumer awareness</td><td>Selling</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of consumer knowledge of how to cook them</td><td>Selling</td></tr><tr><td>Limited product range</td><td>Selling</td></tr></tbody></table>

With regard to the responses received about how to overcome these challenges (Q6.5, 6.8 and 6.11 of the questionnaire), we see a number of interesting trends, according to the different types of value chains. We summarize these in the following sections.

<figure><img src="image_112.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 14.** Overcome production challenge</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_113.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_114.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 15.** Overcome process challenges</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_115.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 16.** Overcome selling challenges</figcaption></figure>

### 6.4.1 Active promoters' responses

The responses provided by the group of initiatives that represent the "active promoters" value chains are in line with their focus on product quality and the formalised link between producers and consumers, embodied in the use of guarantee schemes. These initiatives also represent the highest number of responses to the question about value chain challenges. For example, in response to production challenges, these initiatives propose providing more information to consumers on healthier diets, better promotion of products and nutritional and

<figure><img src="image_116.png" /></figure>
environmental/biodiversity benefits. They also favour public policy support for organic farmers and breeding improvements.

In response to the processing challenges, in these initiatives there is a focus on technical protocols, economic support, incentivising production and sale, as well as significant support for producers, particularly organic producers. They show a wealth of ideas on how to overcome the selling challenges, focused again on working with consumers to understand the positive effects on human health. They propose a number of initiatives with youth and schools to introduce early the benefits of this type of food. Support for organic production is again mentioned.

## 6.4.2 Silent sellers' responses

The silent sellers suggest engaging in more collaboration and contact among farmers so to provide support for selection, sharing harvesting tools, and attaining lower costs by organise bulk purchases and consolidate to a single supplier. For food processing challenges, they suggest collaboration with small-scale companies and direct marketers. Support for processing investment and a shift to focusing on quality is also suggested. Reducing the quantity of imported low-cost, low-quality products or ensure that they are easily identifiable as being of lower quality (which is not very respectful of the environment and producers) was found as a suggestion in this group. There is also a call for favourable pricing policies and marketing support to increase the consumer understanding of being part of a food system. The responses from these initiatives are very much in line with the nature of their value chain relations focusing on maintaining longer chains that do not actively communicate the qualities of NUCs.

## 6.4.3 Quality communicators' responses

The quality communicators are very closely aligned with all of the responses from the active promoters' actors. In the above displayed maps, their clusters are even embedded within the active promoters' clusters. The quality communicators insist on farmers' freedom to choose to produce NUCs, but they are seeking more information about the characteristics of typical/local production, the choice of seeds and the higher prices for producers. The concerns for the qualities that are communicated transparently from producers to consumers, show that providing support to the producers for dealing with production risks and properties in the genetic population will help them to alleviate processing difficulties. Consumer information is the main response from this group, particularly about the importance of promoting more informed choices by consumers through different media. The lack of knowledge about NUCs is seen as the key challenge for selling them.

## 6.4.4 Mission first responses

The mission first initiatives are the most engaged in their direct relationships with the producers. They suggest that practical demonstrations, knowledge exchange, the use of certified seeds and cultivation technologies can resolve many challenges. Innovation is key for the producers of NUCs and the associations in this group focus on providing technical assistance for biodiversity conservation. For the processing concerns, reduction of competition between artisans and greater knowledge sharing among professionals is the way to go. They suggest having more recipes for NUCs available and communicated within the agri-food industry. For the selling challenges, they claim that despite excellent intentions, there is some lack of knowledge in terms of financial management among producers/artisan of processed products. They also lament the small

<figure><img src="image_117.png" /></figure>
volumes available. They suggest increasing the quality standards and lowering prices as a way to increase awareness.

## 6.5 Benefits perceived from the sale/valorisation of NUCS

As part of the survey, we also asked respondents to explain the different benefits they derived from the sale or promotion of NUCS, from an environmental, cultural, economic, social and/or political point of view (see Q5.10 section for more details). The number of benefits perceived by the initiatives was used as a variable to determine the typology. In this part, we look more closely at the types of benefits received and at the explanations of what these benefits mean (Q5.11 to Q5.15). The 5 figures below provide an overview of which benefits were received from the promotion of sales of NUCS.

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 17.** Overview of the environmental benefits of selling/valuing NUCS expressed by the 4 clusters</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_119.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_120.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 18.** Overview of the cultural benefits of selling/valuing NUCS expressed by the 4 clusters</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_121.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 19.** Overview of the economic benefits of selling/valuing NUCS expressed by the 4 clusters</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_122.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_123.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 20.** Overview of the social benefits of selling/valuing NUCS expressed by the 4 clusters</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_124.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 21.** Overview of the political benefits of selling/valuing NUCS expressed by the 4 clusters</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_125.png" /></figure>
### 6.5.1 Active promoters' responses

As detailed in section 6.2 and illustrated by the figures, active promoters is the cluster that has reported the greatest number of benefits resulting from the sales or promotion of NUCS, with high proportions of initiatives having selected each type of benefits.

In terms of environmental benefits (n=16 initiatives), initiatives of this cluster put forward positive impact on biodiversity, on (local) ecosystems, the use of more sustainable, agroecological or organic practises, with the use of more adapted varieties to the territory and for which yield maximization is not the primary goal.

For cultural benefits (n=11 initiatives), this is the only cluster that talk about the preservation of gastronomic heritage (maintain the knowledge of the use of different varieties in the kitchen, maintenance of the communities' food identity...). Preserving/valorisation of traditional cultivation methods is also expressed. NUCs are also perceived as a mean to create a link between producers and consumers and to valorise product (strong bond; People better understand the value of local food culture and history as well as the job of farmer and bread making; Food education; product valorisation).

From an economical point of view (n=10 initiatives), NUCS are perceived as a niche product and with added-value (more added value; additional value for the production of small farmers; some consumers are buyers for this reason alone; Niche production with history). They allow to increase income especially for small initiatives (creating financial sustainability; Increases our income through a holistic concept; makes it possible to make a crop viable on a small area, through the valorization of products and transformation; direct financing of small sustainable producers).

From a social point of view (n=13 initiatives), NUCs are perceived as a way to raise awareness of consumers (Contribution to connect people with agricultural tradition; Consumers understand and adhere more to our peasant approach.; Popularize healthy products; Food education; People are more careful to health and balanced diet, and have a higher sensitivity to biodiversity and environment) Supporting local economy (supporting local producers by creating sustainable financial networks; mitigation of the depopulation of towns and countryside; decent income for the producer, for the consumer no intermediary) and network creation allowing seeds and knowledge exchange are also expressed (Varieties are exchanged; knowledge is passed on; Do not use new and modified seeds outside of their origin, avoid imports).

From a political point of view (n=7 initiatives), they expressed mainly the benefit of gaining their independence from the seed industry (strengthen independence from seed industry and patent; food self-determination of communities and less dependence on multinationals and globalized trade systems; we are independent for the production of our seeds). Again, NUCS can create better awareness (better political awareness; Political initiatives on the subject of agriculture can make a visible difference to people; increase awareness and make more people aware of the importance of agrobiodiversity).

### 6.5.2 Silent sellers' responses

Cluster 2 is the one that express the least benefits from the sale or promotion of NUCS. For those that do, it's the environmental benefit that is the most widely received.

<figure><img src="image_126.png" /></figure>
For the environmental aspects (n=15 initiatives), initiatives of this cluster put also forward mainly positive impacts on biodiversity. They said that NUCS are produced organically or with more sustainable practices, adapted to crop rotations, preserving soils (Soil fertility can also be improved; nitrogen via legume crops), that are more adapted (have good competition against wild plants; adaptability of mixtures; requiring no fertilization (not require fertilization but only rotations with intercropped green manures). Contrary to the other clusters, they also put forward the small-scale production conditions and their short chain organisation (produced and distributed locally in a short circuit; local product; local products, limited unnecessary transport).

Cultural benefits expressed (n=6 initiatives), deal mainly with the preservation of the traditional crops/culture. Promotion of local territory, a way to demonstrate another way to grow and eat and a mean to pick up interest of consumers are also ideas that was expressed.

Better income is expressed as the main economic benefit (better agricultural income; considerable part of our income; fairer remuneration for the producer; Revenue; require fewer technical means to grow them). Diversification of products, seed autonomy and local economy are also expressed (n=6 initiatives).

For social benefits (n=4 initiatives), NUCS allowed to connect consumers with producers, help creating network of people aware of the problems of loss of diversity in food and the consumption of healthier products.

From a political point of view, two benefits were justified: 1) independence from industry and food standardization, and 2) producing food to maintain soil quality and people's health, creating networks of help and support and ethical consumption.

### 6.5.3 Quality communicators' responses

Sellers in this cluster have mostly expressed cultural and environmental benefits (social and political benefits were not selected in this group).

Environmental benefits (n=9 initiatives) deal mainly with better/good production for the environment (agronomics benefits; it's better; No agrochemicals; avoiding inputs, e.g. einkorn spelt does not require external inputs). Biodiversity, adaptation to organic agriculture, the promotion of crop rotation, and the transition to a more plant-based diet were also quoted.

From a cultural point of view (n=8 initiatives), NUCS have the advantage of preserving cultural and genetic heritage (Continuity of the peasant act; Preservation of cultural heritage; Maintains know-how; Safeguarding genetic heritage) and is a way to raise awareness of consumers on production aspects (the opportunity is created to talk about how and what was cultivated until the advent of modern agriculture; we try to build up more consciousness in the consumer; Discussions on practices that offer another production model. Sharing a common ideal that brings people together). The transition to a more plant-based diet was also quoted.

From an economical point of view (n=2 initiatives), NUCS create local economies and allow more attractive selling prices.

### 6.5.4 Mission first responses

Like the active promoters' cluster, mission first initiatives also declared a high number of benefits from the sale or promotion of NUCS, mainly environmental, economic and social.

<figure><img src="image_127.png" /></figure>
From an environmental point of view (n=11 initiatives), the following advantages were expressed: preservation of soils (Preservation of agricultural soils; Increase of the organic matter in the soil; improve soil quality), production that is better for the environment (Producers whose environmental methods are virtuous find new outlets and increase their production; preserve the environment; I don't burden the environment with chemicals; are looking actively for species and varieties that can be grown under low input organic conditions - enabling us to have environmentally low impact farming methods), they are favourable to crop rotation (legumes are favourable in the crop rotation); bringing biodiversity was also quoted and adapted to climate change.

Those who selected the cultural benefits (n=5 initiatives) emphasize that NUCS helps to create link with the consumers or with the local environment (More people at our events; Growing a wide variety of crops makes us an interesting partner with art/ cultural and gastronomic projects; participation in the breeding of wheat in the field; producer/consumer meeting, sharing the responsibility for a better environment).

Lots of different economic benefits (n=9 initiatives) emerged from this group. NUCS allow differentiation (Our products are unique and valuable to our consumers, we don't really have competition in the region); are added-value products (The value of a good quality ecological product is higher; Increasing the value of wheat); allows to attract consumers (More customers across all of our activities); favouring short chains (The cooperative sells more to its members and buys more from its suppliers. Consumers benefit from our unique low margin system and the non-profit purpose of the structure); imply consumers (Customer and turnover contribution); revitalize and allow sale of national products; provide a good gross margin and great regularity of yield.

From a social point of view (n=8 initiatives), NUCS allows to build networks and social links (Social link between producers, amateur gardeners, researchers of the association; More solidarity in our initiatives; Our activities attract a large number of dedicated supporters and volunteers, strengthening the community embeddedness of our farm; Social connection, mutual aid, neighbourhood atmosphere; Creating a community; Contact between consumers and producers). Production of healthy food is also expressed.

For political benefits (n=4 initiatives), NUCS seems to be a way to mobilise citizen and stakeholders (More citizen coherence; Dissemination of environmental, economic, social and therefore political issues among all stakeholders; Creating a local community aware of the importance of the protection of the landscape). Transition toward less meat was also quoted.

********

The insights from these responses serve two purposes in our analysis. First, the challenges and benefits expressed by our respondents confirm the analytical value of clustering the initiatives according to these four types of value chains, coherent in their approaches to transparency about communicating values and their proposals for increasing the benefits that can be gained from NUCS in marketing. Second, these two parts provide greater insights into key aspects of value chain organisation that might highlight those initiatives that are able to create greater benefits for agrobiodiversity in food environments.

<figure><img src="image_128.png" /></figure>
## 6.6 Building SMART Indexes from the findings

The work on building SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) indexes is being carried out across all WPs in DIVINFOOD. The objective of the work in WP1 is to identify a set of indicators that will point to the value that is being created for NUCs in food environments (SMART Indexes for agrobiodiversity use in marketing).

The analytical work that was carried out to date has identified a number of key data points that could serve to indicate the value of agrobiodiversity for those actors who are selling NUCs.

What we present below is a very first set of indexes that emerged from our literature reviews on food environments and value chains, and our own original empirical analysis of valuing NUCs in current food environments.

<table><thead><tr><td>Indexes</td><td>What does it indicate?</td><td>What is being measured?</td><td>How to measure?</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Differentiation</td><td><ul><li>That sellers who value agrobiodiversity are gaining a competitive marketing advantage because they can differentiate themselves from those sellers who only offer mainstream, conventional crop-based products</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>The benefits gained from offering difficult to find products.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>NUCs as share of sales</li><li>Number of different NUCs offered</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Consumer loyalty</td><td><ul><li>That a loyal consumer base is being created because there is a class of consumers who actively seek out agrobiodiversity-based products</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>The ability to attract consumers and ensure that they return</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Percentage of repeat consumers</li><li>Percentage of daily &amp; weekly consumers</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_129.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 58.** SMART indexes for agrobiodiversity use in marketing</caption><tr><td>Fair prices</td><td><ul><li>That agrobiodiversity can create a fairer distribution of value for producers, intermediaries and consumers compared to products made from mainstream, conventional crops</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>The profit margins retained for the seller from NUCs</li><li>The fairness of prices for consumers</li><li>The fairness of prices for producers</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Level of profit margin for the seller as compared to non-NUCs based products</li><li>Level of price received by the producer as compared to non-NUCs based products</li><li>Level of price paid by the consumer as compared to non-NUCs based products</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Value chain upgrading</td><td><ul><li>That chains valuing agrobiodiversity in food environments offer producers greater opportunities to add value to their operations by diversifying their income and contributing to the local economy</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>The upgrading of value chain activities by producers</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Percentage of producers who are selling NUCs-based products directly to consumers in a given territory</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental activism</td><td><ul><li>That marketing agrobiodiversity enables the sellers to participate in the social movements that aim to protect the environment</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>The perceived environmental benefits gained by sellers</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Percentage of social media posts about the environment, as part of all social media posts</li><li>Percentage of environmental benefits claims, as a share of all benefits claims made by the seller in their marketing</li></ul></td></tr></table>

This first set of indexes will be shared with project partners as inputs to tasks in other work packages, particularly the GxE database in WP5. In WP1, we will work with the agrobiodiversity use criteria and begin to test them with consumers in order to create final SMART indexes for valuing agrobiodiversity in food environments.

<figure><img src="image_130.png" /></figure>
# 7. Conclusions

In this deliverable, our aim was to explore the ways in which short- and mid-tier value chains in the DIVINFOOD partner countries (Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland) might successfully value NUCs in a food environment that generally does not make this valorisation easy, neither for the initiatives themselves, nor for the citizen-consumers. Besides a deep analysis of such food value chains, our goal was to create a typology of these chains in order to assist us - partners of the project and anyone who wishes to set up such chains - in building initiatives that can successfully market NUCs. The insights that we gained in this study allowed us to create a first, tentative list of SMART indexes that will be experimented over the next few years as the DIVINFOOD partners develop new marketing strategies and channels. Specific work with digital tools dedicated to valuing (agro)biodiversity-use will be carried out in Tasks 1.3 and 1.4 of the projects. The analysis in this paper will also aid Work Package 5 of the project in developing new business models. The data collected in this study will also be integrated with the GxE database that is being developed for the Living Labs and the SMART Indexes will also be adapted in the work with the GxE database.

As discussed throughout the report, in our research, we built on the literature review submitted in D1.3 on enabling food environments, and then conducted another literature review - presented in Section 2 of the present Deliverable - on food value chains. To contextualise the NUC environment in which the presented value chains operate, we collected and analysed the - primarily production - data of NUC legumes and ancient grains involved in the project in the participating countries - as presented in Section 3. We then built a database of more than 1,200 initiatives that deal with NUCs, conducted an online survey - as presented in our Survey methodology chapter in Section 4. The analysis of our survey resulted in striking similarities between the various countries, with the majority of differences found between the different actor types, and we found that NUCs are currently being valued in environments not very well suited for their promotion - as presented in Section 5. Based on our survey analysis, we identified four main clusters of initiative-types, which we have called 1) Active promoters, 2) Silent sellers, 3) Quality communicators and 4) Mission first initiatives. In Section 6, we discussed these types in detail, together with case studies from all partner countries to highlight the key differences between the various types of value chains.

Drawing on the overall analysis, we have been able to highlight a number of key results explaining how cereals and legumes NUCS are currently valorised in different food environments across Europe.

In line with other work on short and mid-tier food chains, we found that our sample of initiatives valuing agrobiodiversity, present varied and often multiple activity profiles. The majority of them (44.8%), are involved in an « agricultural activity » - of varying size and governance types – with many of them also involved in processing activities (such as baking, milling). These are then followed in frequency by shops (21.8%), intermediaries (CSA and online platforms, 14.1%), processors (10.3%) and other specific activities (8.9%, which include seed companies, agrobiodiversity conservation associations, private research and extension). The majority of initiatives are rather young, having been founded in or after 2011 (65.4%).

<figure><img src="image_131.png" /></figure>
Although we have identified some initiatives, which are highly specialised in NUCs, overall, NUCs represent a small proportion of the activity of the initiatives that we surveyed (less than 25% for 58.9% of the initiatives). In general, they deal with only one or two categories of NUCs (73.1%). Initiatives dealing solely with cereals are the most numerous (50%), followed by those mixing cereals and pulses (35.9%), while initiatives dealing solely with legumes are less frequent (n=10, 12.8%); with wheat category being the most cited cereals NUCs and lentils, peas, common beans, chickpeas for legumes.

The study of supply and sales chains of the initiatives showed that most of these initiatives are short value chains (a large part of the sample is made up of direct (and own producer for supply) or hybrid direct/short supply and sales chains) that are territorially anchored, with mainly one single location site for the initiative (61.5%). However, the declared origins of NUCs suggest that these short supply chains rely upon regional or even national chains, rather than on the municipality level. Furthermore, we observed a wide variety of modalities of sourcing and selling NUCs suggesting that diversity in supply and marketing channels is a core strategy.

Looking at the types of contracts established for the supply of NUCS, the proportion of 'binding' contracts is lower and the results suggest that NUCs related activities are not significant enough in terms of sales to warrant entering into long term agreements among supply chain actors. Instead, one's own production is often sufficient and purchasing on demand is feasible based on non-contractual relationships between the retailers and the producers. Additionally, this is also a sector that is characterised by experimentation and seed exchanges, which means that the social engagement goes beyond pure market exchanges.

The sampled initiatives position themselves primarily around environmental concerns. The social missions are concerned more with the model of agriculture that is unfair to both the agroecosystems and farmers, than with the nutritional benefits of NUCs. The sector relies heavily on organic certification and the perceived benefits from selling NUCs are mainly environmental.

Regarding the communication aspects, there is no major difference in patterns when the initiatives promote NUCs or when they communicate more generally about their initiative. However, more than a quarter of initiatives (28.2%) do not actively promote NUCS. Online platforms and word of mouth are the most often used promoting approaches. They also tend to use fewer forms of communication for NUCs than for their general communication. Sales point displays are rarely used (10.3%) and about half of the initiatives do additional promotional activities (such as talk/speeches). Again, the majority of those promoting NUCs do so on the environmental aspects, but health-related messages are more frequently selected for quality communication. The NUCs sellers have a rather loyal customer base.

Regarding the challenges of producing, processing or selling NUCS, the challenges of insufficient demand and lack of consumer awareness emerged as the most critical.

Together these results lead us to conclude that NUCs are currently being valued in food environments that are not very well suited for their promotion, with the lack of demand for these products remaining the main problem.

<figure><img src="image_132.png" /></figure>
8. References

Agnolletti, M., & Santoro, A. (2022). Agricultural heritage systems and agrobiodiversity. *Biodiversity and Conservation*, 1-11.

Amaya, N., Padulosi, S., & Meldrum, G. (2020). Value chain analysis of chaya (Mayan spinach) in Guatemala. *Economic Botany*, 74(1), 100-114.

Andreotti, F., Bazile, D., Biaggi, C., Callo-Concha, D., Jacquet, J., Jemal, O. M., ... & Van Noordwijk, M. (2022). When neglected species gain global interest: Lessons learned from quinoa's boom and bust for teff and minor millet. *Global Food Security*, 32, 100613.

Andorfer, V. & Liebe, U. (2012) Research on fair trade consumption—A review. *Journal of Business Ethics* 106(4): 415-435.

Arfini, F., Amilien, V., Antonioli, F., Bellassen, V., Brennan, M., Fumel, M., Gorton, M., Hartmann, M., Hawes, D. R., Mancini, M. C., Roos, G., Schüssler, J., Tocco, B., Torjusen, H., Tregear, A., Veneziani, M., Vitterso, G. & Yeh, C. 2016. Strengthening European Food Chain Sustainability by Quality and Procurement Policy. Working paper on the conceptual framework and literature review for understanding the social, environmental and economic impact of FQS, SFSC and varying PSFP policies on agri-food chain participants and rural territories. Parma: Università degli Studi di Parma. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01630638

Augére-Granier M.-L. (2016) Short food supply chains and local food systems in the EU. *Briefing*. Brussels, Belgium: European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS).

Bair, J. (2009) *Frontiers of commodity chain research*. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Baird, I. G. (2022). Political violence, migration, lack of citizenship, and agrobiodiversity loss in the borderlands of Thailand and Laos. *Geoforum*, 128, 263-275.

Baldermann, S., Blagojević, L., Frede, K., Klopsch, R., Neugart, S., Neumann, A., ... & Schreiner, M. (2016). Are neglected plants the food for the future?. *Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences*, 35(2), 106-119.

Barstow, C., Mukiibi, E., & Zocchi, D. M. (2021). Slow food and NUS: Protecting and promoting endangered food products. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 216-224). Routledge.

Batur, F., Bocci, R., & Bartha, B. (2021). Marketing farmers’ varieties in Europe: Encouraging pathways with missing links for the recognition and support of farmer seed systems. *Agronomy*, 11(11), 2159.

Bingen, R.J. & Busch, L. (2006) *Agricultural standards: the shape of the global food and fiber system*. Dordrecht: Springer.

Bogliotti, C., Calabrese, G., El Bilali, H., Rae, I., Platzer, M., Marino, M., ... & Kiene, T. (2021). Voices from the agencies: research for development (R4D) agencies supporting efforts to conserve and promote the sustainable use of NUS. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 365-384). Routledge.

Boltanski, L. & Thévenot, L. (2006 [1991]) *On justification: Economies of worth*. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Borelli, T., Beltrame, D., Wasike, V. W., Samarasinghe, G., Tan, A., & Hunter, D. (2021). The BFN mainstreaming toolkit. A roadmap to using neglected and underutilized species for food system change. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 163-173). Routledge.

<figure><img src="image_133.png" /></figure>
Borelli, T., Hunter, D., Padulosi, S., Amaya, N., Meldrum, G., de Oliveira Beltrame, D. M., ... & Tartanac, F. (2020). Local solutions for sustainable food systems: The contribution of orphan crops and wild edible species. *Agronomy*, 10(2), 231.

Brenton, S. (2018) (Political) Consumers and certification schemes: The ethics of global production and trade. *Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics* 31(6): 755-784.

Bullock, G. & van der Ven, H. (2020) The Shadow of the Consumer: Analyzing the Importance of Consumers to the Uptake and Sophistication of Ratings, Certifications, and Eco-Labels. *Organization and Environment* 33(1): 75-95.

Caetano, C. M., Cuellar, R. D. P., Juajibioy, J. L. M., Ávila, L. N. V., Nunes, D. G. C., & de Pazdiora, B. R. C. N. (2015). Participatory breeding: tool for conservation of neglected and underutilised crops. *Acta Agronómica*.

Callon, M., Méadel, C. & Rabeharisoa, V. (2002) The Economy of Qualities. *Economy and Society* 31(2): 194-217.

Camacho-Henriquez, A., Kraemer, F., Galluzzi, G., Haan, S. D., Jäger, M., & Christinck, A. (2015). Decentralized collaborative plant breeding for utilization and conservation of neglected and underutilised crop genetic resources. In *Advances in plant breeding strategies: breeding, biotechnology and molecular tools* (pp. 25-61). Springer, Cham.

Campanaro, A., Tommasi, N., Guzzetti, L., Galimberti, A., Bruni, I., & Labra, M. (2019). DNA barcoding to promote social awareness and identity of neglected, underutilised plant species having valuable nutritional properties. *Food Research International, 115*, 1-9.

Carrera, L. (2009) I Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale. Una protesta solida nella società liquida. *Partecipazione e Conflitto* 3: 95-122.

Carrington, M., Chatzidakis, A., Goworek, H. & Shaw, D. (2020) Consumption Ethics: A Review and Analysis of Future Directions for Interdisciplinary Research. *Journal of Business Ethics*. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-020-04425-4.

Caspi, C. E., Sorensen, G., Subramanian, S. V., & Kawachi, I. (2012). The local food environment and diet: a systematic review. *Health & place, 18*(5), 1172-1187.

Chable, V., Nuijten, E., Costanzo, A., Goldringer, I., Bocci, R., Oehen, B., ... & Rossi, A. (2020). Embedding cultivated diversity in society for agro-ecological transition. *Sustainability, 12*(3), 784.

Cavazzani, A., Gaudio, G. & Sivini, S. (2006) Politiche, governance e innovazione per le aree rurali. Napoli: INEA-ESI.

Chiffoleau, Y. (2008) Les circuits courts de commercialisation en agriculture : diversité et enjeux pour le développement durable. In Maréchal G. (eds), *Les circuits courts alimentaires*, Dijon, Educagri.

Chiffoleau, Y., Darrot, C., & Maréchal G. (2020). *Manger au temps du coronavirus Enquête sur nos systèmes alimentaires*. Apogée, 160 p.

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.

Chiffoleau, Y. & Loconto, A.M. (2018) Social Innovation in Agriculture and Food: Old Wine in New Bottles? *The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food* 24(3): 306-317.

Chkanikova, O. (2016) Sustainable Purchasing in Food Retailing: Inter organisational Relationship Management to Green Product Supply. *Business Strategy and the Environment* 25(7): 478-494.

<figure><img src="image_134.png" /></figure>
Chkanikova, O. & Lehner, M. (2015) Private eco-brands and green market development: Towards new forms of sustainability governance in the food retailing. *Journal of Cleaner Production* 107: 74-84.

Christopher, M. (2023). *Logistics and supply chain management* (Sixth Edition. ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.

Cochoy, F. (2010) ‘How to build displays that sell’. *Journal of Cultural Economy* 3(2): 299-315.

Collins, J.L. & Kahn, W.N. (2017) The hijacking of a new corporate form? Benefit corporations and corporate personhood. *Economy and Society*. DOI: 10.1080/03085147.2016.1239342. 1-25.

Conroy, M.E. (2007) *Branded! How the 'Certification Revolution' Is Transforming Global Corporations*. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Da Cunha, M. A., Paraguassú, L. A. A., Assis, J. G. D. A., Silva, A. B. D. P. C., & Cardoso, R. D. C. V. (2020). Urban gardening and neglected and underutilised species in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. *Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 16*(1), 1-16.

Darr, D., Chopi-Msadala, C., Namakhwa, C. D., Meinhold, K., & Munthali, C. (2020). Processed baobab (*Adansonia digitata* L.) food products in malawi: from poor men's to premium-priced specialty food? *Forests, 11*(6), 698.

de Bakker, F.G.A., Rasche, A. & Ponte, S. (2019) Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives on Sustainability: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Research Agenda for Business Ethics. *Business Ethics Quarterly* 29(3): 343-383.

De Boef, W.S., Subedi, A., Peroni, N., Thijssen, M., & O'Keeffe, E. (Eds.). (2013). *Community Biodiversity Management: Promoting resilience and the conservation of plant genetic resources*. Routledge.

Dinssa, F.F., Stoilova, T., Nenguwo, N., Aloyce, A., Tenkouano, A., Hanson, P., & Keatinge, J. D. H. (2015). Traditional vegetables: improvement and development in sub-Saharan Africa at AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center. *Acta Horticulturae, 1102*, 21-28.

Dixon, J. (1999) A cultural economy model for studying food systems. *Agriculture and Human Values* 16(2): 151-160.

Drugova, T., Curtis, K.R. & Akhundjanov, S.B. (2020) Are multiple labels on food products beneficial or simply ignored? *Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics* 68(4): 411-427.

Dubuisson-Quellier, S. & Lamine, C. (2004) Faire le marché autrement. L'abonnement à un panier de fruits et de légumes comme forme d'engagement politique des consommateurs. *Sciences de la Société* (62): 144-167.

DuPuis, E.M. & Goodman, D. (2005) Should we go "home" to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism. *Journal of Rural Studies* 21(3): 359-371.

FAO (2014) *Developing sustainable food value chains. Guiding principles*. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, et al. (2020) *The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020*. *Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets*. Rome, FAO. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Feenstra, G. & Hardesty, S. (2016) Values-based supply chains as a strategy for supporting small and mid-scale producers in the United States. *Agriculture* 6(3): 39.

Feng, J., Glass, T. A., Curriero, F. C., Stewart, W. F., & Schwartz, B. S. (2010). The built environment and obesity: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. *Health & place, 16*(2), 175-190.

<figure><img src="image_135.png" /></figure>
Fold, N. & Larsen, M.N. (2008) Globalization and Restructuring of African Commodity Flows. Uppsala, Sweden: Nodiska Afrikainstitutet

Fouilleux, E. & Loconto, A. (2017) Voluntary standards, certification, and accreditation in the global organic agriculture field: a tripartite model of techno-politics. *Agriculture and Human Values* 34(1): 1-14.

Freidberg, S.E. (2004) *French beans and food scares: culture and commerce in an anxious age*. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Friedland, W.H. (1984) Commodity systems analysis: An approach to the sociology of agriculture. In: Schwarzweller HK (ed) *Research in Rural Sociology and Development*. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp.221-235.

Galt, R., O'Sullivan, L., Beckett, J., & Hiner, C. (2012). Community supported agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley. *California Agriculture*, **66**(1), 8-14.

Garrido-Garza, F., Loconto, A. & Robinson, D. (2024) Market formation for short food supply chains in the context of transformative social innovation. *Journal of Rural Studies* (under review)

Gereffi, G., Humphrey J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005) The governance of global value chains. *Review of International Political Economy* 12(1): 78 - 104.

Gereffi, G. & Korzeniewicz, M. (1994) *Commodity chains and global capitalism*. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Gibbon, P. & Ponte, S. (2005) *Trading down: Africa, value chains, and the global economy*. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Giuliani, A., Padulosi, S., & Hoeschle-Zeledon, I. (2004, August). Linking rural communities' livelihoods with markets of underutilised species: Case study in syria. In *XV International Symposium on Horticultural Economics and Management* 655 (pp. 297-306).

Girard, F., & Frison, C. (2018). Introduction: Commoning the seeds: The future of agrobiodiversity and food security. In *The Commons, Plant Breeding and Agricultural Research* (pp. 1-20). Routledge.

Giuliani, A. (2012). *Developing markets for agrobiodiversity: Securing livelihoods in dryland areas*. Routledge.

Goodman, D. (2003) The quality 'turn' and alternative food practices: reflections and agenda. *Journal of Rural Studies* 19(1): 1-7.

Granheim, S. I., Løvhaug, A. L., Terragni, L., Torheim, L. E., & Thurston, M. (2022). Mapping the digital food environment: A systematic scoping review. *Obesity Reviews*, **23**(1), e13356.

Gustafson, A., Hankins, S., & Jilcott, S. (2012). Measures of the consumer food store environment: a systematic review of the evidence 2000-2011. *Journal of community health*, **37**(4), 897-911.

Harris, J., Van Zonneveld, M., Achigan-Dako, E. G., Bajwa, B., Brouwer, I. D., Choudhury, D., De Jager, I., De Steenhuijsen Piters, B., Dulloo, M. E. & Guarino, L. (2022). Fruit and vegetable biodiversity for nutritionally diverse diets: Challenges, opportunities, and knowledge gaps. *Global Food Security*, **33**, 1006-18.

Hebinck, A., Vervoort, J. M., Hebinck, P., Rutting, L. & Galli, F. (2018) Imagining transformative futures: participatory foresight for food systems change. *Ecology and Society* 23(2).

Hebinck, P., Schneider, S. & van der Ploeg, J.D. (2014) *Rural Development and the Construction of New Markets*. Taylor & Francis.

Hermann, M., Kwek, M. J., Khoo, T. K., & Amaya, K. (2011, June). Collective action towards enhanced knowledge management of neglected and underutilised species: Making use of Internet

<figure><img src="image_136.png" /></figure>
opportunities. In *II International Symposium on Underutilised Plant Species: Crops for the Future-Beyond Food Security* 979 (pp. 65-77).

Hernández-Gómez, M.S. (2009, July). Little-known tropical fruits: use and perspectives. In *International Conference on Postharvest and Quality Management of Horticultural Products of Interest for Tropical Regions* 906 (pp. 109-113).

Hoeschle-Zeledon, I., & Jaenicke, H. (2006, December). A strategic framework for global research and development of underutilised plant species: a contribution to the enhancement of indigenous vegetables and legumes. In *I International Conference on Indigenous Vegetables and Legumes. Prospectus for Fighting Poverty, Hunger and Malnutrition* 752 (pp. 103-110).

Hunter, D., Borelli, T., Beltrame, D. M., Oliveira, C. N., Coradin, L., Wasike, V. W., ... & Tartanac, F. (2019). The potential of neglected and underutilised species for improving diets and nutrition. *Planta*, 250(3), 709-729.

Hunter, D., Roskruge, N., Semese, S. A., Clarke, P., & Turpin, G. (2021). Neglected and underutilized species and indigenous foodways of Oceania. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 147-160). Routledge.

Islam, M.S. (2008) From pond to plate: Towards a twin-driven commodity chain in Bangladesh shrimp aquaculture. *Food Policy* 33(3): 209-223.

Jaeger, M., Giuliani, A., & van Loosen, I. (2017). Markets, consumer demand and agricultural biodiversity. In *Routledge Handbook of Agricultural Biodiversity* (pp. 482-496). Routledge.

Janssen, M. & Hamm, U. (2014) Governmental and private certification labels for organic food: Consumer attitudes and preferences in Germany. *Food Policy* 49, Part 2(0): 437-448.

Johns, T., & Eyzaguirre, P. B. (2006). Linking biodiversity, diet and health in policy and practice. *Proceedings of the nutrition society*, 65(2), 182-189.

Jones, S. K., Estrada-Carmona, N., Juventia, S. D., Dulloo, M. E., Laporte, M. A., Villani, C., & Remans, R. (2021). Agrobiodiversity Index scores show agrobiodiversity is underutilised in national food systems. *Nature Food*, 2(9), 712-723.

Jordan, N. R., Dorn, K., Runck, B., Ewing, P., Williams, A., Anderson, K., Felice, L., Haralson, K., Goplen, J. & Altendorf, K. (2016). Sustainable commercialization of new crops for the agricultural bioeconomy. *Sustainable commercialization of new bioeconomy crops*. *Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene*, 4.

Juventia, S. D., Jones, S. K., Laporte, M. A., Remans, R., Villani, C., & Estrada-Carmona, N. (2020). Text mining national commitments towards agrobiodiversity conservation and use. *Sustainability*, 12(2), 715.

Kimura, A. H. (2021). Pickles and agrobiodiversity: a foodway and traditional vegetable varieties in Japan. *Agriculture and Human Values*, 38(4), 1079-1096.

King, E. O., Muniappan, K., Parida, P. K., Mishra, S., Natarajan, K., Nongrum, M. S., Chinnadurai, M., Rangad, C. O., Roy, S. & Meldrum, G. (2021). Community-centred value-chain development of nutri-millets: Challenges and best practices in India. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 245-262). Routledge.

Kliem, L., & Wolter, H. (2022). How do consumers perceive open-source seed licenses? Exploring a new credence attribute. *International Journal of Consumer Studies*.

Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., Schmutz, U., Balázs, B., Trenchard, L., Eyden-Wood, T., Bos, E., Foster, G. & Blackett, M. (2013) *Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play of their Socio-Economic Characteristics*.

Kropp, C., Antoni-Komar, I. & Sage, C. (2020) *Food System Transformations: Social Movements, Local Economies, Collaborative Networks*. Taylor & Francis.

<figure><img src="image_137.png" /></figure>
Law, J. (1991) Power, discretion and strategy. In: Law J (ed) *A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination*. London: Routledge, pp.165-191.

Li, X., & Siddique, K. H. (2020). Future Smart Food: Harnessing the potential of neglected and underutilised species for Zero Hunger. *Maternal & child nutrition, 16*, e13008.

Li, X., Yadav, R., & Siddique, K. H. (2020). Neglected and underutilised crop species: the key to improving dietary diversity and fighting hunger and malnutrition in Asia and the Pacific. *Frontiers in Nutrition, 7*, 593711.

Liyanagamage, T. M., De Silva, D. A. M., Karunaratne, A. S., O'Reilly, P., & Nilmalgoda, H. (2017, April). Value chain analysis of underutilised crops of different farming systems in Sri Lanka. In *IV International Conference on Postharvest and Quality Management of Horticultural Products of Interest for Tropical Regions 1278* (pp. 179-184).

Lochetti, G. (2021). Development of seasonal calendars for sustainable diets-experiences from Guatemala, Mali and India. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 174-181). Routledge.

Loconto, A. (2012). Value Chains and Chains of Values: Tracing Tanzanian Tea. In F. Arfini (Ed.), *Local Agri-Food Systems in a Global World: Market, Social and Environmental Challenges* (pp. 195-214). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Loconto, A. (2017) Models of Assurance: Diversity and Standardization of Modes of Intermediation. *The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science* 670(1): 1-21.

Loconto, A. & Busch, L. (2010) Standards, techno-economic networks, and playing fields: Performing the global market economy. *Review of International Political Economy* 17(3): 507-536.

Loconto, A., & Garrido-Garza, F. (2021). Formal and informal European quality assurance initiatives offering a connection between local gastronomy and small-scale farmers. Paris: LISIS for AgriKulti and Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture. Retrieved from https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03173144

Loconto, A., Garrido-Garza, F., & Dufeu, I. (2023). Innovations for Sustainable Food Systems: Focusing on Agroecology and Participatory Guarantee Systems. *Journal of Rural Problems, 59*(1), 37-44. doi:10.7310/arfe.59.37

Loconto, A. & Hatanaka, M. (2018) Participatory Guarantee Systems: Alternative Ways of Defining, Measuring, and Assessing ‘Sustainability’. *Sociologia Ruralis* 58(2): 412-432.

Loconto, A., Jimenez, A., Vandecandelaere, E., & Tartanac, F. (2018) Agroecology, local food systems and their markets. *Ager. Revista de Estudios sobre Despoblación y Desarrollo Rural*. DOI: 10.4422/ager.2018.15.(25): 13-42.

Loisel, J.P., François, M., Chiffoleau, Y., Herault-Fournier, C., Sirieix, L., & Costa, S. (2016) La consommation alimentaire en circuits courts : enquête nationale. *Programme CODIA : Circuits courts en Europe : opportunités commerciales et dialogue avec la société*. Paris: Gret.

Low, W. & Davenport, E. (2009) Organizational Leadership, Ethics and the Challenges of Market-
ing Fair and Ethical Trade. *Journal of Business Ethics* 86(0): 97-108.

Lokhandwala, Z. (2022). Peasants' Rights as New Human Rights: Promises and Concerns for Agrobiodiversity Conservation. *Asian Journal of International Law, 1-16*.

Luziatelli, G., Sørensen, M., & Jacobsen, S. E. (2020). Current uses of Andean Roots and Tuber Crops in South American gourmet restaurants. *International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 22*, 100270.

<figure><img src="image_138.png" /></figure>
Lysák, M., Ritz, C., & Henriksen, C. B. (2019). Assessing consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for novel value-added products made from breadfruit in the Hawaiian Islands. *Sustainability, 11*(11), 3135.

Mabhaudhi, T., Chimonyo, V. G., Chibarabada, T. P., & Modi, A. T. (2017). Developing a roadmap for improving neglected and underutilised crops: A case study of South Africa. *Frontiers in plant science, 8*, 2143.

Macready, A. L., Hieke, S., Klimczuk-Kochańska, M., Szumiał, S., Vranken, L. & Grunert, K. G. (2020). Consumer trust in the food value chain and its impact on consumer confidence: A model for assessing consumer trust and evidence from a 5-country study in Europe. *Food Policy* 92: 101880.

Marsden, T., Banks, J. & Bristow, G. (2000) Food Supply Chain Approaches: Exploring their Role in Rural Development. *Sociologia Ruralis* 40(4): 424-438.

Mbosso, C., Boulay, B., Padulosi, S., Meldrum, G., Mohamadou, Y., Berthe Niang, A., ... & Sidibé, A. (2020). Fonio and bambara groundnut value chains in mali: issues, needs, and opportunities for their sustainable promotion. *Sustainability, 12*(11), 4766.

Meier, C., & Oehen, B. (2019). Consumers’ valuation of farmers’ varieties for food system diversity. *Sustainability, 11*(24), 7134.

Meinhold, K., & Darr, D. (2021). Using a multi-stakeholder approach to increase value for traditional agroforestry systems: The case of baobab (*Adansonia digitata* L.) in Kilifi, Kenya. *Agroforestry Systems, 95*(7), 1343-1358.

Mensi, A., & Udenigwe, C. C. (2021). Emerging and practical food innovations for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) target 2.2. *Trends in Food Science & Technology, 111*, 783-789.

Milano, M. Z., & Cazella, A. A. (2021). Environmental effects of geographical indications and their influential factors: A review of the empirical evidence. *Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3*, 100096.

Morimoto, Y., Maundu, P., Mahinda, E. G., & Kirori, D. (2021). Enhancing the use of underutilized food crops: Partnerships in a success story of a pop cereal business in Kenya. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 182-197). Routledge.

Mudau, F. N., Chimonyo, V. G. P., Modi, A. T., & Mabhaudhi, T. (2021). Neglected and underutilised crops: A systematic review of their potential as food and herbal medicinal crops in South Africa. *Frontiers in pharmacology, 12*.

Nakandala, D., Smith, M., & Lau, H. (2020) Shared power and fairness in trust-based supply chain relationships in an urban local food system. *British Food Journal* 122(3): 870-883.

Nizar, N. M. M., Jahanshiri, E., Sinin, S. S. M., Wimalasiri, E. M., Suhairi, T. A. S. T. M., Gregory, P. J., & Azam-Ali, S. N. (2021). Open data to support agricultural diversification (version October 2020). *Data in brief, 35*, 106781.

Notaro, V., Padulosi, S., Galluzzi, G., & King, I. O. (2017). A policy analysis to promote conservation and use of small millet underutilised species in India. *International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15*(4), 393-405.

Ochieng, C.M.O. (2008) Comparative capitalism and sustainable development: Stakeholder capitalism and co-management in the Kenyan fisheries sub sector. *Natural Resources Forum* 32: 64-76.

Osti, G. and Carrosio, G. (2020) Nested markets in marginal areas: Weak prosumers and strong food chains. *Journal of Rural Studies* 76: 305-313.

<figure><img src="image_139.png" /></figure>
Ostrom, M. (2008) Community supported agriculture as an agent of change is it working? *Remaking the North American Food System: Strategies for Sustainability*. 99-120.

Ostrom, M., De Master, K., Noe, E. & Schermer, M. (2017) Values-based Food Chains from a Transatlantic Perspective: Exploring a Middle Tier of Agri-food System Development. *International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food* 24(1): 1-14.

Padulosi, S., Bala Ravi, S., Rojas, W., Valdivia, R., Jager, M., Polar, V., & Gotor, E. (2011). Experiences and lessons learned in the framework of a global UN effort in support of neglected and underutilised species. In *II International Symposium on Underutilised Plant Species: Crops for the Future-Beyond Food Security* 979 (pp. 517-532).

Padulosi, S., Amaya, K., Jäger, M., Gotor, E., Rojas, W., & Valdivia, R. (2014). A holistic approach to enhance the use of neglected and underutilised species: The case of Andean grains in Bolivia and Peru. *Sustainability*, 6(3), 1283-1312.

Padulosi, S., Meldrum, G., Mathur, S., & Hunter, D. (2021). Mainstreaming NUS for nutrition-sensitive agriculture: A holistic approach. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 43-57). Routledge.

Padulosi, S., & Hunter, D. (2021). Landmark NUS events and key publications. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 19-42). Routledge.

Padulosi, S., King, E. I. O., Hunter, D., & Swaminathan, M. S. (Eds.). (2021). *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security: Promoting Neglected and Underutilised Species*. Routledge.

Pallante, G., Drucker, A. G., & Sthapit, S. (2016). Assessing the potential for niche market development to contribute to farmers' livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation: Insights from the finger millet case study in Nepal. *Ecological Economics*, 130, 92-105.

Parkinson, T.L. (1975) The Role of Seals and Certifications of Approval in Consumer Decision-Making. *Journal of Consumer Affairs* 9(1): 1-14.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). *Qualitative research and evaluation methods* (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pereira, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hebinck, A., Charli-Joseph, L., Drimie, S., Dyer, M., Eakin, H., Galafassi, D., Karpouzoglou, T., Marshall, F., Moore, M.-L., Olsson, P., Siqueiros-García, J. M., Van Zwanenberg, P. & Vervoort, J. M. (2022). Leveraging the potential of wild food for healthy, sustainable, and equitable local food systems: learning from a transformation lab in the Western Cape region. *Sustainability Science*, 1-20.

Phillipov, M. & Gale, F. (2020) Celebrity chefs, consumption politics and food labelling: Exploring the contradictions. *Journal of Consumer Culture* 20(4): 400-418.

Pirsch, J., Shrut, G. & Grau, S.L. (2007) A Framework for Understanding Corporate Social Responsibility Programs as a Continuum: An Exploratory Study. *Journal of Business Ethics* V70(2): 125-140.

Ponte, S. & Gibbon, P. (2005) Quality Standards, Conventions and the Governance of Global Value Chains. *Economy and Society* 34(1): 1-31.

Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York, London: Free Press; Collier Macmillan.

Posadinu, C. M., Rodriguez, M., Madau, F., & Attene, G. (2022). The value of agrobiodiversity: An analysis of consumers preference for tomatoes. *Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems*, 37(3), 237-247.

Power, M. (2003) Evaluating the Audit Explosion. *Law & Policy* 25(3): 185-202.

<figure><img src="image_140.png" /></figure>
Quimby, B., & Beresford, M. (2023). Participatory Modelling: A Methodology for Engaging Stakeholder Knowledge and Participation in Social Science Research. Field Methods, 35(1), 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X221076986

R Core Team (2022) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.r-project.org/

Reed, D. (2009) What do Corporations have to do with Fair Trade? Positive and Normative Analysis from a Value Chain Perspective. *Journal of Business Ethics* 86(1): 3-26.

Reinecke, J. (2010) Beyond a subjective theory of value and towards a ‘fair price’: an organisational perspective on Fairtrade minimum price setting. *Organization* 17(5): 563-581.

Reinecke, J., Manning, S. and von Hagen, O. (2012) The Emergence of a Standards Market: Multiplicity of Sustainability Standards in the Global Coffee Industry. *Organization Studies* 33(5-6): 791-814.

Renting, H., Marsden, T.K. & Banks, J. (2003) Understanding Alternative Food Networks: Exploring the Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Rural Development. *Environment and Planning A* 35(3): 393-411.

Resque, A. G., Coudel, E., Piketty, M. G., Cialdella, N., Sá, T., Piraux, M., ... & Le Page, C. (2019). Agrobiodiversity and public food procurement programs in Brazil: influence of local stakeholders in configuring green mediated markets. *Sustainability, 11*(5), 1425.

Rover, O. J., da Silva Pugas, A., De Gennaro, B. C., Vittori, F., & Roselli, L. (2020). Conventionalization of organic agriculture: a multiple case study analysis in Brazil and Italy. *Sustainability, 12*(16), 6580.

Runhaar, H., Buijs, A., & Runhaar, P. (2019). What explains citizens' valuations of and attitudes towards agricultural biodiversity? Results of an exploratory survey of Dutch students. *NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 89*, 100303.

Runhaar, H., Runhaar, P., Bouwmans, M., Vink, S., Buijs, A., & Kleijn, D. (2019). The power of argument: Enhancing citizen's valuation of and attitude towards agricultural biodiversity. *International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 17*(3), 231-242.

Sacchi, G., Cei, L., Stefani, G., Lombardi, G. V., Rocchi, B., Belletti, G., ... & Vasvari, G. (2018). A multi-actor literature review on alternative and sustainable food systems for the promotion of cereal biodiversity. *Agriculture, 8*(11), 173.

Salis, M. (2013) Filiere collettive e Alternative Food Netowrk: nuove prospettive per la qualità. In: Meloni B and Farinella D (eds) *Sviluppo rurale alla prova. Dal territorio alle politiche*. Torino: Rosemberg&Sellier, pp.155-180.

Santilli, J. (2013). Agrobiodiversity: Towards inovating legal systems. In *Renewing innovation systems in agriculture and food* (pp. 167-184). Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.

Scaramuzzi, S., Gabellini, S., Belletti, G., & Marescotti, A. (2021). Agrobiodiversity-Oriented Food Systems between Public Policies and Private Action: A Socio-Ecological Model for Sustainable Territorial Development. *Sustainability, 13*(21), 12192.

Schenk, P., Sunderer, G. & Rössel, J. (2016) Sind Deutschschweizer altruistischer als Deutsche? Ein Vergleich des Konsums fair gehandelter Produkte in Deutschland und der Schweiz. *Berliner Journal Fur Soziologie* 26(2): 145-170.

Shah, S. S. & Asghar, Z. (2023) Dynamics of social influence on consumption choices: A social network representation. *Heliyon, 9*(6).

<figure><img src="image_141.png" /></figure>
Smith, S. (2010) For Love or Money? Fairtrade Business Models in the UK Supermarket Sector. *Journal of Business Ethics* 92(2): 257-266.

Swensson, L.F., & Tartanac, F. (2020). Diversifying public food procurement and school feeding. In *Biodiversity, Food and Nutrition* (pp. 206-220). Routledge.

Tallontire, A. (2007) CSR and regulation: towards a framework for understanding private standards initiatives in the agri-food chain. *Third World Quarterly* 28(4): 775 - 791.

Tamariz, G., & Baumann, M.D. (2022). Agrobiodiversity change in violent conflict and post-conflict landscapes. *Geoforum, 128*, 217-222.

Tampaki, M., Koutouzidou, G., Ragkos, A., Melfou, K., & Giantsis, I. A. (2022). Eco-Value and Public Perceptions for Indigenous Farm Animal Breeds and Local Plant Varieties, Focusing on Greece. *Sustainability, 14*(18), 11211.

Taranto, S.R., Alvarez, E.M., & Rojas, W. (2021). Agritourism and conservation of neglected and underutilised native Andean crops in Santiago de Okola, Bolivia. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 198-207). Routledge.

Timmermann, C., & Robaey, Z. (2016). Agrobiodiversity under different property regimes. *Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29*(2), 285-303.

Torres, L.E., Sánchez, J.A.C., del Moral, J.B., & Vargas, A.Á. (2022). Análisis de los compromisos de México frente a la agrobiodiversidad en el sistema agroalimentario: Analysis of commitments of Mexico towards agrobiodiversity in agri-food system. *Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria, 23*(1).

Van Amstel, M., de Brauw, C., Driessen, P., & Glasbergen, P. (2007). The reliability of product-specific eco-labels as an agrobiodiversity management instrument. *Biodiversity and Conservation, 16*(14), 4109-4129.

Van Amstel-Van Saane, M.H. (2007). *Twilight on self-regulation: A socio-legal evaluation of conservation and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity by industry self-regulation* (Vol. 362). KNAG.

van der Ploeg, J.D. (2012). The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization. London: Routledge.

van der Ploeg J.D. and Schneider S. (2022) Autonomy as a politico-economic concept: Peasant practices and nested markets. *Journal of Agrarian Change* 22(3): 529-546.

Vandebroek, I., Picking, D., Tretina, J., West, J., Grizzle, M., Sweil, D., Green, U. & Lindsay, D. (2021). Root tonics and resilience: building strength, health, and heritage in Jamaica. *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5*, 640171.

Van Dexter, K., & Ingalls, M. (2022). Sowing peace: Violence and agrobiodiversity in the Colombian Amazon. *Geoforum, 128*, 251-262.

Van Loon, R., Lagneaux, E., Guerra, G. W., Chiriboga-Arroyo, F., Thomas, E., Gamarra, B., ... & Kettle, C. (2021). Barriers to adopting a diversity of NUS fruit trees in Latin American food systems. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 88-108). Routledge.

Vergueiro, A. L., Kirori, D., Damon, J., Lopez, J. A., Kenya, L., Sharma, M., ... & Sankaranarayanan, V. (2021). Voices from the private sector engaged in the use enhancement of NUS. In *Orphan Crops for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security* (pp. 344-364). Routledge.

Voinov, A., & Gaddis, E. J. B. (2008). Lessons for successful participatory watershed modeling: A perspective from modeling practitioners. *Ecological Modelling, 216*(2), 197-207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.03.010

Vonthron, S., Perrin, C., & Soulard, C. T. (2020). Foodscape: A scoping review and a research agenda for food security-related studies. *PLoS One, 15*(5), e0233218.

<figure><img src="image_142.png" /></figure>
Watts, D.C., Ilbery, B. & Maye, D. (2005) Making reconnections in agro-food geography: alternative systems of food provision. *Progress in human geography* 29(1): 22-40.

Williams, J., Scarborough, P., Matthews, A., Cowburn, G., Foster, C., Roberts, N., & Rayner, M. (2014). A systematic review of the influence of the retail food environment around schools on obesity-related outcomes. *Obesity reviews*, 15(5), 359-374.

Walker, R. E., Keane, C. R., & Burke, J. G. (2010). Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. *Health & place*, 16(5), 876-884.

Zamar, M. A., & Trillo, C. (2022). Influencia de los actores sociales en la circulación comercial de especies vegetales en ferias y mercado de la ciudad de Córdoba (Argentina) y sus alrededores. *Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de Botánica*, 57(3), 1-10.

Zimmerer, K.S., & de Haan, S. (2020). Informal food chains and agrobiodiversity need strengthening—not weakening—to address food security amidst the COVID-19 crisis in South America. *Food Security*, 12(4), 891-894.

<figure><img src="image_143.png" /></figure>
# 9. Appendices

<table><tr><td>Appendix 1. Articles included in the NUCs value chain literature review</td><td>121</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix 2. Database on NUC production in the DIVINFOOD partner countries</td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix 3. Online survey instrument</td><td>128</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix 4. NUCs currently being valued by short and mid-tier chains</td><td>129</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix 5. Definitions of NUCs according to the respondents</td><td>136</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix 6. Participatory Modelling Workshop</td><td>139</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix 7. Case studies to illustrate the typology</td><td>150</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_144.png" /></figure>
Appendix 1. Articles included in the NUCs value chain literature review

<table><thead><tr><td>Source</td><td>Description / reason for selection</td><td>Theme(s)</td><td>Sub-theme</td><td>Search term</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Agnolotti and Santoro 2022</td><td>FAO GIAHS program (heritage sites)</td><td>Program</td><td>Global program</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Amaya et al 2020</td><td>Vendor, processing industry, restaurant, consumer, producer surveys</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Value chains</td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Andreotti et al 2022</td><td>Boom and bust of NUS global demand, market transition/destabilisation</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>All</td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Baird 2022</td><td>Political violence</td><td>Geopolitics, politics</td><td>Conflict</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Baldermann et al 2016</td><td>Storage, processing, trade and retail, consumer, information and communication.<br>Certifications, standards, import-export, traceability</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing<br>Regulatory</td><td>All<br>Trade and regulatory barriers.</td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Barstow et al 2021</td><td>Slow Food: NUS as endangered products</td><td>Programs</td><td>Diverse</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Batur et al 2021</td><td>Seed legislation impedes farmer innovation</td><td>Regulatory</td><td>Seeds</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Bogliotti et al 2021</td><td>Research for development agencies</td><td>Institutions</td><td>International</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Borelli et al 2021</td><td>Mainstreaming toolkit: nutritional information, farmer support, enabling policy environments, consumer demand</td><td>Policy</td><td>All</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Borelli et al 2020</td><td rowspan="3">Linking research to policy and markets, raise awareness to producers and consumers</td><td>Policy</td><td>Science-to-policy, public procurement policies</td><td rowspan="3">NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Awareness and demand</td><td>Nutrition education, dietary guidelines, seasonality calendars</td></tr><tr><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Events, gastronomy, food innovations,</td></tr><tr><td>Caetano et al 2016</td><td>Participatory breeding</td><td>Programs</td><td>Seeds</td><td>NUC, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_145.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td>Camacho-Henriquez et al 2016</td><td>Participatory breeding</td><td>Programs</td><td>Seeds</td><td>NUC, NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Campanaro et al 2019</td><td>DNA barcoding of NUS to raise consumer awareness and identity</td><td>Awareness and demand Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Retail environment Identity</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Chable et al 2020</td><td>Community level seed initiatives, marketing, regulatory bottlenecks, policy recommendations</td><td>Regulatory Institutional Policy</td><td>Seeds</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Da Cunha et al 2020</td><td>Urban gardens hosting NUS</td><td>Local food networks, urban agriculture and gardening</td><td>Urban agriculture and gardening</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Darr et al 2020</td><td>Processing, packaging and consumer preferences (baobab)</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Processing Consumer demand</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>De Boef et al 2013</td><td>Commercialisation, value chains, marketing Regulation</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing Regulatory</td><td>Diverse Diverse</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Galt et al 2016</td><td>CSA and agrobiodiversity as distinction strategy</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>CSA</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Girard and Frison 2018</td><td>Seed commons, intellectual property</td><td>Regulatory</td><td>Commons, intellectual property</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Giuliani et al 2004</td><td>Production-to-consumption chain, marketing, organisation of production system, modes of circulation, roles of actors</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Value chain Commercialisation Marketing</td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Giuliani 2012</td><td>Market and value chain analysis</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Value chain</td><td>AB, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Harris et al 2022</td><td>Review of challenges (all)</td><td>All</td><td>All</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Hermann et al 2013</td><td>Internet knowledge repositories</td><td>Knowledge management</td><td>Digitalisation</td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Hernandez-Gomez 2009</td><td>Little-known tropical fruits</td><td>X</td><td>x</td><td>N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Hoeschle-Zeledon and Jaenicke 2006</td><td>tbd</td><td></td><td></td><td>N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Hunter et al 2019</td><td>All aspects of enabling/constraining environments to mainstreaming</td><td>Policy Programs</td><td>Dietary guidelines Public and school food procurement</td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_146.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Value chain</th><th>Gastronomy</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hunter et al 2021</td><td>Indigenous foodways</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Value chains</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Jaeger et al 2017</td><td>Marketing, value chain, market failure as impure public good</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Value chains</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Johns and Eyzaguirre 2006</td><td>Policy platforms (regional and international)</td><td>Policy</td><td>Regional, international</td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Jones et al 2021</td><td>Agrobiodiversity Index scores</td><td>Knowledge management</td><td>Measurement/evaluation</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Jordan et al 2016</td><td>Innovation platform to coordinate social organisation and relation innovation for sustainable commercialisation</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Commercialisation</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Juventia et al 2020</td><td>Agrobiodiversity Index commitments text mining</td><td>Policy</td><td>Policy discourse</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Kimura 2021</td><td>Pickling and heirloom varieties</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Processing Retail environment</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>King et al 2021</td><td>Enhanced processing and market linkages through participatory, multidisciplinary, community-centred and multistakeholder value chain development interventions</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>All</td><td>NUS, AB, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Kliem and Wolter 2022</td><td>Open food seed licences (consumer perceptions)</td><td>Consumer Regulatory</td><td>Seed</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Li et Siddique 2020</td><td>FAO: Future Smart Food Initiative, Regional Initiative on Zero Hunger</td><td>Programs</td><td></td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Li et al 2020</td><td>FAO: Future Smart Food Initiative, Regional Initiative on Zero Hunger (Asia-Pacific)</td><td>Programs</td><td></td><td>NUS, NUC, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Lochetti 2021</td><td>Understanding seasonality: participatory assessment</td><td>Programs Knowledge management</td><td>Local Participatory</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Luziatelli et al 2020</td><td>Gourmet restaurant use of tuber crops</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Restaurants</td><td>AB, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Lysak et al 2019</td><td>Consumer acceptance breadfruit Hawai</td><td>Consumer</td><td>Willingness to pay</td><td>N+U+C</td></tr><tr><td>Mabhaudhi et al 2017</td><td>R&D&I roadmap for promoting NUC</td><td>Policy</td><td>National policy framework</td><td>NUC, NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_147.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td>Mbosso et al 2020</td><td>Rapid Market Appraisal: traders, producers, processors, rural/urban consumers; bottlenecks, policy recommendations</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing<br>Consumption<br>Policy</td><td>All<br>Survey<br>Recommendations</td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Meier et al 2019</td><td>Consumer willingness to pay premium (DIVERSIFOOD)</td><td>Consumer</td><td>Willingness to pay</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Meinhold and Darr 2021</td><td>Community Based Enterprise, New Product Development. Multistakeholder community pathways. Behavioral changes. Consumers.</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing<br>Consumers</td><td>All<br>Processing</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Mensi and Undenigwe 2021</td><td>Sustainable processing to enhance nutrient bioavailability</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Processing</td><td>NUC, N+U+C</td></tr><tr><td>Milano and Cazella 2021</td><td>Geographical Indications</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Marketing: labelling</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Morimoto et al 2021</td><td>Popping machine prototype experimentation, marketing, packaging and labeling</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Processing<br>Marketing</td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Mudau et al 2022 (systematic review)</td><td>Value addition, market structuring (cooperatives, Agribusiness Accelerators), capacity development</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Commercialisation, value chains</td><td>NUC, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Nizar et al 2020</td><td>Open data</td><td>Knowledge management</td><td>Digitalisation</td><td>NUC, N+U+C</td></tr><tr><td>Notaro et al 2017</td><td>Policy environment for millet</td><td>Policy</td><td>Policy environment</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Padulosi et al 2014</td><td>Program linking and strengthening value chain</td><td>Programs</td><td>Local program</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Padulosi et al 2011</td><td>UN program on entire value chain: value addition technologies, processing standards, capacity building, gender, cultural sensitivity, school programs<br>Food-of-the-poor stigma, crop diversity fairs</td><td>Programs<br>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing<br>Consumer awareness</td><td>Global<br>All<br>Events</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Padulosi and Hunter 2021</td><td>Landmark events, programs, institutions and publications promoting global interest in NUS</td><td>Programs<br>Institutions</td><td>Global<br>Global</td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Padulosi et al (Eds.) 2021</td><td>Introduction to key book on "orphan crops"</td><td>All aspects</td><td>All</td><td>NUS, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_148.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td>Padulosi et al 2021</td><td>IFAD program on holistic value chain framework: interdisciplinary, bottom-up, gender-sensitive, indigenous peoples</td><td>Programs</td><td>International</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Pallante et al 2016</td><td>Willingness to pay of urban consumers which compensates for conservation costs</td><td>Consumer demand</td><td>Willingness to pay</td><td>NUS, AB, N+U+C, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Pereira et al 2022</td><td>Transformation lab</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Processing</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Posadinu et al 2021</td><td>Consumer willingness to pay</td><td>Consumer</td><td>Willingness to pay</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Resque et al 2019</td><td>Public mediated markets including schools</td><td>Programs</td><td>Public procurement</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Rover et al 2020</td><td>AFN</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>AFN</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Runhaar et al 2019</td><td>Citizens and intrinsic value agrobiodiversity</td><td>Consumer</td><td>Willingness to pay</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Sacchi et al 2018</td><td>AFN and local food to promote cereal agrobiodiversity</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>AFN, local food</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Santili 2013</td><td>Innovative legal systems for agrobiodiversity</td><td>Regulatory</td><td>Farmer's rights GHIAS</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>FAO GHIAS program</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Scaramuzzi et al 2021</td><td>Case-study: policy, consumer, value chains</td><td>Policy environments Demand Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>xxx</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Swensson and Tartanec</td><td>Public and school food procurement for agrobiodiversity</td><td>Policy, programs</td><td>Public procurement</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Tamariz and Baumann</td><td>Violent conflict and agrobiodiversity</td><td>Politics, geopolitics</td><td>Conflict</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Tampaki et al 2022</td><td>Consumer perspectives and eco-labelling</td><td>Consumer</td><td>Labelling</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Taranto et al 2021</td><td>Agritourism</td><td>Multifunctionality: ecosystem services, conservation, agritourism, etc.</td><td>Agritourism</td><td>NUC, AB, N+U+C</td></tr><tr><td>Timmermann and Robaey 2016</td><td>Agrobiodiversity under property regimes</td><td>Regulatory</td><td>Intellectual property</td><td>AB</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_149.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th>Torres et al 2022</th><th>Policy commitments to agrobiodiversity in Mexico</th><th>Policy</th><th>Discourse</th><th>AB</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Torres-Salcido 2022</td><td rowspan="2">Participatory certification and alternative markets</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Value chains</td><td rowspan="2">AB</td></tr><tr><td>Consumer</td><td>Perception, prosumption</td></tr><tr><td>Van Amstel-Van Saane 2007</td><td>Industry self-regulation for agrobiodiversity</td><td>Regulatory</td><td>Industry</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Van Amstel et al 2007</td><td>Standards: eco-labels</td><td>Regulatory</td><td>Labelling</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Van Dexter and Ingalls 2022</td><td>Violence and agrobiodiversity</td><td>Politics, geopolitics</td><td>Conflict</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Vandebroek et al 2021</td><td>Develop Jamaican root cottage industry</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>All</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Vergueiro et al 2021</td><td>Role/voice of private sector in promoting NUS</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>All</td><td>NUS, N+U+S</td></tr><tr><td>Zamar and Trillo 2022</td><td>Food fairs (municipal, market, specialised)</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Events</td><td>AB</td></tr><tr><td>Zimmerer and De Haan 2020</td><td>Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework: governance of markets, logistics and distribution networks and seed systems</td><td>Value chains, processing, commercialisation and marketing</td><td>Commercialisation, marketing</td><td>AB</td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: Search term acronyms in title are: NUC ("neglected and underutilised crop"), NUS ("neglected and underutilised species"), N+U+C ("neglected" AND "underutilised" AND "crop"), N+U+S ("neglected" AND "underutilised" AND "species"), AB ("agrobiodiversity")

<figure><img src="image_150.png" /><figcaption>**Table 59.** Synthesis table of the 78 reviewed articles from Scopus</figcaption></figure>
**Appendix 2. Database on NUC production in the DIVINFOOD partner countries**

The database built of initiatives valuing NUCs can be accessed on Zenodo on the following link: https://zenodo.org/records/12775303

See also the document “Additional material to Appendix 2” with presents national statistics on DIVINFOOD's NUCs production in the 7 DIVINFOOD countries on Zenodo on the following link: https://zenodo.org/records/12825599

<figure><img src="image_151.png" /></figure>
# Appendix 3. Online survey instrument

<figure><img src="image_152.png" /></figure>

DIVINFOOD

<figure><img src="image_153.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_154.png" /></figure>

RÉPUBLIQUE
FRANÇAISE

Liberté
Égalité
Fraternité

INRAE

## Valuing food products made from neglected and under-utilised crops

Fields marked with * are mandatory.

### 1 Introduction

DIVINFOOD aims at developing food chains valuing agrobiodiversity and procuring plant-based food that are good for health, farmers and the planet. To achieve this, a survey is being conducted with all initiatives (companies, farmers, shops, associations, organisations, cooperatives...) that sell or promote neglected and underutilised legumes and cereals (NUCs) in 7 European countries (Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland), such as legumes or cereals from old, local or indigenous varieties.
This survey is managed by INRAE and the information will be processed by INRAE.

The decision to take part in this survey is voluntary and should take a maximum of 15 minutes.

See the complete survey instrument in the document "Additional material to Appendix 3" on the following link on Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/records/12826837

<figure><img src="image_155.png" /></figure>
## Appendix 4. NUCs currently being valued by short and mid-tier chains

This appendix includes those NUCs from cereals and from legumes that were cited by the initiatives in response to the question "Q3.6/3.7 - Please specify the varieties of cereals/legumes that you consider as NUCs" for each country".

Figures in brackets indicate the number of initiatives that cited the NUCs in question according to their type (F= farmers; I=intermediaries; O=Other; P= processors; S=Shops).

The line "Number of NUCs cited by initiatives" is given as an indication, as the level/precision of citation is very heterogeneous according to the initiatives. For example, an initiative that cited only "ancient wheat" was counted as a single citation, whereas an initiative that cited many specific varieties of ancient wheats (e.g. Virgilio, Gallio, Ardito) was counted as three citations.

*Sum of initiatives declaring NUCS from cereals is 66 as one initiative varieties that do not belong to the cereal category

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Denmark (n=5)</th><th>France (n=30)</th><th>Hungary (n=13)</th><th>Italy (n=10)</th><th>Portugal (n=7)</th><th>Sweden (n=5)</th><th>Switzerland (n=8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Number of initiatives with NUCS CEREALS (66)*</th><td>5 (2 P; 3 S)</td><td>28 (14 F; 51; 10; 1 P; 7 S)</td><td>9 (4 F; 31; 1 P; 1 S)</td><td>9 (6 F; 11; 2 P)</td><td>6 (3 F; 3 S)</td><td>3 (2 P; 1 S)</td><td>6 (2 F; 4 O)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_156.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td>Number of initiatives without any precisions about the type of NUCS CEREALS (13)</td><td>Any citation (1 S)</td><td>Local cereals not listed in the official catalogue (1 F) Other varieties of mass selections, names unknown (1 F) Cereals population (2: 1 I ; 1 S) More than 200 varieties without precisions (1 O)</td><td>Local varieties (1 P) 25 ancient varieties of grains out of 100 present in Italy (1 P) Many varieties (1 F)</td><td>Ancient varieties (1 F)</td><td>Numerous varieties (any precision - 1 O) Many varieties (1 O) Any citations (1 F)</td></tr><tr><td>Number of NUCS CEREALS cited by initiatives</td><td>2 citations (1 P)<br/>3 citations (1 P)<br/>4 citations (1 S)<br/>5 citations (1 S)</td><td>1 citation (10 : 5 F ; 3 I ; 2 S)<br/>2 citations (8 : 5 F ; 3 S)<br/>3 citations (2 : 1 I ; 1 S)<br/>4 citations (1 F)<br/>5 citations (1 P)<br/>6 citations (1 F)</td><td>1 citation (5 : 1 F ; 3 I ; 1 P)<br/>2 citations (1 F)<br/>3 citations (1 I)<br/>6 citations (1 F)<br/>12 citations (1 F)</td><td>1 citation (2 S)<br/>2 citations (1 F)<br/>3 citations (2 : 1 F ; 1 S)</td><td>1 citation (1 P)<br/>2 citations (1 S)<br/>5 citations (1 P)</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_157.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td rowspan="12">WHEAT (84)</td><td rowspan="12">Emmer (3: 1 P; 2 S)<br/>Island wheat (1 S)<br/>Red wheat (1 P)<br/>Purple wheat (1 P)</td><td>Ancient varieties (6: 2 F; 1 I; 3 S)<br/>Red Bordeaux wheat (4 F)<br/>Poulard wheat (5: 4 F (1 = Turgidum blue); 1 I)<br/>Naunette de Lausanne wheat (2 F)<br/>Touzelle (2: 1 F; 1 S)<br/>Castelnau wheat (1 F)<br/>Red of Lot (1 F)<br/>Red of Morvan (1 F)<br/>Red of Roc (1 F)<br/>Carré de Crête (1 F)<br/>Triticale (1 S)<br/>Khorasan wheat (1 S)<br/>Farro (1 P)<br/>Freekeh (1 P)<br/>Florence Aurora (1 I)<br/>Soft local wheat (1 F)<br/>Wheat populations (1 F)</td><td>Alakor (hungary variety - 4: 2 F; 1 I; 1 S)<br/>Emmer (tönke - 2: 1 F; 1 S)<br/>Bánkút wheat (local variety - 1 F)<br/>Starch wheat (1 F)</td><td>Inallettabile (2 F)<br/>Piave (2 F)<br/>Local durum wheat (1 F)<br/>Local soft wheat (1 F)<br/>Local variety Rieti wheat (1 F)<br/>Mallorca (1 I)<br/>Saragolla (1 I)<br/>Starch wheat (1 F)<br/>Trimina (1 I)<br/>Autonomy (1 F)<br/>Villa Glory (1 F)<br/>Frassineto (1 F)<br/>Canove (1 F)<br/>Gentil Rosso (1 F)<br/>Cobra Q population (1 F)<br/>Cobra A population (1 F)<br/>mixture 180 (1 F)<br/>Li Rosi duri mixture (1 F)<br/>Andriolo (1 F)<br/>Virgil (1 F)<br/>Gallio (1 F)<br/>Ardito (1 F)</td><td>Ancient varieties (1 F)<br/>Barbela wheat (1 F)<br/>Dew wheat (1 F)<br/>Khorasan wheat (2: 1 F; 1 S)</td><td>Dala country wheat (1 P)<br/>Värmland wheat (1 P)<br/>Västgöta wheat (1 P)<br/>Emmer (1 P)<br/>Öland wheat (1 P)<br/>Starch wheat (1 S)</td><td>Emmer (2 O)<br/>Triticale (1 O)<br/>Many varieties of wheat (1 O)</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_158.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td>EINKORN (17)</td><td>Einkorn (2 S)</td><td>Einkorn (5: 2 F; 1 I; 1 P; 1 S)<br/>Einkorn from Haute Provence (2: 1 I; 1 S)<br/>Einkorn wheat (1 F)</td><td>Alako rbuza (hungarian variety - 1 F)</td><td>Einkorn spelled (1 F)<br/>Einkorn wheat (1 F)<br/>Einkorn variety Haermann (1 F)</td><td>Einkorn (1 P)<br/>Einkorn wheat (1 S)</td><td>Einkorn (Triticum monococcum - 1 O)</td></tr><tr><td>SPELT (16)</td><td>Spelt (3: 2 S; 1 P)</td><td>Spelt (3 S)<br/>Oberkulmer spelled wheat (1 F)</td><td>Spelt (2: 1 P; 1 F)<br/>Tönkölybúza (hungarian local; 2 I)</td><td>Local variety of spelt (1 F)</td><td>Spelt (3: 2 F; 1 S)</td><td>Spelt (1 O)</td></tr><tr><td>MAIZE (5)</td><td></td><td>ancient maize (1 F)</td><td></td><td>Local variety of maize (1 F)</td><td>Corasano maize (1 S)<br/>White maize (1 F)</td><td>Many varieties of maize (1 O)</td></tr><tr><td>RYE (5)</td><td>Sweder rye (1 S)<br/>Swedjer (1 S)</td><td></td><td></td><td>Local variety of rye (1 F)</td><td></td><td>Forest perennial rye (1 F)<br/>Many varieties of rye (1 O)</td></tr><tr><td>BUCKWHEAT (5)</td><td></td><td>Buckwheat (3: 1 I; 1 P; 1 S - Kasha)</td><td>Buckwheat (1 F)</td><td></td><td>Buckwheat (1 S)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BARLEY (2)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Local variety of barley (1 F)</td><td></td><td>Many varieties of barley (1 O)</td></tr><tr><td>FONIO (1)</td><td>Fonio (1 P)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Teff (1 S)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TEFF (1)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_159.png" /></figure>
NUCS from legumes cited by the initiatives.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Denmark (n=5)</th><th>France (n=30)</th><th>Hungary (n=13)</th><th>Italy (n=10)</th><th>Portugal (n=7)</th><th>Sweden (n=5)</th><th>Switzerland (n=8)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Number of initiatives with NUCS LEGUMES (38)</td><td>3 (1 P; 2 S)</td><td>10 (3 F; 3 I; 1 P; 4 S)</td><td>5 (2 F; 3 I)</td><td>6 (3 F; 1 I; 2 P)</td><td>5 (2 F; 1 O; 2 S)</td><td>4 (1 F; 2 P; 1 S)</td><td>6 (1 F; 5 O)</td></tr><tr><td>Number of initiatives without any precisions about the type of NUCS LEGUMES (7)</td><td>1 (S) = + many other<br>1 (S) = any citation</td><td>1 (S) = not knowledgeable on the subject + many legumes (any precision)</td><td></td><td></td><td>1 (F) = all indigenous varieties or varieties normally consumed in the country</td><td>1 (P) = old country varieties<br>1 (P) = all local varieties that some growers propagate</td><td>1 (O) = numerous varieties (any precision)</td></tr><tr><td>Number of NUCS LEGUMES cited by initiatives</td><td>4 citations (1 P)<br>Many (1 S)</td><td>1 citation (4: 1 I; 1 F; 1 P; 2 S)<br>2 citations (3: 2 F; 1 I)<br>3 citations (1 S)<br>4 citations (1 I)</td><td>1 citation (3: 1 F; 2 I)<br>2 citations (1 I)<br>4 citations (1 F)</td><td>1 citation (3: 1 F; 1 I; 1 P)<br>3 citations (2 F)<br>4 citations (1 P)</td><td>1 citation (1 S)<br>2 citations (2: 1 F; 1 O)<br>3 citations (1 S)<br>Many (1 F)</td><td>4 citations (1 F)<br>6 citations (1 S)<br>Many (2 P)</td><td>1 citation (2: 1 F; 1 O)<br>2 citations (1 O)<br>3 citations (1 O)<br>Many (2 O)</td></tr><tr><td>LENTILS (20)</td><td>Beluga lentils (1 P)<br>Puy lentils (1 P)</td><td>Lentils (3: 1 F; 2 I)<br>Green lentils (1 S)<br>Blond lentils (1 S)<br>Lentillons (1 F)<br>Corail lentils (2 F)</td><td></td><td>Lentils (various types) (1 F)<br>Solento lentils (1 I)<br>Local varieties of red lentils (1 P)</td><td>Lentils (1 F)</td><td>Gotland lentils (3: 1 F, 1 P; 1 S: gotlandslins)<br>Green lentils (Grön lins Anica.) (1 S)<br>Corail Lentils</td><td>Lentils (1 O)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_160.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>(korallins Rosanna) (1 S)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PEAS (16)</td><td>Green peas (1 S)</td><td>Snow peas (1 l)</td><td>Green peas (1 F)</td><td>Local varieties of peas (1 P)<br/>Grass peas (1 F)<br/>Roveja (1 F)</td><td>Grass peas (Lathyrus sativus)<br/>(1 O)<br/>Cow peas (vigna unguiculata) (1 O)</td><td>Grey peas (3 : 1 P ;<br/>1 F : Stäme gray pea<br/>; 1 S : Gråärt ; 1 F :<br/>Rättviksärt)<br/>Vreta yellow peas<br/>(3 : 1 F ; 1 P ; 1 S :<br/>gul ärt Vreta)<br/>Autumn sown peas<br/>(höstärt) (1 S)</td><td>Sweet peas (1 O)</td></tr><tr><td>BEANS (16)</td><td>Fuegobønner bean<br/>(1 S)</td><td>Beans (3 : 1 I ; 2 S)<br/>Dried beans (1 I)<br/>Azuki Bean (1 P)</td><td>Beans (1 I)<br/>Vigna beans (1 F)<br/>Mung beans (1 F)<br/>Local heirloom<br/>Phaseolus beans (1 F)</td><td>Beans (2 : 1 F, 1 P -<br/>local varieties)</td><td>Black beans (1 F)<br/>Azuki beans (1 S)<br/>Papo-da-Rola<br/>beans (local) (1 S)<br/>Catarino Beans (1 S)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CHICKPEAS (12)</td><td>Chickpeas (1 P)</td><td>Chickpeas (3 : 1 F ; 2 I)</td><td>Chickpeas (3 : 1 F ;<br/>2 I)</td><td>Chickpeas (3 : 2 F, 1<br/>P - local varieties)</td><td>Grão preto (1 S)</td><td></td><td>Chickpeas (1 O)</td></tr><tr><td>FABA BEANS (4)</td><td>Horse beans (1 P)</td><td></td><td>Horse beans (1 I)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>15 different<br/>varieties of vicia</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_161.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 60.** NUCS from cereals cited by the initiatives</caption><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>faba (1 O)<br/>Broad beans (1 O)</td></tr><tr><td>LUPIN (4)</td><td></td><td>Lupins (1 S)</td><td>Lupins (2 : 1 F ; 1 P)</td><td></td><td></td><td>Lupins (1 O)</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_162.png" /></figure>
## Appendix 5. Definitions of NUCs according to the respondents

This appendix includes the answer to the open response question that asked the initiatives to explain why they considered the varieties that listed to be NUCs (Q3.13)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Not known</td><td>42</td><td>54,0</td></tr><tr><td>- By the consumers, less known, little known, little used, not used that much, not asked by consumers, customers don't even know their usage options, consumers need to be informed, need communication (education, no school education, no public catering), don't know how to use, to process/prepare them or know their nutritional benefits...</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Not found in the classic sales channels, rarely present or absent from traditional commercial circuits, not found in supermarkets, almost no longer available for purchase, less sold, difficult to obtain nowadays, niche markets, not marketed, do not find buyers on the markets outside of a microcosm of very motivated and informed consumers...</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- No longer found, few grown, cultivation has almost been abandoned, has been cultivated and used less and less over time, only grown on very little area or for feed mixtures/green manures and have hardly been used in breeding any more, forgotten production, difficult to obtain as few people grow them, not grown by neighbouring farmers, few processed, not care by the industry, not used in baking...</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Seeds/variety</td><td>29</td><td>37,0</td></tr><tr><td>- Local; local ecotypes; indigenous variety; produced locally; endemic varieties</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Authentic (compared to intensive production and genetic manipulation)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Peasant seeds, from farmers, from research</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Old; still exists in conservatories; have conservation status; used in the past; forgotten; loss; difficult to find; few varieties; now out of use</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Rare, endangered varieties</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- New but rarely used and requiring selection</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Not referenced in the official catalogues, in the register of conservation varieties</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Varieties gradually abandoned in favour of lineal or hybrid varieties; grains thrown up by the agri-food industry; traditional crops, abandoned for maize and high yielding wheat</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Lack of varietal diversity, lack of seeds, lack of technical data</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Difficult to grow</td><td>23</td><td>29,5</td></tr><tr><td>- Low productivity; low yield; lack of popularity; less productive varieties; cultivation is also very hardy; grow slowly...</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Little value; not profitable; cheaper abroad...</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_163.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td>- Small crops, limited volume, difficulty in opening sales contracts with distributors; need research; too labour intensive field trials to be incorporated into market production; need human resources have to be dedicated to this kind of research; not adapted to mass distribution; supplanted by commercial varieties; virtually disappeared when farming became an industry; not asked by large baking companies as there is no volume; grown in non-industrial quantities; do not meet the expectations of modern varieties, they are cultivated in a very narrow circle, mainly in small-scale conditions; substituted by more productive modern varieties with higher gluten strength...</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Difficult to process</td><td>6</td><td>7,7</td></tr><tr><td>- Loss because difficult to process</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Require great baking skills; grains with little gluten, which give flours with low w, defined as non-bread making</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Need for dehulling after harvesting for its use</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Provide agroecological benefits</td><td>13</td><td>16,7</td></tr><tr><td>- They are grown biodynamically, which takes care of the soil's fertility and binds; organic production or agroecology; not needing external inputs; low inputs...</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- With a high capacity for adaptation to the environment and resilience; Can also be grown in places with poorer agricultural conditions, resistance is better; naturally resistant to current climatic conditions; adapted to the hot and dry climate, which stores carbon, which improves soil fertility; some can withstand drought better...</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Are very good for the environment, great potential as sustainable...</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Preserve biodiversity compared to large corporate varieties...</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Development of innovative, local and sustainable supply chains, promoting the preservation of genetic diversity...</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Provide health benefits</td><td>13</td><td>16,7</td></tr><tr><td>- Nutritional qualities; healthy; good for the heath; nutritional value and effect on human metabolism deserve more attention and consumption; interesting in terms of its nutritional values; great potential as nutritious foods; products of high nutritional quality</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Better digestibility; more digestible; a low gluten strength, which studies showed as more digestible; great interest both from a nutritional point of view - gluten-free - rich in protein with a broad spectrum of essential amino acids; have great potential as plant-based protein suppliers</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Provide process potential (great potential as food ingredients; can be used well; good opportunities for baked goods or the production of pasta; can be well suited as a bread grain; with high potential...)</td><td>4</td><td>5,1</td></tr><tr><td>Provide organoleptic advantages (better taste, give good bread, appearance, size, regularity)</td><td>2</td><td>2,6</td></tr><tr><td>Authenticity/quality; unmodified</td><td>2</td><td>2,6</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_164.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 61.** Reasons given by the initiatives to consider products as being NUCS</caption><tr><td>Consumers are looking for, in recent years conscious buyers start looking for them</td><td>2</td><td>2,6</td></tr><tr><td>Higher price, very expensive</td><td>2</td><td>2,6</td></tr><tr><td>Provide diversity in varieties like local varieties, taste, colour, shape</td><td>1</td><td>1,3</td></tr><tr><td>Easy-to-cultivate qualities</td><td>1</td><td>1,3</td></tr><tr><td>Same advantages as all vegetables</td><td>1</td><td>1,3</td></tr><tr><td>Loss for cultural/religion reasons</td><td>1</td><td>1,3</td></tr><tr><td>Don't know/no responses</td><td>7</td><td>8,9</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_165.png" /></figure>
# Appendix 6. Participatory Modelling Workshop

## Participatory modelling

Participatory modelling was proposed as a means to test the validity of our typology. Emerging from natural resources management and complex systems, participatory modelling is the process of incorporating stakeholders into the modelling process (Voinov and Gaddis, 2008). A participatory workshop is organised whereby information is solicited from stakeholders, thus enabling the integration of scientific knowledge with local knowledge. The approach is goal driven, meaning that the purpose of the model and how it will be used is clearly defined. This approach levels the playing field among different types of experts. It produces co-learning, co-understanding and co-creation of models or typologies that are useful to stakeholders (Quimby and Beresford 2023).

The primary objective of the workshop was to **present, discuss in detail and validate the 1st version of the NUC value chain typology** with participants from the Living Labs of the project and external value chain experts. Based on their feedback, a 2nd version of the typology could be developed with the necessary modifications.

## Workshop details

Date/Format: 27 March 2024, 10:00-13:00 CET / Online - Zoom

Participants: 14 Living Lab coordinators and other project participants from five countries (DK, FR, HU, IT, PT) and 13 external value chain experts from four countries (FR, HU, IT, PT)

<table><caption>**Table 62.** Agenda of the participatory modelling workshop</caption><thead><tr><td>Time</td><td>Agenda point</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>10:00-10:15</td><td>Welcome and introductions</td></tr><tr><td>10:15-10:30</td><td>Presentation of the DIVINFOOD project and work on the consumption value of agrobiodiversity by project coordinator, Yuna Chifoleau</td></tr><tr><td>10:30-11:00</td><td>Presentation of DIVINFOOD's NUCs Value Chain Typology, Q&A</td></tr><tr><td>11:00-11:30</td><td>Coffee break</td></tr><tr><td>11:30-12:10</td><td>Breakout rooms in the following groups<ul><li>France - DIVINFOOD Living Labs and experts</li><li>Hungary - DIVINFOOD Living Labs and experts</li><li>Sweden and Denmark - DIVINFOOD Living Labs and experts</li><li>Italy and Switzerland - DIVINFOOD Living Labs and experts</li><li>Portugal - DIVINFOOD Living Labs and experts</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>12:10-12:50</td><td>Plenary discussion, feedback from breakout rooms</td></tr><tr><td>12:50-13:00</td><td>Closing remarks, conclusions</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_166.png" /></figure>
## Presentation of typology

The typology was based broadly on a database of 1,272 short, medium and long value chain initiatives valuing NUCs (legumes and minor cereals) compiled across seven countries. Detailed information on the initiatives and the role of NUCs was collected through an online survey (n=72 at the time of the participatory modelling workshop). We relied directly on the characteristics of these 72 initiatives to develop the first version of the value chain typology.

In the first half of the workshop, the database of initiatives, the analysis methodology, the related descriptive statistics, and the approach used to define the value chain types were presented, followed by the first version of the typology.

In this first approach, the *attributes* found in the relevant literature of “value-based supply chains” to characterise value chains, were used as *variables* to distinguish between the different value-chain types. For each variable, we gave a definition, assigned a practical application in the typology, and a hypothesis that could be tested using the variable. See examples in the table below.

<table><caption>**Table 63.** Variable operationalisation</caption><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Definition</td><td>Operationalisation</td><td>Hypotheses</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Maturity of the enterprise</td><td>The date of foundation ranges from 1819 to 2023</td><td>Traditional (founded before 2000), Mature (founded between 2000-2010), Young (founded between 2010-2020), Post-Covid (founded since 2021)</td><td>Food chains valuing NUCs are more likely to be young enterprises</td></tr><tr><td>Mission first</td><td>Number and type of missions</td><td>Four groups of mission: Health, Nature, Local economy, Nutrition Number of missions: 0-13</td><td>Food chains valuing NUCs have more than one mission</td></tr></tbody></table>

As a next step, the typology was presented in detail, supplemented with brief introductions of typical exemplary cases drawn from the database.

In the first version of the typology, four ideal types of value chains were defined, distinguished by the role of the key drivers/lead actors of the initiative and further described using the additional variables. See the brief description of the four value chain types below. The full version of the 1st typology can be found in the document “Additional material to Appendix 6” on the following Zenodo link: https://zenodo.org/records/12826919

* **Farm-Focused Value Chains:** These value chains are driven by producers who mainly sell their own locally sourced products, specialising in cereals, with little competition. The primary benefits of selling NUCs in these chains are environmental.

* **Market Quality Value Chains:** Driven by intermediaries, like online platforms, these chains focus on high-quality products and maintain long-term contracts with farmers, ensuring stable mid-tier supply chains. They deliver similar consumer prices and sales margins for NUCs as conventional products, with benefits extending to social and economic gains, alongside environmental ones.

* **Collective Market Value Chains:** These value chains are driven by hybrid intermediaries, such as processors, restaurants, and traders who also produce what they sell, characterised by collaborative efforts and long-term contracts. They promote a range of

<figure><img src="image_167.png" /></figure>
benefits, including cultural and environmental, through their intermediary roles, though
a clear social mission is not always articulated.

*   **Diversified Value Chains:** Driven by shops with both physical and online presence, these value chains are highly diversified, relying on indirect supply and one-time sales to offer a wide variety of NUCs. These shops face little competition for NUCs, with higher consumer prices but maintaining the same profit margins as similar conventional products.

During the Q&A session, there were questions about the definition of NUCs used in the project and which types of value chains were included in the analysis, particularly whether medium and long value chains were considered. Participants also asked whether the benefits from NUCs might lead to coordinated campaigns among initiatives or remained individual efforts, and whether initiatives were self-sufficient or received incentives and support to promote NUCs. An initial interesting finding was that initiatives valuing NUCs were motivated by environmental concerns and missions, rather than economic benefits.

Breakout sessions and plenary discussion

In the breakout sessions, participants gave feedback on the typology and the description of the
four value chain types along the following set of questions:

1. Conceptual linkages: Are the value chain dynamics captured?

2. Clarification of the categories: Are there some categories that are not clearly defined or could be better defined?

3. Distinctiveness: Are the presented value chains distinctive enough to be considered discrete types?

4. Empirical examples: Does the typology describe initiatives that you are familiar with?

5. What is missing?

The session moderators then presented the main feedback from each group in the plenary session.
**Only summaries from the moderators are provided below; full transcripts of group
discussions are available in the document "Additional material to Appendix 6" on the
following link on Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/records/12826919**

*   **France:** The group primarily focused on Farm-Focused Value Chains, and suggestions and criticisms were made in this context. Participants acknowledged the diverse category of 'farmers', ranging from farmers' cooperatives to individual and isolated farmers, making categorisation really challenging due to varying operational styles, levels of competition, etc. Factors other than the role of the leading actor, such as governance, contract types, etc., also influence the operation of initiatives and the role of NUCs, therefore the typology is somewhat biased and incomplete. Some of the variables are not compact enough: environmental concerns may also vary widely. Below-radar initiatives might be locally important, but they do not have drop out from the analysis. A recurring criticism was that certain categories of typology are difficult to distinguish, with a lot of overlap and classification is difficult.

*   **Italy:** Experts found that the concept of the 'leading actor role' as a key criterion of differentiation did not align with their views. "Market quality" and "collective market" categories were hard for the participants to differentiate, especially because in several real-life cases, collective effort of players has a bigger role in the value chain than the

<figure><img src="image_168.png" /></figure>
leading actor itself, finding a proper place for large players (e.g., supermarkets) difficult. Some real-life examples also struggled to fit within the typology. As an example, a farm that is partly selling NUCs on-farm, and partly to an urban shop, or as another example, the new and unusual retail spaces in cities, such as newspaper stores, where food is also sold.

* **Portugal & Denmark:** The presence of supermarkets selling local products raised questions about their classification. Some examples fit into more than one category, or some categories are overlapping. Finding a category for NGOs, non-profits, or those initiatives that do not sell, but promote NUCs, was rather challenging. New aspects/variables were suggested, such as sustainability and resilience, or the presence/absence of communication/promotion tools such as in-store nudging. Considerations for enterprise incentives and in-store nudging were proposed.

* **Hungary:** A fundamental question that arose was what exactly the purpose of the typology is. It was noted as one of the weaknesses of typology, that it does not consider the potential for initiatives to switch categories over time. Participants found it challenging to differentiate categories Market Quality and Collective Market. Some initiatives could not fit neatly into any category, including shopping communities, big online stores (without any mission), and below-radar trade did not align with existing categories. Additionally, for many, NUCs represented only a small portion of their business, making classification solely based on this aspect unjustified.

## Outcomes

To effectively develop a typology, it is essential to clearly define our objectives. The initial approach, based on the available data was to understand how individual initiative value NUCs, examine their connections with other actors and identify the type of value chain they build up or belong to. In this approach, the structure and dynamics of value chains played a crucial role in how successfully NUCs are valued.

Based on the questions and feedback from participants, we need to take a different approach. It is increasingly clear that NUCs themselves will hardly make a difference in the value chains. Marketing of NUCs by leveraging their associated values and benefits, as well as consumer engagement (incl.: sharing recipes, organising tasting events, explanations of benefits, communication with restaurants, etc.) seems to be more critical for the success of NUCs than the value chain structure and dynamics itself.

It should also be recognised that NUCs and NUC-based products predominantly feature within value chains as components of wider concepts, representing and exemplifying concepts such as diversity, uniqueness, specificity, tradition, health or geographical indication. The concept of 'NUC-ness' does not inherently manifest as a singular value proposition, and/or is not recognised by the value chain actors either.

The current consideration is whether the most effective approach for enhancing the integration of NUCs into value chains is to introduce the concept of NUC independently and attribute and communicate its intrinsic value, or alternatively, to align NUC features with established concepts already acknowledged as valuable. This, of course, also leads back to rethinking the definition of NUCs.

<figure><img src="image_169.png" /></figure>