# Deliverable D1.4 - Typology of short and mid-tier chains valuing biodiversity, including SMART indexes of agrobiodiversity use in marketing and data

Allison Loconto, Géraldine Enderli, Attila Králl, Zsófia Veér, Dalia Mattioni, Francisco Garrido-Garza, Héléna Boukhatmi, Raphaël Stephens, Georg Carlsson, Luca Colombo, et al.

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

## To cite this version:

Allison Loconto, Géraldine Enderli, Attila Králl, Zsófia Veér, Dalia Mattioni, et al. Deliverable D1.4 - Typology of short and mid-tier chains valuing biodiversity, including SMART indexes of agrobiodiversity use in marketing and data. Zenodo. 2024, 198 p. [https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05300554v1](https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05300554v1)

HAL Id: hal-05300554

[https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05300554v1](https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05300554v1)

Submitted on 7 Oct 2025

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

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

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# DIVINFOOD

## Co-constructing interactive short and mid-tier food chains to value agrobiodiversity in healthy plant-based food

## Deliverable D1.4

*Typology of short and mid-tier chains valuing biodiversity, including SMART indexes of agrobiodiversity use in marketing and data*

**Due date of deliverable:** M24

**Actual submission date:** M29

**Start date of the project:** March 1st, 2022

**Duration:** 60 months

**Organisation name of lead contractor:** Agri Kulti Nonprofit Ltd.

**Revision:** V4

<table><thead><tr><td colspan="2">Dissemination level</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Public - PU</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including Commission Services) - CO</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Classified, as referred to in Commission Decision 2001/844/EC - CI</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
Metadata

<table><tr><td>CALL</td><td>H2020-SFS-2020-2</td></tr><tr><td>Topic</td><td>SFS-01-2018-2019-2020 - Biodiversity in action: across farmland and the value chain</td></tr><tr><td>Project ID</td><td>101000383</td></tr><tr><td>Project website</td><td>www.DIVINFOOD.eu</td></tr><tr><td>Document type</td><td>Deliverable</td></tr><tr><td>Title</td><td>Deliverable D1.4 - Typology of short and mid-tier chains valuing biodiversity, including SMART indexes of agrobiodiversity use in marketing, and data</td></tr><tr><td>Author(s)</td><td>Loconto, Allison (INRAE)<br/>Enderli, Geraldine (INRAE)<br/>Králl, Attila (Agri Kulti)<br/>Veér, Zsófia (Agri Kulti)<br/>Mattioni, Dalia (UNIPI)<br/>Garrido-Garza, Francisco (INRAE)<br/>Boukhatmi, Héléna (INRAE)<br/>Stephens, Raphaël (INRAE)<br/>Carlsson, Georg (SLU)<br/>Colombo, Luca (FIRAB)<br/>Hernández, Paola (UÉvora)<br/>Lazarro, Mariateresa (FIBL)<br/>Pietromarchi, Alba (FIRAB)<br/>Szira, Fruzsina (ÖMKI)</td></tr><tr><td>Date of creation</td><td>2024/07/25</td></tr><tr><td>Version number</td><td>V4</td></tr><tr><td>Internal reviewers</td><td>Carlota Vaz Patto (UNL), Yuna Chiffoleau (INRAE) and Vincent Troillard (IT)</td></tr><tr><td>Keywords</td><td>Value chains, agrobiodiversity, value, benefits, intermediaries, food environment, NUCs, typology, SMART indexes</td></tr><tr><td>Dissemination level</td><td>Public</td></tr></table>

To cite this document:

Loconto A., Enderli, G., Králl, A., Veér, Zs., Mattioni, D., Garrido-Garza, F., Boukhatmi, H., Stephens, R., Carlsson, G., Colombo, L., Hernández, P., Lazarro, M., Petromarchi, A., Szira, F. 2024. Deliverable D1.4 - Typology of short and mid-tier chains valuing biodiversity, including SMART indexes of agrobiodiversity use in marketing and data. DIVINFOOD H2020 project, report, 197 p. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.12823535

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
# Table of contents

<table><tr><td>Glossary</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Table of figures</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Table of tables</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Executive summary</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>1. Introduction</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>1.1 Background on DIVINFOOD</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>1.2 Background on DIVINFOOD Work Package 1</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>1.3 Aims and scope of the study</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>1.4 Limitations of the study</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>1.5 Structure of the report</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>2. Literature review</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>2.1 Evolutions in value chain typologies</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2.2 Communicating values and qualities in SFSCs</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>2.3 NUCs value chains</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.1 Value chains</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.1.1 Comprehensive value chain analyses</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.1.2 Transformation: preparation, processing, packaging and marketing</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.1.3 Consumer awareness</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.1.4 Governance of value chains</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.1.5 Alternative and local food networks</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.2 Institutions: programs, policies and regulation</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.2.1 International and continental level programs and policies</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.2.2 National level programs and policies</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.2.3 Policies to encourage broader participation</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.2.4 Regulation</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>2.4 Research gaps</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>3. The "NUC environments" in DIVINFOOD partner countries</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>3.1 Data collection strategy</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>3.2 National level statistics</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>3.3 General trends in NUCs production at the national level</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>4. Survey methodology</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>4.1 Identification of initiatives valuing/selling NUCs</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>4.2 Survey instrument</td><td>46</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td>5. Survey results</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>5.1 Introduction</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>5.2 Database description</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>5.3 Descriptive analysis of the NUCs initiatives</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>5.3.1 Profiles of the initiatives</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>5.3.2 Plant-based foods and NUCs</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>5.3.3. Digital tools and communication of the initiatives</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>5.3.4 Production, quality and prices</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>5.3.5 Price, competition, demand and challenges</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>5.4 Conclusions from reading the descriptive statistics of the survey</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>6. Typology of short and mid-tier chains valuing (agro)biodiversity</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>6.1 Characterisation of the ideal type clusters</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>6.2 Descriptive statistics per type</td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>6.3 Case studies that illustrate the typology</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>6.4 Challenges for valuing NUCs in food environments</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>6.4.1 Active promoters' responses</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>6.4.2 Silent sellers' responses</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>6.4.3 Quality communicators' responses</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>6.4.4 Mission first responses</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>6.5 Benefits perceived from the sale/valorisation of NUCS</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>6.5.1 Active promoters' responses</td><td>102</td></tr><tr><td>6.5.2 Silent sellers' responses</td><td>102</td></tr><tr><td>6.5.3 Quality communicators' responses</td><td>103</td></tr><tr><td>6.5.4 Mission first responses</td><td>103</td></tr><tr><td>6.6 Building SMART Indexes from the findings</td><td>105</td></tr><tr><td>7. Conclusions</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>8. References</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>9. Appendices</td><td>120</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
# Glossary

**Association pour le Maintien d'une Agriculture Paysanne (AMAP, Association for Maintaining Small Scale Family Farming, sometimes also literally translated as Peasant Agriculture).**

It is generally agreed in France that CSA (Community-Supported Agriculture, see below) coincides with AMAP. AMAP is a local, solidarity-based partnership between a producer and a group of consumers. AMAP is indeed an association (and not a business) that supports the relationship between a consumer group and a local producer. These two parts, the producer and each consumer, are linked through a written contract-based direct-sales system. The idea is to make sure the farmer can rely on a guaranteed income that will continue to provide a decent living for that farmer for the next year at the very least. The original idea was to make it possible for smallholders to keep their business alive through strong support from consumers' groups. Risk sharing is the key to the AMAP model. In the AMAP model the producer signs a written contract with each consumer for several months or one year. https://urgenci.net/france/

## Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

"CSA is a direct partnership based on the human relationship between people and one or several producer(s), whereby the risks, responsibilities, and rewards of farming are shared, through a long-term, binding agreement." https://urgenci.net/our-european-declaration/ Outside of France, many CSAs have formalised into independent associations whereby the association organises the aggregation of products from more than one producer for consumer groups. It is for this reason that in this study CSAs are considered intermediaries as they are increasing emerging as a separate legal entity from producers.

## Consumer

In the context of this study, consumers refer to the people who eat food. They can be purchasing this food that they each directly from farmers, shops, restaurants or other food service providers or they can be consuming what they produce themselves. Therefore, while there is often a commercial transaction that occurs that defines this category of food system actors, we are referring to the group as having interests and characteristics that are not limited only to their commercial transactions.

## Consumption Influencers

This term refers to those actors in the value chain that shape food consumption patterns. They can influence consumption by controlling what products are available for purchase in retail outlets and food service, by purchasing and cooking food for others within the home, or by shaping the meaning of food consumption by promoting specific products or brands through different communication channels including social media, training courses, seminars or written materials (Shah and Asghar 2023)

## Food environments

"Food environments are the physical, economic, political and socio-cultural contexts in which people engage with the food system to make their decisions about acquiring, preparing and

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
consuming food." (www.epha.org). A short video on the concept:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cUaro1gUcl

## Food value chain

"A food value chain consists of all the stakeholders who participate in the coordinated production and value adding activities that are needed to make food products" (FAO 2014)
https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en?details=I3953E

## Intermediary

Intermediaries are food system actors positioned between producers and consumers and who facilitate the creation of value for food as it moves from the sites of production to the sites of consumption (Loconto et al., 2018). In the context of this study, intermediaries include associations, non-governmental organisations, CSAs, online platforms, processors, traders, aggregators, wholesalers, food service providers, transporters, restaurants and shops.

## Local Solidarity-based Partnerships for Agroecology (LSPA)

"LSPA initiatives typically involve multiple stakeholders from the local food systems: producers, consumers, researchers, local officials, etc. They are based upon partnership, local exchange, or direct relationships where producers can earn decent livelihoods, and consumers share the risks and rewards of sustainable agriculture in return for their share of healthy, nutritious, locally-grown food. There is no fixed way of organizing these partnerships: it is a framework to inspire communities to work together with their local farmers, provide mutual benefits and social cohesion, and reconnect people with one another and to the land where their food is grown. These partnerships are experiments of social innovation defined by their values rather than fixed operational mechanisms or schemes." https://urgenci.net/about-us/

## Long supply chains

A "long supply chain" typically involves multiple intermediaries, but the exact number can vary depending on the industry and the specific supply chain. Generally, a long supply chain has five or more intermediaries. These intermediaries can include suppliers, manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, and sometimes even additional third-party logistics providers (Christopher, 2023).

## Mid-tier value chains

Mid-tier value chains try to capture this middle space where medium-scale farmers, who are too big for direct sales but too small to reach industrial economies of scale, are able to access quality-based markets (Lev and Stevenson 2011). They typically have more than 1 intermediary between farmers and end consumers.

## Neglected and under-utilised crop (NUC)

"NUCs are domesticated plant species that have been cultivated or consumed as food throughout human history but have been reduced in importance over time... with many of them actually disappearing." (da Silva, FAO, 2012).

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
In the DIVINFOOD Project, the cereal and legume varieties that are considered NUCs for the purposes of our study are the following:

1. Chickpea - Hungarian local landraces - (Cicer arietinum)

2. Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

3. Lingot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

4. Meat bean (Chartreuse and Oisans beans (Phaseolus vulgaris))

5. Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus)

6. Lentils (Lens culinaris)

7. Blue lupine (Lupinus angustifolius)

8. White lupine (Lupinus albus)

9. Fava bean (Vicia faba)

10. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)

11. Pea (Pisum sativum)

12. Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus)

13. Grey pea (Pisum sativum subsp. arvense)

14. Einkorn (Triticum monococcum)

15. Emmer (Triticum dicoccum)

16. Rivet wheat (Triticum turgidum)

## NUC environment

We define "NUC environment" in this paper as the specific food environment (the physical, economic, political and socio-cultural contexts) in which citizen-consumers and institutions engage with neglected and under-utilised crops (NUCs).

## Producer

We use this term to refer to food system actors who are engaged in production activities, which according to FAO is "the production of raw agricultural, livestock, fisheries and forestry products". Therefore, this term refers to farmers, fisherfolk, pastoralists, apiculturists, wild food collectors, livestock raisers, etc. https://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-value-chains/what-is-it/sfvc-vocabulary/en/

## Short food supply chain (SFSC)

"The foods involved are identified by, and traceable to a farmer. The number of intermediaries between farmer and consumer should be 'minimal' or ideally nil." (Kneafsey et al. 2013, p. 42).

Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 "A short supply chain means 'a supply chain involving a limited number of economic operators, committed to cooperation, local economic development, and close geographical and social relations between producers, processors and consumers'.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1465486207958&uri=CELEX:32013R1305

This definition is complemented by Article 11 of European Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 807/2014 supplementing the Rural Development Regulation, which stipulates that 'Support for the establishment and development of short supply chains... shall cover only supply

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
chains involving no more than one intermediary between farmer and consumer'. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1465486255450&uri=CELEX:32014R0807

## Third place

"Third places are usually physical spaces where activities that are normally separate can be combined, allowing unlikely encounters between people who would not meet elsewhere, with a hybrid economic model in which for-profit activities support activities that are not for profit. They create all the conditions needed to allow everyone to suggest activities. They are places where individuals can realise their potential through the collective (...). Initially, the term referred to an intermediary place that was neither home, nor work. The term has been adopted throughout Europe but it is in France that the movement is the most structured and receives the most public support". https://epale.ec.europa.eu/en/blog/third-places-and-learning

## Value Chain

This deliverable introduces a new understanding of value chain in order to capture a meaning of the value that is created through the sale of NUCs in the food environment. Based on the characteristics of "values-based food supply chains" (Ostrom et al. 2018), we use the term 'value chain' as those "supply chains that value" a specific product that is grown in a specified way and manifests consistent qualities. In this sense the word value has two meanings: the first is related to the "worth" of the product for those who are dealing with it, while the second refers to the economic, environmental, cultural, social, and political values that are created, maintained and transmitted through its trade. To build our typology, we differentiate between those value chain captains who organise the relationships between producers and consumers according to different degrees of transparency in the communication of values up and down the chains that they manage (Feenstra and Hardesty, 2016).

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
## Table of figures

<table><tr><td>Figure 1. Key topics of research 1975-2020 (source: Loconto and Garrido-Garza 2021)</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 2. Production of lupines in Hungary (source: KSH)</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 3. Production of peas in France (source: FAOSTAT)</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 4. Faba Bean production in Sweden (source: statistikdatabasen)</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 5. Production of Faba beans in Italy (source: Istat)</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 6. Sowing area of Emmer in Hungary (source: KSH)</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 7. Production of einkorn in Hungary (source: KSH)</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 8. Production of common beans in Hungary (source: KSH)</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 9. Lupine production in France (source: FAOSTAT)</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 10. Production of chickpeas in Italy (source: Istat)</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 11. Production of lentils in France. (source: FAOSTAT, Agreste)</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 12. Production of lupines in Switzerland. (source: Swiss Granum)</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 13. Online descriptions of 846 initiatives valuing agrobiodiversity</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 14. Overcome production challenge</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 15. Overcome process challenges</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 16. Overcome selling challenges</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 17. Overview of the environmental benefits of selling/valuing NUCS expressed by the 4 clusters</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 18. Overview of the cultural benefits of selling/valuing NUCS expressed by the 4 clusters</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 19. Overview of the economic benefits of selling/valuing NUCS expressed by the 4 clusters</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 20. Overview of the social benefits of selling/valuing NUCS expressed by the 4 clusters</td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 21. Overview of the political benefits of selling/valuing NUCS expressed by the 4 clusters</td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 22. Group work at the DIVINFOOD annual meeting - the Hungarian table</td><td>144</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 23. Group work at the DIVINFOOD annual meeting - the Italian-Swiss table</td><td>145</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 24. Group work results - Nordic countries</td><td>145</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 25. Group work results - France</td><td>145</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 26. Group work results - Italy</td><td>146</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 27. Group work results - Portugal</td><td>146</td></tr><tr><td>Figure 28. Group work results - Hungary</td><td>146</td></tr></table>

## Table of tables

<table><tr><td>Table 1. Number of initiatives included in the database per country</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Table 2. Number of initiatives responding to the questionnaire per country</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Table 3. Number of initiatives having declared dealing with NUCS by type of initiative</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Table 4. Number of NUCS initiatives by country</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Table 5. Number of initiatives by funded year</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Table 6. Number of locations per initiative</td><td>53</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td>Table 7. Number of initiatives that selected each activity</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>Table 8. Number of activities selected by type of initiative</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>Table 9. Number of initiatives declaring having a social mission</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>Table 10. Number of initiatives that selected social missions</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Table 11. Number of social missions selected by type of initiative</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>Table 12. Type of food categories treated by the initiatives</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Table 13. Number of food categories selected by type of initiative</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Table 14. Type of NUCs categories treated by the initiatives</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>Table 15. NUCs' specialisation of the initiatives</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>Table 16. Number of NUCs categories selected by type of initiative</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>Table 17. Share of activity dedicated to NUCs by type of initiative</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>Table 18. Origin of NUCs treated by the initiatives</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Table 19. Number of NUCs origin selected by the initiatives</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Table 20. Type of NUCs supply chains</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>Table 21. Type of NUCs supply contract (for direct supply)</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>Table 22. Type of NUCs selling chains</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>Table 23. Share of NUCS' sold directly to consumers, for initiatives with a hybrid selling chain</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>Table 24. Type of NUCS consumers</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>Table 25. Type of communication means used by the initiatives for their general communication</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>Table 26. Number of communication means used by the initiatives for their general communication</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>Table 27. Type of online platforms used by the initiatives for their general communication</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>Table 28. Purpose of online platforms used by initiatives for their general communication</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>Table 29. Number of initiatives that actively promote NUCS' consumption</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Table 30. NUCS' qualities promoted by the initiatives</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Table 31. Number of NUCS' qualities promoted by the initiatives</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Table 32. Type of communication means used by the initiatives for NUCS promotion</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>Table 33. Number of communication means used by initiatives for NUCS promotion</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>Table 34. NUCS promotional actions carried out by the initiatives</td><td>74</td></tr><tr><td>Table 35. Locations of the NUCS' promotional actions carried out by the initiatives</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>Table 36. Number of initiatives seeking consumers' feedback</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>Table 37. Consumers' feedback systems used by the initiatives</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>Table 38. Number of initiatives guaranteeing NUCS' quality</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>Table 39. NUCS' guarantee systems used by the initiatives</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>Table 40. Number of NUCS' guarantee systems used by initiatives</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Table 41. NUCS' qualities guaranteed by the initiatives</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>Table 42. Number of initiatives providing NUCS' growing information</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>Table 43. NUCS' growing information communication means used by the initiatives</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>Table 44. Benefits of NUCS' promotion/sale perceived by the initiatives</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>Table 45. Number of perceived benefits of NUCS' promotion/sales by type of initiative</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>Table 46. Number of initiatives promoting or selling NUCS only in season</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Table 47. Estimated NUCS consumers' price by the initiatives</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Table 48. Estimated NUCS margin by the initiatives</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>Table 49. Estimated level of competition for NUCS' by the initiatives</td><td>83</td></tr><tr><td>Table 50. NUCS' production challenges perceived by the initiatives</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>Table 51. NUCS' processing challenges perceived by the initiatives</td><td>85</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
<table><tr><td>Table 52. NUCs' selling challenges perceived by the initiatives</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Table 53. Typology of chains that value NUCs</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>Table 54. Average score per cluster for social missions, NUCs' perceived benefits, NUCs' communication and NUCs' certification questions</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>Table 55. Summary of descriptive statistics per cluster (Percentage by column)</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Table 56. Selected case studies</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>Table 57. Value chain challenges for NUCs</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>Table 58. SMART indexes for agrobiodiversity use in marketing</td><td>106</td></tr><tr><td>Table 59. Synthesis table of the 78 reviewed articles from Scopus</td><td>126</td></tr><tr><td>Table 60. NUCs from cereals cited by the initiatives</td><td>135</td></tr><tr><td>Table 61. Reasons given by the initiatives to consider products as being NUCS</td><td>138</td></tr><tr><td>Table 62. Agenda of the participatory modelling workshop</td><td>139</td></tr><tr><td>Table 63. Variable operationalisation</td><td>140</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
# Executive summary

DIVINFOOD Task 1.2 focuses on analysing the value of products based on neglected and underutilised crops (NUCs) in food environments. The core activity of this task is to collect primary data from actors working with NUCs in the food environments of the seven countries involved in the DIVINFOOD project (Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland).

## Objective

The objective of this deliverable is to propose a typology of short and mid-tier chains successfully valuing NUCs, including SMART indexes to assess the benefits of NUCs use in marketing, as well as empirical data, based on data collection through questionnaires addressed to value chain actors and participatory modelling with experts including 'consumption influencers'.

## Results

The report presents four distinct, but interrelated, results. These results are: 1) the contextualisation of the NUC environment at national level; 2) empirical data resulting from a survey of 78 market initiatives that value the DIVINFOOD NUCs; 3) a typology of short and mid-tier chains that value agrobiodiversity; and 4) SMART indexes to assess the benefits of NUCs use in marketing. We summarise here each of our key findings.

**NUC environments:** To contextualise the NUC environment in which the presented value chains operate, we collected and analysed the primarily production data of NUC legumes and minor cereals grains involved in the project, in the participating countries. Overall, we find that there is a declining trend in the production of legumes and cereals in the six countries where we could access data.

**Empirical survey data:** We built a database of more than 1,200 initiatives that deal with NUCs and are visible on Internet, and conducted an online survey that collected 78 responses from organisations that value NUCs in the seven countries. Our core finding, that the majority of the initiatives that we identified are short value chains (many with direct sales to consumers), confirms the literature that has claimed that short food chains are mainly producer-driven and these actors are increasingly adopting intermediation activities.

The majority of initiatives were founded after 2011 and NUCs sales represent less than 25% of the commercial activity for more than half of the initiatives. The initiatives are specialised in few NUCs, dealing mostly with 1-2 types. Wheat ancient/local is the most common minor cereal, while lentils, peas, common beans, and chickpeas are the most traded legumes. The NUCs' origin suggests that these short supply chains rely upon regional or even national chains rather than on their own municipality or local territory. Furthermore, we observed a wide variety of modalities of sourcing and selling NUCs suggesting that diversity in marketing channels is a core strategy.

The proportion of 'binding' contracts with suppliers is low 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

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>
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, which the majority actively promote through social media and by word of mouth. The social missions are more concerned 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 is mainly environmental. 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.

**Value chain typology:** Based on our survey analysis, a participatory modelling workshop with experts from the 7 DIVINFOOD partner countries, and a final validation with the DIVINFOOD partners at the project's annual meeting, we identified four main clusters of initiative-types, which we have denominated: 1) Active promoters, 2) Silent sellers, 3) Quality communicators and 4) Mission first initiatives. These types are distinguished based on the ways in which they rely upon certification to guarantee quality, the communication strategies used to communicate, value and promote NUCs, the number of missions driving their initiatives and the perceived benefits from selling NUCs.

**SMART Indexes:** Following from our survey findings and the characterisation of the value chain typology, we suggest some SMART Indexes that can assess the benefits of NUCs use in marketing: Differentiation from competitors, attraction/retention of consumers, higher profit margins, opportunities for value chain upgrading for farmers.

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.

The first, tentative list of SMART indexes will be experimented with 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 project. The data already collected and those to come are or will be recorded in the database developed in Work Package 5, and the results from this report will also help partners of this Work Package to develop new business models.

**Teams involved:**

The work conducted for this deliverable was led by Agri Kulti and carried out in close collaboration with INRAE and the University of Pisa.

The deliverable was reviewed by Carlota Vaz Patto (UNL), Yuna Chifoleau (INRAE) and Vincent Troillard (IT) NOVA.

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
# 1. Introduction

## 1.1 Background on DIVINFOOD

The context for the development and implementation of the DIVINFOOD project (Co-constructing interactive short and mid-tier food chains to value agrobiodiversity in healthy plant-based food) is one of rapid decline of biodiversity, both globally and in Europe. The current heavy reliance on a small number of varieties is a threat to food security and deprives consumers of the nutritional quality of other species. Currently, small-scale producers and processors offer local food products valuing neglected and under-utilised species (NUCs) in short chains, thus helping to both reverse the decline in biodiversity and meeting this demand. However, they face many challenges, from insufficient availability of suitable varieties to difficulty in developing viable business models.

Given this, the overall objective of the project is to contribute to reversing the agrobiodiversity decline by producing knowledge and tools to support farmers and small-scale processors to develop short and mid-tier supply chains valuing NUCs and meeting consumer expectations of local, healthy, plant-based food. DIVINFOOD focuses on legumes and minor cereals, whose use in short and mid-tier chains is increasing, and whose potential for health and agroecology is high. The production of knowledge and tools, from breeding to marketing, involves citizen-consumers and relies on nine living labs (LLs) gathering all concerned stakeholders from seven partner countries (Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland).

## 1.2 Background on DIVINFOOD Work Package 1

*Diversify consumer-producer interactions to guide innovation in short and mid-tier chains and facilitate responsible consumption*

DIVINFOOD uses an approach that considers all the activities that occur along the value chain of the NUC - from seed to plate - with a view to valorising NUCs and ultimately increasing their purchase and consumption. The first Work Package (WP) of the project begins with a focus on consumers and food environments so to better “guide” or inspire the valorisation process along the whole NUC value chain. Its work is founded on the assumption that there is a knowledge (and practice) gap with respect to the mechanisms, networks and physical infrastructures (i.e., food environments) that link the production and consumption ends of the value chain. It is for this reason that one of the objectives of WP 1 is that of better understanding how to influence both “engaged” and “regular” consumers in the valuing of agrobiodiversity, and in this respect, the role of the food retail environment is key.

Task 1.2, in particular, focuses on analysing NUCs-based products value in food environments by drawing on an extensive collection of primary data in the seven countries involved in the DIVINFOOD project. The current deliverable presents the results of that investigation.

## 1.3 Aims and scope of the study

This report constitutes Deliverable 1.4 of the DIVINFOOD project. It concludes Task 1.2, which aims at analysing the value of products based on NUCs in short- and mid-tier value chains. It follows up on Deliverable 1.3 - *Report on enabling food environments (existing shops, infrastructures, labels) valuing NUCs-based products* - where we presented a previous literature review on food environments, digital food environments, and consumer retail environments.

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>
There, we concluded that based on the information available, retail spaces in Europe currently generally do not valorise NUCs - meaning that the food environment does not make it easy for consumers to choose and consume NUCs.

In this report (D1.4), we continue our research to find short- and mid-tier chains that – even in this non-enabling context – do valorise some NUCs. Deliverable 1.3 also presented a conceptual framework that established 4Ps of enabling consumer food environments for NUCs: P1, the availability of **products** (range of products in retail outlets); P2, the **placement** of products in retail spaces and in the broader food retail environment; P3, their **promotion** through a variety of communication means; and P4, the **price** and competitive nature of their markets. By constructing a survey inspired by this framework, we aimed to create a typology of the chains that successfully value NUCs by creating benefits from their sale. We additionally used the results of this analysis and typology to present a first attempt at a set of SMART indexes that enable food system actors to be able to identify the benefits of NUCs in the consumption space of food environments. Exploring the ways in which value chains and initiatives are successful in valorising NUCs will also help us later on in the project to set up such value chains and develop marketing strategies and digital tools to nudge citizen-consumers in the direction of consciously choosing NUCs and incorporating them into their diets.

In order to identify food environments in the seven DIVINFOOD countries that are conducive to the development of NUCs/NUCs-based products, an extensive search on the internet was made during the first trimester of 2023 to gather initiatives corresponding to short and mid-tier chains involved in the selling or valorisation of cereals and legumes NUCs. Although the focus was on finding initiatives dealing with NUCs, and in particular with the NUCs of the DIVINFOOD project, we expanded the search to initiatives that sold other cereals and/or legumes. This resulted in a database of 1,268 initiatives. Besides carrying out a lexical analysis of the self-description of these initiatives, a survey was sent out to their representatives and we gained 122 answers, 78 of which said they were concerned by NUCs.<fnref n="1" />

Drawing on our results, we highlight that NUCs are currently being valued in food environments that are not very well suited for their promotion. The majority of chains studied are initiatives where the farmer has assumed a number of additional processing and institutional roles, which in some cases is a limit for their promotion. We have also found rather surprising similarities across the seven countries studied with the majority of differences being found between different actor types. For a more nuanced understanding of how value is created, further analysis was conducted to establish a typology of short- and mid-tier chains that successfully value NUCs. We grouped the initiatives into four ideal type clusters, based on the frequency of responses to key indicators, which we designated: 1) Active promoters, 2) Silent sellers, 3) Quality communicators and 4) Mission first initiatives.

## 1.4 Limitations of the study

This study has a number of limitations. First, there is a selection bias related to the way that the initiatives were identified that means that we have not included all of the initiatives that exist in all seven countries of study. We conducted an exhaustive search on the internet – including

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹ We used the definition of NUCs that is explained in the glossary.</footnote>
Facebook and Instagram – however, this means that we captured only those initiatives that have a web presence. Second, while we did ask all DIVINFOOD partners in WP1 to check the lists of initiatives that we collected in order to delete or add initiatives to the list, not all partners are necessarily aware of all initiatives operating in the areas surrounding the Living Labs. Therefore, our list of initiatives is most likely also limited in terms of exhaustive coverage of the value chains that are linked to our living labs.

Third, our online survey was focused on activities relative to NUCS. However, several data from the questionnaire showed that the interpretation of what a NUCS is varies according to the initiatives, with some of them considering NUCs in a very broad sense (for example, "lentils"), while others were focalised on very specific and precise varieties. This may have had an impact on the way in which the initiatives responded to the questionnaire and also constitutes a limit to the proposed typology.

Fourth, while a 10% response rate is generally what is obtained for internet surveys, the low number of completed surveys created difficulties for the creation of a typology that fully captured the diversity of the value chains that exist for NUCs in the 7 countries of our study. Therefore, the value chain typology that we present in this report is a first attempt to classify the initiatives and will be improved upon as more data may be collected within the Living Labs and from the database. Finally, this same limitation of a low response rate for the study also means that there may be additional or alternative indicators that might be better suited for capturing the value of NUCS in the consumption sphere of food environments. We will continue to refine these indexes in T1.3/1.4 over the coming years.

Fifth, the data we collected from the 7 countries involved in the project to cultivation data of the NUCs involved in the project. Whilst the cultivation data itself is also rather limited, we did not extend the database we built here to include consumption data. The main reason for this has been that detailed NUC consumption data is generally not available, or not available to the partners involved in the preparation of this paper. Where such data is available, it has been deemed rather unreliable precisely because of the low levels of cultivation and consumption of these varieties.

## 1.5 Structure of the report

The structure of this report is as follows. In Section 2 after this introduction, we present a review of the current literature on food value chains and NUC value chains in particular. In Section 3, we briefly present the NUC environment of DIVINFOOD partner countries primarily based on NUC production data available in official databases. The aim of these two chapters is to contextualise the environment in which value chains operate to valorise NUCs and in which citizen-consumers must navigate if they wish to obtain them.

Section 4 presents our survey methodology. We explain in detail the purposive sampling strategy employed to identify those initiatives that deal with NUCs across Europe. We detail how the online survey was structured and carried out, and how we conducted an expert, participatory modelling workshop to validate the first version of the NUC value chain typology derived from the survey results.

Section 5 discusses the results of the online survey in detail, focusing on those initiatives that self-reported dealing with NUCs. Drawing on the theories of value chains discussed in Section 2 and the survey results presented in Section 5, Section 6 maps out the typology of short- and mid-tier

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
chains valuing (agro)biodiversity. Here, the four key clusters are described, with case studies in Appendix 7 from each partner country that illustrate both the typical elements and the diversity found across the surveyed initiatives. A first tentative attempt to present SMART indicators is included in this section. In Section 7, we summarise our results and map out further directions for research. We conclude with reflections about how Deliverable 1.4 and its results will aid the DIVINFOOD project in its future work.

As will be explained in this document, given the lack of literature and data available on food chains that value NUCs, we decided to develop a database of initiatives in order to document as many situations as possible with empirical data. Setting up this database, which was not planned as such in the task, took time, but the final result (more than 1,200 initiatives identified and recorded) is significant, and the data base has been published in open access in the space dedicated to the DIVINFOOD project on the Zenodo directory: https://zenodo.org/records/12775303. In addition, following the participatory modelling workshop in which we submitted a first typology of chains based on the initial data collected, we extended the data collection to take better account of the experts' comments and built a second typology, which we validated with the project partners at the annual meeting in June 2024. This iterative process explains the delay of a few months in submitting the deliverable, but this delay has enabled us to produce results that better reflect the diversity of food chains that value NUCs in the 7 DIVINFOOD countries and will therefore be more useful for developing the rest of the project.

## 2. Literature review

In Deliverable 1.3, we presented the concepts of food environments, digital food environments, food retail environments and consumer retail environments. That literature review presented a broad conceptual framework for understanding this unique zone of interaction among producers, intermediaries and consumers as they transform seeds, plants and animals into food.

In the present literature review, we focus now on food value chains (FVC), which "consist of all the stakeholders who participate in the coordinated production and value-adding activities that are needed to make food products" (FAO 2014). The term "value chain" was coined by Michael Porter (1985) as a management tool that could help firms first to identify and then exploit their competitive advantage within an industry, to "create shared value" among supply chain actors (Porter and Kramer 2011).

About 20 years ago, the concept of *circuit court* (Chiffoleau 2008) or **short food supply chain** (SFSC) emerged (Renting et al. 2003; Marsden et al. 2000), where short supply chains are defined as those with few (maximum one) intermediaries, between farmers and consumers (Santini et al. 2013). In common understanding, SFSCs are considered to be short based on criteria of social and geographic proximity. Given that there was a wide variety of SFSCs across Europe at the time, Kneafsey et al. (2013), put forward the following definition – based on French ministerial and the European Commission (EC) definitions – in order to separate these initiatives from conventional food chains.

"The foods involved are identified by, and traceable to a farmer. The number of intermediaries between farmer and consumer should be 'minimal' or ideally nil." (p. 42).

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>
Subsequent EU regulations in 2013 and 2014 determined that the number of intermediaries would be thus used as the official means to determine the length of a supply chain. Short supply chains thus were referred to as those with no more than one intermediary.<fnref n="2" />

While the European Union (EU) average for farms selling more than half of their production direct to consumers is near 15%, this is distributed unevenly among member nations and is largely restricted to small farms (Augére-Granier 2016). Direct sales had minor importance in Malta, Austria and Spain, where supermarkets dominate food retail with more than 90% market share. However, direct sales, traditional specialty shops and food markets are very important in other countries. Direct sales account for 25% in Greece, 21% in France, 19% in Slovakia and around 18% in Hungary, Romania and Estonia (Augére-Granier 2016). In addition, a nationally representative survey in France found that 42% of consumers regularly purchase food through a SFSC (Loisel et al. 2016).

**Mid-tier value chains** try to capture this middle space where medium-scale farmers, who are too big for direct sales but too small to reach industrial economies of scale, are able to access quality-based markets (Lev and Stevenson 2011). A lot of the work in this area has tried to elaborate how Porter's (1985) five primary activities of value chains – Inbound Logistics, Operations, Outbound Logistics, Marketing & Sales and Services – can be organised differently based on different combinations of intermediaries. The contribution of the research presented here is our attempt to bridge the notion of value chains as a means of coordinating upstream and downstream commercial transactions and the idea that these chains of relations are also creating myriad values as they link farmers to consumers of food (Loconto 2012).

## 2.1 Evolutions in value chain typologies

In the 1990s, increased attention was focused on the very long value chains that spanned the globe – global value chains (GVC) (Gereffi 1994). Questions of concern emerged in this literature about how such long, diverse chains were coordinated and more precisely governed by powerful actors who requested very specific quality compliance through the use of certification (Ponte, Gereffi and Raj-Reichert 2019). These types of governance are differentiated according to: (1) complexity of inter-firm transactions; (2) the degree to which this complexity can be mitigated through codification; and (3) the extent to which suppliers have the necessary capabilities to meet the buyers' requirements (Gereffi et al. 2005). There are three main trends in GVC governance:

* Producer-driven – where low-profit activities are out-sourced upstream to networks of suppliers, bound by contract to produce according to rigorously specified product and process standards) (Gereffi and Korzeniewicz 1994). In these cases, the producers are the raw ingredient producers who are farming on a large scale and also are typically carrying out aggregating functions by sourcing from smaller farmers to create large economies of scale that feed into long value chains.

* Buyer-driven – with high barriers to entry and high profits located at the retail end with the protection and promotion of brands (Conroy 2007; Gereffi et al. 2005; Gereffi and Korzeniewicz 1994); or where large retail establishments use their market power to

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="2">² https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1465486255450&uri=CELEX:32014R0807</footnote>
effectively govern the production of commodities with the desired attributes (Fold and
Larsen 2008; Law 1991);

* Twin-driven – where lead firms govern the supply network, while environmental groups/movements and third-party certifiers/standards developers govern the regulatory aspects of the network (Islam 2008).

While these typologies focus on economic power within the organisation of value chains, cultural power is also vital to their governance (cf. Dixon 1999; Friedberg 2004), particularly with respect to notions about quality (Gibbon and Ponte 2005; Ponte and Gibbon 2005) and stakeholder preference (cf. Ochieng 2008; Pirsch et al. 2007). Indeed, in the 2010s, a body of literature emerged that tried to examine how value chains moved beyond actor and product coordination towards governing the production of alternative values like fairness or sustainability (Loconto 2012). A range of values was found to be produced through attempts to govern qualities that were tied to a notion of place (origin, local, territory, proximity) (Fleury et al. 2016).

In the 2000s, “green” value chains were introduced as a concept where environmental and social indicators are taken into consideration in determining the sustainability of the supply chain (Carter and Rogers 2008). However, an interesting concept emerged in the 2010s around “values-based food supply chains” that explained how mid-tier chains were beginning to form directly through producers and their supply chain partners to ensure high-quality, diversified products that were fully traceable (Ostrom et al. 2018). Feenstra and Hardesty (2016) clarified three characteristics of these values-based chains that were able to support regional economies: (1) transparency in communicating values throughout the supply chain; (2) the ease with which they can coordinate purchases from small and mid-scale producers; and (3) the extent to which they provide fair prices to farmers versus remaining competitive in the marketplace. Building upon van der Ploeg et al.’s (2012) notion of nested markets, a typology has been introduced that qualifies how values define the producer-consumer relations through information-rich, socio-cultural, diversified or interactive intermediation (Loconto et al. 2018).

Recent consumer research demonstrates that trust-worthiness of food chain actors and the openness of food manufacturers are strongly related to consumer confidence in food (Macready et al. 2020). Thus, the assumption of SFSC promoters is that this greater transparency translates into greater consumer confidence in farmers and as a result, more social, equitable and fairer trading practices between farmers and consumers. However, these values require infrastructures that enable farmers, intermediaries and consumers to assess and ensure the quality of food that is traded through SFSCs as the industrial food system infrastructures are usually ill adapted to dealing with small and medium volumes and distances.

## 2.2 Communicating values and qualities in SFSCs

In preparation for the launch of the DIVINFOOD project, we conducted a literature review about short food supply chains where we tried to identify the questions of transparency in communicating values throughout the supply chain that are of concern for values-based value chains (Loconto and Garrido-Garza 2021). In this section, we present that first project preparatory literature review so that the state of the art that was used to construct our present survey instrument and our value chain typology are clear.

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>
In that preparatory review, which was conducted via a Scopus search resulting in 2,397 articles studying quality assessment and short food value chains, the first study dated from 1975, but the number of publications only began to increase continuously around 2000.

The first study highlighted in the preparatory review presented, quite possibly for the first time, an analysis of the role played by consumer-facing labels and certifications symbols in the decision-making process (Parkinson, 1975). The focus on consumer recognition of labels has become quite important since that time, with a significant amount of research conducted upon consumer behaviour and consumer preferences – particularly related to ethical and other green or sustainability labels (425 articles). This trend emerges from studies in marketing that have assessed the ability of consumers to be able to recognise specific labels and to ignore those that do not add significant information (Drugova et al. 2020). The use of purchasing practices by individual consumers as a means to make a political statement, complemented by the increase in celebrity chefs who take a political stance (Phillipov and Gale 2020), has only grown since it was first theorised in 2005 (DuPuis and Goodman 2005).

According to Schenk et al. (2016), consumer purchasing power does not influence the national sales of ethical products, but moral convictions and the range of products available for sale (in supermarkets) are consequential. Market growth for ethical or green products therefore depends crucially on whether or not supermarkets include these products in their range. A report from the International Trade Centre (2019) found that European retailers give high priority to sustainable product sourcing, as they assume strong consumer support and expect sustainable businesses to increase significantly in the coming years. According to this report, 96 percent of retailers interviewed have sustainable sourcing strategies, but it remains unclear in the literature why companies choose one label over another, and many develop their own quality assurance schemes (Chkanikova and Lehner 2015; Chkanikova 2016). What seems clear, however, is that supermarkets can choose between competing sustainability alternatives (Arnold & Hasse 2015; Reinecke et al. 2012).

Recent EuroBarometer special reports (2020)<fnref n="3" /> asked citizens about their priorities in purchasing food. Overall, Europeans prioritise taste (45%), food safety (42%) and cost (40%) over sustainability concerns when purchasing food. The remaining characteristics follow in terms of order of importance: origin of the food (34%), nutrient content (33%), product shelf-life (20%), “minimally processed” (16%), personal “ethics and beliefs” (e.g., animal welfare concerns) (16%), and “environmental and climate impact” (15%). Surprisingly, “convenience” (9%) is the least influencing factor – which indicates a shift from the supermarket mentality among consumers.

Food is considerable “sustainable” when it is nutritious and healthy (41%), has been produced with little or no use of pesticides (32%) and when it is affordable for all (29%). “Local or short supply chains” (24%) and “low environmental and climate impact” of food (22%) remain

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="3">³ EU citizens, agriculture and the CAP
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2229</footnote>

<footnote>Making our food fit for the future – Citizens' expectations
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/survey/getsurveydetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyky/2241</footnote>
important characteristics of sustainable food systems but are not as important as the notion of a healthy diet for them as consumers (74%). The latter is described as eating a "variety of different foods, having a balanced diet" (58%) and "eating more fruit and vegetables" (58%). A healthy diet is seasonal (50%), local (47%), and consist of "eating more home-cooked meals" (43%), with "little or no pesticides" (43%), "avoiding wasting food" (42%) and "avoiding or not eating too much food high in fat sugars and/or salt" (40%).

The 2020 State of Food Insecurity Report from FAO introduced a global metric for healthy diets and claimed that 3 billion people around the world could not afford a healthy diet and 18 million of them lived in North America and Europe (FAO et al. 2020). According to the Eurobarometer survey in 2020, two thirds of Europeans say that they eat a healthy and sustainable diet most of the time (56%) or always (10%). However, there are significant differences across Member States, ranging from the top range in the Netherlands (83%) and Finland (81%), to the low range in Bulgaria (32%) and Lithuania (46%). Affordability and availability of healthy, sustainable choices and clear information on food labelling are the recommendations from this report.

The historical literature suggests that information and labelling can only go so far in terms of communicating qualities or values (Bullock and van der Ven 2020); and recent studies argue that closer interactions that produce trust, shared visions and mutual responsibilities among food system actors, are promising avenues for increasing the impact of labels (Nakandala et al. 2020; Hebinck et al. 2018). These topics are reflected in **Figure 1**.

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Key topics of research 1975-2020 (source: Loconto and Garrido-Garza 2021)</figcaption></figure>

NB: This map presents a lexicometric analysis of the relationships among the key terms that characterise the literature collected in the Scopus database of 2,397 articles from the keyword search string: (TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "alternative agri-food networks" OR "short food supply chain" OR "circuit court" OR "local food system" OR "quality turn" OR "certification" OR "participatory guarantee systems" OR "participatory certification" OR "farm to fork" ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "SOCI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENVI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "AGRI" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "BUSI" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ECON" ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ARTS" ) )). The size of the triangles indicates the frequency of the use of the term and the concentration of terms in clusters demonstrate that there are a number of subgroups of literature within the large database and that they are not all using the same terminology. The physical proximity of the clusters (particularly overlapping circles) signifies that the articles have other elements in common, such as the journal, the affiliation or the author. The top five countries that are publishing on these topics are identified for each cluster.

The two elements - consumer purchasing behaviour and the ways in which intermediary actors
influence the use of transparency in the communication of values within their supply chains - are
particularly important when we think about the emergence of alternative agri-food networks
(AFNs). These AFNs networks saw a rebirth in the United States in the 1990s (Ostrom 2008) and
in the 2000s in Southern Europe (Dubuisson-Quellier and Lamine 2004). More generally, AFNs
focus on the relationship between farmers and consumers because of direct or mediated

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>
interaction between the two subjects (Marsden et al. 2000). It is important to understand what the term short chain means. First, the term short can be understood as reducing the number of product passages between the farmers and consumers; in this sense, geographically distant chains can also be considered as short. Secondly, the term short can be understood as the physical distance between the two subjects, and hence the closeness or distance between production and consumption, irrespective of the number of intermediaries. Finally, a third sense may relate to the temporal dimension; that is, when the time between production and consumption decreases – which leads towards greater attention and consumption of fresh products. These assumptions are not necessarily exclusive and may exist in parallel within even the same initiatives. The linkage between AFNs and the quality management literature (blue cluster) is found through food products and particularly through food safety, food quality and organic standards (red cluster). However, there seems to be separate bodies of literature between those studies that focus on environmental and sustainability certification (red and dark green clusters), particularly in global value chains, and those who are focused on assessing and assuring quality in alternative and local food systems (yellow cluster).

An element of AFNs that has been studied intensively is how quality is created and defined in the relationships between production and consumption. In fact, there is a *socially constructed quality* (Watts et al. 2005), in which the concepts of trust and the embeddedness of the chains in particular places is fundamental (Goodman 2003). The *socially constructed quality* of AFNs is, in some respects, analogous to the *institutionally defined quality* (Salis 2013), which is linked to state agencies, the agri-food industry and based on the certification of products against quality standards (Arfini et al. 2016; Cavazzani et al. 2006; Loconto and Busch 2010). However, according to Goodman (2003), despite the fact that brands and certifications relate quality to places, they do not succeed as AFNs because interpersonal trust remains fundamental to movement adherence, which we have witnessed with the rapid explosion and retraction of box-schemes during the COVID-19 pandemic in France in 2020 (Chifoleau et al. 2020).

From this point of view, AFNs typically develop certifications that are *alternative* to *institutional* ones: this is a bottom-up certification process that involves the producers and the creation of mutual trust. For example, *Participatory Guarantee Systems* operate locally and require the active participation of producers and consumers in quality assurance systems (Loconto and Hatanaka 2018). These systems are generally initiated by small farmers in collaboration with collectives of consumers precisely because it is possible to establish symmetrical and solidarity-based relationships based on knowledge and trust (Hebinck et al. 2014). Carrera (2009) claims that AFNs use a *difference bet* because the people involved are willing to accept different types of additional costs (higher prices, time dedicated to the organisation) to ensure individual and social well-being as a greater good. The complex relationship between consumers and farmers opens up space for the creation of bottom-up social innovation (Chifoleau and Loconto 2018; Kropp et al. 2020).<fnref n="4" />

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="4">⁴ This whole section is reproduced with the permission of the authors from the report: 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</footnote>
These insights from our project preparatory review are important for the present Deliverable as they highlighted the importance of gathering more information about the types of value chains that are current valuing NUCs and of trying to understand if there are specific value chain characteristics that might be able to create more value and benefits for NUCs in the consumption sphere, which in turn might be able to better conserve (agro)biodiversity.

## 2.3 NUCs value chains

In order to understand what the current state of knowledge is on food chains that value NUCs, we conducted a preliminary systematic literature review published as Deliverable 1.3.<fnref n="5" /> D1.3 presented the broader framework of food environments and what is known about NUCs in these environments. In the search on Scopus that was completed as part of the work summarised in D1.3, we found 306 results for "food environment" AND "food system", with a broad range of variations. Examples are (to name only a handful among the most cited): "food deserts literature" (Walker et al. 2010), the "local food environment and diet" (Caspi et al. 2012), the "built environment and obesity" (Feng et al. 2010), "measures of the consumer food store environment" (Gustafson et al. 2012), "influence of the retail food environment around schools" (Williams et al. 2014). However, as was highlighted in D1.3, we did not find much information specifically about NUCs or agrobiodiversity and their value in this consumption space.

Therefore, in the present Deliverable we decided to conduct a second review of the literature, entering the topic from a different perspective. We searched the literature focused on agrobiodiversity ("AB") and neglected and underutilised crops/species ("NUC/NUS"), in order to see what we can find about value chains within this broader literature. A search conducted in Scopus in November 2022 yielded the following results, of which 78 articles were selected to be included in the review due to their relevance for food environments and value chains:

* "neglected and underutilised crop" ("NUC" in table below) = 74 of which 10 were selected from their abstracts

* "neglected and underutilised species" ("NUS" in table below) = 128 of which 35 were selected from their abstracts

* "neglected" AND "underutilised" AND "crop" ("N+U+C" in table below) = 283 of which 29 were selected from their abstracts

* "neglected" AND "underutilised" AND "species" ("N+U+S" in table below) = 307 of which 44 were selected from their abstracts

* "agrobiodiversity" ("AB" in table below) = 1324 of which 140 were selected based on their title and from these 41 were selected from their abstracts

Due to redundancy, the 78 articles amount to less than the sum of sub-totals from the combined searches. The selection threshold seems particularly low given the total number of articles which came up in the search (especially for "agrobiodiversity"): this is due to the fact that many results relate to agricultural production practices or genetics, which often do not relate closely enough to the concept of food environment. However, the combined number of results across both searches

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Mattioni D. Loconto A., Veér Z., Králl A., & Stephens R., 2024. Deliverable 1.3 - Report on enabling food environments (existing shops, infrastructures, labels) valuing NUCs-based products. DIVINFOOD H2020 project, report, 22 p. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12679480</footnote>
appears more than sufficient to conduct a review, which is a first attempt at bridging these
literatures. The full list of articles and their thematic coding is found in Appendix 1.

For the purpose of this review, the concept of “agrobiodiversity” (and its products) is subsumed
into that of NUS/NUC (NUS and NUC are considered here as interchangeable). The review is
structured around (i) Value chains, which may have been studied comprehensively or with a focus
on only some parts of the chain (e.g., processing); (ii) Institutions and their programs, policies and
regulations.

## 2.3.1 Value chains

### 2.3.1.1 Comprehensive value chain analyses

Market development and value chain analysis of agrobiodiverse products has been conducted for nearly two decades (Giuliani et al. 2004; Giuliani 2012). As a result, certain leveraging actions have been identified across the value chain for NUC/NUS, from the resources and production side (preservation of local knowledge, conservation of genetic resources, nutritional assessments to shed light on their nutritional qualities), to storage and processing (setting up low-cost storage facilities, establishing processing procedures tailored to the crop/specie's characteristics, creating processing quality standards), trade and retail (highlighting intrinsic nutritional or sensory qualities, promoting extrinsic properties through marketing, teaming up with fair trade and organic initiatives) and finally to consumption (raising awareness of, and fostering attitudes to, NUC/NUS as "innovative" or "newly rediscovered" through advertisement and storytelling) (Baldermann et al. 2016). Different investigations into NUC/NUS markets and value chains have helped gain better understanding of bottlenecks hindering their use, and better ascertain on how to fix broken linkages along the value chain, enhance local businesses and improve farmers' livelihoods (Borelli et al. 2020). They may hold certain commonalities (e.g., same country, same crop/specie, same methodology, etc.) but their results may be quite specific and thus collectively and complementarily build an evidence-base on how NUC/NUS value chains are constrained and may be strengthened. For instance, two case study articles mobilise the same methodology, Rapid Market Appraisal (RMA), to develop a comprehensive understanding of barriers and opportunities to NUC/NUS value chain development, in different crop/specie or geographic contexts. In studying Chaya (Mayan Spinach) in Guatemala, Amaya et al. (2020) conducted surveys among vendors, consumers, restaurants, processing industry actors, farmers and research/institutional actors, while Mbosso et al. (2020) used the same RMA method to study fonio and bambara value chains in West Africa. Such value chain assessments can highlight different problems (and opportunities for action). For instance, the first study emphasises the role of consumers (low awareness, skewed perceptions or stigma whereby they consider Chaya a medicinal crop, not a food crop, or as poor people's food), and the constraints of farmers (geographically remote, producers face high transaction costs to access urban markets). The second study, rather, sheds light on difficulties in the processing part of the value chain that are due to poor access to equipment, machinery and generally poor processing facilities, or lack of training to use them; but also, specific issues such as fonio or bambara's seasonal clashes with other important harvests (e.g., cotton). Another case study by Vandebroek et al. (2021) analysed barriers to, and designed a roadmap for, the development of a cottage industry for artisanal producers of Jamaican root drinks, emphasizing the importance of root drinks in cultural heritage.

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>
Besides detailed case studies, there are also broader reviews articles, which are angled on a particular family or type of NUC/NUS in a particular region or country. For example, a review of research linked to Neglected and Underutilised Medicinal Crop Species (NUFMs) in South Africa, suggests that their value chains can be strengthened by developing agro-processing capacity, enhancing logistics, or setting up cooperatives. But of particular interest in this review is the emphasis put on so-called "Agribusiness Accelerators" - multi-stakeholder initiatives whose role is to co-develop and co-implement Research, Development and Innovation roadmaps in support of NUFMs, provide technical support and capacity development to farmers, and support the establishment of NUFM-using production enterprises (Mudau et al. 2022).

It has also been shown that NUC/NUS value chains can evolve very quickly when they are "pulled" by rapid demand growth in European or North American markets (e.g., if a new NUC/NUS superfood becomes "trendy" to increasingly health-conscious consumers, e.g., goji berries, while gourmet urban food scenes play the roles of catalysts and accelerators). The unravelling effects of such "boom-and-bust" cycles in long value chains can be destabilizing for local communities, as has been shown by Andreotti et al. (2022) with Andean quinoa, Indian millet and Ethiopian teff, but they also show that the nature of the boom-and-bust cycle depends on who led the initial rapid growth cycle, whether it was bottom-up, grassroots-based communities or, instead, was driven by top-down national policies (Andreotti et al. 2022). The recent COVID-19 pandemic showed that many short food chains for healthy food were boosted in the beginning of the pandemic, which may have been favorable to NUCs (Chiffoleau et al. 2020). However, the pandemic may also have had adverse effects on NUC/NUS food chains, in particular for informal food chain actors who may have suffered more than formally registered value chain actors from stringent regional/national policy responses to the pandemic (think of how pandemic-related compensation mechanisms were formalised). This was suggested by Zimmerer and De Haan (2020), who in their study mobilise an *ad hoc* "Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework" which links agrobiodiversity to food system governance including markets, distribution/logistics and seed systems.

### 2.3.1.2 Transformation: preparation, processing, packaging and marketing

Besides research looking at entire value chains, there are studies, which focus on particular segments of value chains. One such core segment identified in the literature relates to the transformation of NUC/NUS into food products, through different means, which can all add significant value. "Transformation", here, means the stage between harvest and distribution/consumption, and therefore subsumes the different sub-stages of processing and/or preparation, storage, packaging and marketing.

For instance, value addition for NUC/NUS can be enhanced through the promotion of traditional preparation techniques, like tsukemono pickling in Japan, which can enhance the unique organoleptic qualities of heirloom varieties (Kimura 2021). Other food preparation and processing methods (e.g., mechanical processing, soaking, microbial fermentation, germination and malting, etc.) can significantly increase nutrient bioavailability – but it is not clear whether this nutritional complexity – the differentiation of nutritional quality depending on the type of preparation/processing – is emphasised enough in nutritional guidelines. In which case, more evidence-based information is needed on the characteristics of different preparation or processing methods (Mensi and Undenigwe 2021).

In order for NUS/NUC transformation (and value addition) to be successful, these stages may also need to be better embedded at the community level, to benefit from local knowledge and local

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>
interactions between local stakeholders. This type of local embedding enabled the successful development in Kenya of a prototype for a pressure-popping machine, which was made using locally available materials and involving community-led interventions and experimentations: these in turn led to the elaboration of new processed products based on NUS/NUC, with additional value-added through packaging and marketing (Morimoto et al. 2021). The importance of adding extrinsic value through packaging/marketing is also emphasised in a case on baobab-derived food products in Malawi. Here, health claims associated to baobab, packaging quality and labelling, provided guidance for food processing companies to improve the composition of their recipes, as well as their marketing techniques (Darr et al. 2020): this shows how the extrinsic potential determined at the packaging/marketing stages influences the intrinsic qualities that are to be developed at the prior preparation/processing stages. Another case of local embedding took place in a coastal area of South Africa, with a focus on developing markets for coastal wild foods. In this case context, local communities were organised around Transformation Labs (T-Labs) involving multi-stakeholder interactions between chefs, farmers, retailers, government officers, NGO coastal actors and researchers. The T-Lab was not only propitious to knowledge co-production and agri-food innovation: it also helped surface deeply embedded issues around land, race, history and culture (Pereira et al. 2022).

### 2.3.1.3 Consumer awareness

At the end of supply and value chains, but key to determining how much the NUS/NUC value chain is worth, some research seeks to better understand consumers' perceptions, attitudes and willingness to pay a premium price for an NUC/NUS or NUC/NUS-derived food product. For instance, Meier and Oehen (2019) study consumers' valuations of farmers' varieties of tomatoes and their (limited) awareness of the general loss of cultivated diversity, its causes and its consequences, in France, Spain, Italy and Switzerland (for EU project DIVERSIFOOD). Pallante et al. (2016) find that urban consumers' willingness to pay a premium price for Nepalese finger millet is sufficient to support smallholder farmers in facing the high transaction costs associated with maintaining this niche crop in their production. Posadinu et al. (2021) also drew similar conclusions with regard to ancient tomato landraces. However, the interplay of awareness and willingness is complex (does raised awareness mechanically increase willingness to pay?), depending on what type of consumer is exposed to such a question, but also depending on the nature of the arguments that are presented before her/him. There is often a normative assumption within science and policy circles that consumers will necessarily pay more for NUC/NUS simply because agrobiodiversity provides functional, instrumental benefits (e.g., "ecosystem services", "natural capital"). However, Runhaar et al (2019) demonstrate that if not enough emphasis is placed on the more intrinsic (less "capitalistic") contributions of agrobiodiversity (such as beautiful landscapes), interventions to shape consumer demand for NUS/NUC will fall short. In addition, as shown by Lysak et al. (2019) on a consumer study for Hawaiian breadfruit, acceptance of novel food products may be largely determined by how similar the food product is to a food product that is already consumed in the consumer's regular diet. This highlights the importance of accounting for "appropriateness" in consumption studies, by considering the situational context, be it the cultural context (local geography/culture), or shopping setting context in which the consumer respondents were found (e.g., supermarket shoppers may have different outlooks than farmer's markets shoppers).

Furthermore, somewhat contrary to "willingness to pay" a premium price, some consumers – and possibly most consumers in certain cultural contexts – tend to associate NUC/NUS with food

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>
consumed mainly in times of deprivation and unfairly label it “food for the poor”, or “food for the sick” (not food to be enjoyed but to be consumed only because of its healthy properties). As a result, as Borelli et al. (2020) indicate, developing consumer markets for (sometimes) stigmatised NUC/NUS may require continuous efforts in awareness-raising and education: through nutrition education (e.g., school gardens), dietary guidelines, seasonal calendars, gastronomy and food innovations, for example through events such as food fairs. The importance of events or tourism on consumers’ and food citizens’ awareness, interest and knowledge about NUC/NUS, is emphasised in some studies. For instance, municipal and agroecological food fairs (Zamar and Trillo 2022) or agri-tourism/culinary tourism (Taranto et al. 2020) and sustainable gastronomy initiatives that can help rebuild food and biocultural heritage, tradition and identity (Hunter et al 2019). In addition, specific innovative technologies can improve traceability, trust and a sense of identity across the value chain, such as DNA barcoding (Campanaro et al. 2019). Finally, the role of gourmet restaurants in finding new uses for underused foods has been illustrated by Luziatelli et al. (2020), with a renew in the use of Andean roots and tuber crops in Latin America, although there seems to be very few studies on the role of gastronomy and restaurants in supporting NUC/NUS.

### 2.3.1.4 Governance of value chains

The promotion of NUS/NUC may be difficult in conventional market governance arrangements. Indeed, the complex nature of the sustainable commercialisation of agrobiodiverse products requires governance rearrangements around innovation platforms that can coordinate innovations of different kinds, from technical to socio-organisational and relational (Jordan et al. 2016). Similarly, in reviewing systematically the extent to which Geographical Indications have been shown to generate environmental and biodiversity benefits, Milano and Cazella (2021), emphasise the importance of strong governance systems that guarantee participation of a wide range of local actors of productive systems. The importance of enhancing market linkages through participatory, multidisciplinary, community-centred and multi-stakeholder value chain development interventions, has been emphasised by King et al. (2021). In the same vein, Meinhold and Darr (2021), advocate Community Based Enterprise and New Product Development multi-stakeholder community pathways which foster behavioural changes in the stakeholders involved.

### 2.3.1.5 Alternative and local food networks

There is some research, which links the continued development of Alternative Food Networks (“AFN”) and other similar local, de-intermediated food initiatives and systems with support for NUC/NUS. For instance, a comprehensive study was conducted across Europe (for EU project CERERE) to study how “Alternative and Sustainable Food Systems” can promote cereal biodiversity (Sacchi et al. 2018). Galt et al. (2016) show that Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) initiatives thriving in California provide agrobiodiverse products as a strategy of distinction. In a study of the impact of retailing strategies on the agrobiodiversity of organic farms, Rover et al. (2020) show that direct sale and spatial proximity to large consumption centres are key to fostering agrobiodiversity. Torres-Salcido (2022) studies the ways in which Localised Agri-Food Systems (Sial) and Participatory Certifications are an expression of consumer recognition of the quality and origin of agrobiodiversity products from traditional agri-food systems in Mexico City. In addition, urban gardens can host significant agrobiodiversity (Da Cunha et al. 2020). Yet considering the extent of AFN-related literature and their explicit contributions to supporting NUC/NUS seems under-documented.

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>
## 2.3.2 Institutions: programs, policies and regulation

### 2.3.2.1 International and continental level programs and policies

There is a wide range of literature on institutions, programs and policies set up and implemented in support of agrobiodiversity and NUC/NUS, at different institutional levels (international, national, regional). This literature helps trace the genealogy of interest in promoting NUC/NUS, at least in the policy realm. At the international policy level, fairly early on, Johns and Eyzaguirre (2006) already emphasised the importance of linking agrobiodiversity, biodiversity conservation and nutrition to relevant policy platforms such as the Millennium Development Goals, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Convention on Biological Diversity, Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, Food-Based Dietary Guidelines, Right to Adequate Food and UN Human Rights and Commission's Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. In 2011, the IFAD-NUS project started as the first UN-supported global effort on NUC/NUS and has developed a holistic, innovative framework to address value-chain issues and bridge the gap between conservation and use. This project made use of multi-stakeholder, participatory, inter-disciplinary, pro-poor, gender- and nutrition-sensitive approaches, linking stages usually separated such as cultivation, value-addition and marketing and building networking skills and marketing capacities in regions as diverse as Latin America, South Asia and North Africa (Padulosi et al. 2014).

The FAO also recognises the contributions of NUC/NUS in addressing SDG2: Zero Hunger via its Regional Initiative on Zero Hunger through the Future Smart Food (FSF) initiative to support countries in the identification of NUS with high potential to be integrated into agricultural and food systems (Li and Siddique 2020). The FSF initiative covers all stages for the creation of an enabling environment for FSF, from prioritisation to production, post-harvest and processing, marketing and consumption (Li et al. 2020). More recently, Bogliotti et al. (2021) documented the voices of international and regional Research for Development (R4D) agencies which promote NUC/NUS, such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Self Help Africa (SHA), the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation (AICS), the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM), the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition (UNSCN) and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. However, one of the main, early, global institutional efforts to promote NUC/NUS was the launch in 2002 of the (ongoing) Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) program by the FAO. This program has since then identified and helped maintain 72 agro-silvo-pastoral systems, which stem from traditional techniques, ancestral knowledge and strong cultural and social values, and thus play a key role in preserving traditional agricultural systems, agrobiodiversity and related ecosystem services both in developed and developing countries (Agnoletti and Santoro 2022). Parallel to international agencies, Slow Food, via an approach that considers NUC/NUS through the lens of “endangered foods”, has set up grassroots-based projects such as Ark of Taste, Slow Food Presidia and Gardens in Africa, which provide local communities with technical support, networking capacities, scientific knowledge and markets (Barstow et al. 2021). Finally, the Biodiversity for Food (BFN) project led by CGIAR (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) between 2012-2019 developed a “mainstreaming toolkit” which analyses barriers which prevent greater use of NUS. In addition, it also informs on how to create enabling policy environments based on the provision of evidence, the influencing of policy and raising of awareness, through the mobilisation of diverse strategies such as national biodiversity strategies, school food procurement, green employment, cultural festivals and the analysis of specific business cases (Borelli et al. 2021).

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>
### 2.3.2.2 National level programs and policies

Countries differ in their commitments to supporting NUC/NUS. Tools exist to compare these, such as the Agrobiodiversity Index, which helps quantify countries' commitments and actions towards agrobiodiversity for healthy diets, sustainable agriculture and genetic resource management (Juventia et al. 2020). Some research focuses on the commitments of one country, such as Torres et al. (2022) for Mexico, or on specific policies for several countries, such as public procurement policies (e.g., school meals) in Kenya, Brazil and India (Hunter et al. 2019). Certain countries, like Brazil, are also more heavily documented than others, due to their relative advancement in agrobiodiversity policy/program support. For instance, the Brazilian Socio-biodiversity Native Food Species of Nutritional Value policy defines, recognises and formalises NUC/NUS as holding particularly high nutritional value, and this policy is seconded by dietary guideline policies through initiatives such as the launch of a Brazilian Regional Foods book by the Ministry of Health (Hunter et al. 2019). Brazil's National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production (PNAPO), set up in 2012, was also one of the first to promote agroecological transition at the state level. It incorporates public procurement programs (National School Meal Program and Food Procurement Program) through which products are purchased from local smallholders for consumption in social and educational institutions. This policy reflects how "public mediated markets", with specific rules and conventions, can provide ways to ensure the sale of agrobiodiversity products, especially if the roles of intermediary cooperatives is strengthened (Resque et al. 2019). Public Food Procurement Programs (PFPP) are important in helping foster agrobiodiverse food systems due to their ability to determine for whom (e.g., schoolchildren), from whom (e.g., smallholder producers) and what type of food (e.g., NUC/NUS) is procured (Swensson and Tartanac 2020). More general analysis of policy environments has also been conducted to determine barriers and enablers to NUC/NUS development, for instance in India regarding the impact of the National Food Security Act in 2013 for the incorporation of small millets considered important for the survival or marginalised communities (Notaro et al. 2017).

### 2.3.2.3 Policies to encourage broader participation

Policies need to take a multi-actor perspective, which may include engaging researchers in more participatory and interdisciplinary approaches, supporting different supply chain actors in the challenging reorganisation of their activities, or properly rewarding facilitators for their role in bridging knowledge gaps (Chable et al. 2020); and participatory breeding programs (Caetano et al. 2015) or decentralised collaborative plant breeding (Camacho-Henriquez et al. 2016); or developing participatory assessments of seasonality with a view to creating seasonality calendars (Lochetti 2021). Some studies show the complex articulation between international and EU-level institutional frameworks (e.g., EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, CAP, Rural Development Policy, etc.) with the specificities of national or regional policies and institutions. This is for example the case with the Tuscany Regional legislation in Italy, which recognises territorial commons and engages public control and responsibility over the use of agrobiodiversity assets like the Valtiberina Red Onion (Scaramuzzi et al. 2021). In addition, studies by Van Amstel and Van Saane (2007) and Van Amstel et al. (2007) of international eco-labels and product-specific labels designed to provide consumers with reliable performance standards, shows generalised transparency issues, which warrant the need for the inclusion of third parties in the planning and implementation stages of self-regulation giving them supervisory, regulatory and/or enforcement powers.

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>
#### 2.3.2.4 Regulation

The path-dependency of agricultural and food production systems on strong intellectual property laws and regulations related to the registration, performance testing and certification of marketable seeds has been considered by some to be a political and legal impasse. This thinking questions neoliberalism and certain concepts of property and ownership and propose new notions such as “global seed commons” or “open seed licenses”. Such collective governance propositions, geared to supporting local and indigenous communities, are backed against international frameworks laid down by the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing (Girard and Frison 2018).

Research has also shown that critical consumers (ethically- and environmentally-minded) support open-source seed licenses, for reasons such as preventing the privatisation of plant genetic resources, the support small-scale farmers and the prevention of market concentration (Kliem and Wolter 2022). There are indeed shortcomings in seed system regulations: in EU legislation, for instance, there may too much focus on agrobiodiversity conservation, as opposed to agrobiodiversity innovation by farmers, who, as a result, find themselves having to navigate a complex web of incomplete pathways into the market simpler regimes may exist for niche varieties outside the EU, for example in Switzerland (Batur et al. 2021). One problem, though, with seeing agrobiodiversity products under the angle of genetic, seed or food “commons” is that such products are also prone to market failure as impure public goods with both public and private economic attributes, due to farmers generating less (bio- and agrobio-) diversity than is desirable in contemporary and future societies (Jaeger et al. 2017).

More generally, there has been a rich innovation process in law-making applied to agrobiodiversity over the past two decades, which consider farmers' rights, agricultural systems as part of cultural heritage and the role of protected areas in promoting agrobiodiversity (Santili et al. 2013). Timmermann et al. (2016) argue in favour of a “mixed property regime” for the ownership of genetic resources, which encompasses open access, commons, private property, state property and common heritage, and would hold different and complementary advantages in the incentivizing of variety conservation, development, sharing and waste-avoiding. However, due to differences in legal systems, traditions and consumer expectations, such systems are difficult to harmonise, and trade barriers remain. These could, however, be overcome by the provision of certification standards based on an internal control system harmonised internationally – addressing in particular the issues of traceability and the problem that if NUS/NUC are considered “endangered”, they cannot be sold through markets (Baldermann et al. 2016).

### 2.4 Research gaps

The present literature review shows that there remain a number of gaps in the literature about how short and mid-tier food chains are organised in their diversity, what is known about **transparency** in **communicating values** along different types and **lengths of chain**, and how the **social relations** are created that are effective in embedding these chains in communities that support their sustained value creation.

The role of **intermediaries** is clear in the literature, but we need more information about how they are working and particularly how they interact within value chains, in order to understand how value for NUCs is created and what **benefits** are created through the sale of NUCs.

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>
The focus of the review of the literature specifically on NUCs opened up two entry points to better understand how value can be created: through regional, national and European level institutions that create an enabling environment for NUCs and through the value chains.

In the next section, we present our first efforts to collect data about these enabling environments, seeking to both add an extra layer of analysis to our value chain analysis and to present the current available data at the national level for the NUCs studied in DIVINFOOD.

In the sections 4 and 5, we present the empirical study that we conducted on the NUC value chains, followed by our proposed typology. We revisit some of the literature presented in this section, as the creation of the typology was an iterative approach of comparing our empirics to the current literature.

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>
## 3. The “NUC environments” in DIVINFOOD partner countries

As we have found in the previous deliverable submitted in this work package (D1.3), in general, retail spaces in Europe currently do not valorise NUCs, meaning that there hardly exists an enabling food environment that make it easy - or sometimes, even possible - for consumers to choose NUCs. The initiatives and value chains discussed later in the present report are examples of the outliers as they are organisations that have managed to successfully value NUCs in some ways. To further illustrate the wider food environment within which they operate in, in this section we present some key conclusions gathered from studying the national-level statistics on the NUCs studied in the DIVINFOOD project. Our aim is to illustrate the scales in which the neglected and underused grains and legumes involved in the project are cultivated and consumed.

### 3.1 Data collection strategy

To compile the statistical data, DIVINFOOD partners in each country filled out a template where we aimed to gather information on all DIVINFOOD NUCs, but especially the ones cultivated within the framework of the project in each country or Living Lab region. We requested data to be collected for the following indicators: yearly production (tonnes), import (EUR), sales (tonnes and EUR) and price/tonne. We aimed to gather time series data, e.g., data for each of the last 10 years. Furthermore, the goal was to attempt to gather data on the distribution of cultivated NUCs into different sales channels and the amounts imported. Finally, we also aimed to collect data on the consumption of NUCs (e.g., per capita consumption of certain NUCs in the participating countries).

It is important to emphasise that it has proved nearly impossible to retrieve the data we aimed to collect. For most countries and most species, the most the partners could retrieve was production data or cultivation area, but more detailed data - especially on sales, imports, prices, etc. - is either unavailable or unreliable. Central Statistical Offices and other institutions rarely gather detailed data on NUCs and oftentimes the production - and especially the consumption - data is lumped together with other legumes or grains, which makes such data not very useful for the purposes of our analysis here. It is also important to note that the way in which data is gathered on NUCs in the various countries is often vastly different which makes the different datasets hard to compare. We would like to stress how important it would be in the future to gather detailed and disaggregated data on various NUCs on national, regional and EU-levels, as it could underline suggested policy changes and aid stakeholders to popularise the cultivation and consumption of NUC legumes and grains.

The data we did manage to collect is included in Appendix 2. Production data for most of the NUCs was more widely available from various Central Statistical Offices than any other data we sought to gather. This was primarily the case for Hungary's and Italy's legume production, but also to some extent, Hungary's einkorn and emmer production and some NUC's production statistics in Sweden and Switzerland. In these cases, the data was also available for the last ten years, so we

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>
could observe some trends over time. However, other data types are scarcely available or highly unreliable - especially price and general sales data.<fnref n="6" />

## 3.2 National level statistics

Of course, as we are addressing NUCs here, the production levels are generally very low in each country we studied, compared to the main cash crops that are grown across Europe. Generally speaking, grain legumes are already quite under-utilised as legume production is marginal in Europe, covering less than 3 percent of arable land.<fnref n="7" /> The NUCs involved in the DIVINFOOD project are then of course even more marginalised: for example, Swiss lupin production took place on 318 total hectares in 2023, producing a total of 600 tonnes.<fnref n="8" /> Or, in Hungary, only 5 total tonnes of cowpea (*Vigna unguiculata*) were produced in 2022. Furthermore, 1,041 tonnes of einkorn were produced in Hungary in 2021 (compared to 5,3 million tonnes of wheat in the same year).<fnref n="9" /> Without delving deeper into the data, this first glance already highlights the difficulties that any initiative might face when trying to incorporate NUC grains or legumes into their value chain. The customers who are open to seeking out these NUCs have to do so in a NUC environment that is not very much supporting of their endeavours.

Looking at the data of the last 10 years in the DIVINFOOD partner countries, no clear trends can really be established in the production of various NUCs involved in the project. In most cases, production has fluctuated a lot, resulting in overall decline or stagnation in production levels. For example, Hungarian lupine production stood at 556 tonnes a year, in 2009. After a sharp decline, then fluctuation, the total production was only 132 tonnes in 2022 (Figure 2).

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="6">⁶ For data until 2019, a deliverable by the LegValue project can also be consulted as it carried out a detailed analysis of available information. This can be found on the following link: https://www.legumehub.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/LegValue_report_d31-report-on-legume-markets-in-the-eu.pdf. (Last visited: 17th of June, 2024.) Furthermore, it needs to be noted here that data on Denmark is not contained in the database we created as it was not available to the partners involved in the project.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Source: FAO. See: https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1646579/. (Last visited: 17th of June, 2024.)</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Source: Swiss Granum</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Source of Hungarian data: KSH</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Production of lupines in Hungary (source: KSH)</figcaption></figure>

In France, the data from the last 20 years shows a first sharp decline in pea (Pisum sativum) cultivation levels until the end of the 2000s, after which yearly production levels fluctuated around 50.000 tonnes a year (compared to almost 200 thousand tonnes a year in 2000) (Figure 3).

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Production of peas in France (source: FAOSTAT)</figcaption></figure>

Faba bean production in Sweden fluctuated and remained largely unchanged between 2013 and 2022, with the share of organic production remaining largely unchanged also (Figure 4).

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Faba Bean production in Sweden (source: statistikdatabasen)</figcaption></figure>

In Italy, Faba bean (*Vicia Faba*) production also stagnated largely. However, it is produced in overall larger quantities than in e.g., Sweden or other countries (Figure 5).

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Production of Faba beans in Italy (source: Istat)</figcaption></figure>

The same fluctuation and overall unchanged production levels are true for Hungarian einkorn production (Figure 7). For emmer, only the sowing area data is reliable, where a strong decline can be observed between 2017 and 2022 - from 583 hectares to 44 hectares (Figure 6).

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Sowing area of Emmer in Hungary (source: KSH)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Production of einkorn in Hungary (source: KSH)</figcaption></figure>

In other cases, already low levels of production have declined further, such as in the case of common bean (*Phaseolus vulgaris*) in Hungary: whilst in 2015, 1,467 tonnes were produced, this fell to only 234 tonnes by 2022 (Figure 8).

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** Production of common beans in Hungary (source: KSH)</figcaption></figure>

Another clear example of this declining trend is lupine cultivation in France: whilst in the early 2000s, the country produced over 30 thousand tonnes of lupines yearly, this dropped to the third of this level, to 11 thousand tonnes in 2022 (Figure 9).

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 9.** Lupine production in France (source: FAOSTAT)</figcaption></figure>

Fortunately, some positive trends can also be highlighted from the data we have gathered. For example, Italian chickpea production has approximately doubled between 2013 and 2023 (from approx. 12,000 tonnes to 24,000 tonnes) - whilst it has to be stressed that it was also much higher in some in-between years (Figure 10).

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10.** Production of chickpeas in Italy (source: Istat)</figcaption></figure>

Another positive trend can be seen in France with the country's lentil cultivation levels: even if some fluctuations could be observed, French lentil production almost tripled between 2000 and 2022 from 11 thousand tonnes a year to 29 thousand tonnes a year (Figure 11).

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 11.** Production of lentils in France. (source: FAOSTAT, Agreste)</figcaption></figure>

Swiss lupine production is also steadily increasing - of course, it is still in very low numbers, with an estimated 700 tonnes being produced in 2024 (Figure 12).

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12. Production of lupines in Switzerland. (source: Swiss Granum)</figcaption></figure>

Hungary also presents a few positive examples when it comes to lentil and chickpea production. According to the KSH statistical analysis, Lentil production has grown from practically non-existent levels (e.g., 2 tonnes produced in 2013) to 217 tonnes in 2022. Chickpea production has seen a similar trend, with 143 tonnes produced in 2022 - a growth from 9 tonnes in 2012. However, it needs to be noted that - as with most NUCs involved in the DIVINFOOD project - these levels are still extremely low, and other issues - such as the fact that most of this produced lentil is exported or that a lot of the chickpea is used as animal feed - hinder local consumers' access to these legumes as well.

## 3.3 General trends in NUCs production at the national level

Overall, whilst we highlighted the general insufficiency of the available data about various NUCs involved in the DIVINFOOD project, in this section we aimed to illustrate a few visible characteristics and trends of NUC cultivation in the partner countries of Europe. Again, NUCs are neglected- and underutilised precisely because they are cultivated - and consumed - in very low levels throughout the continent. These low cultivation levels affect the ability of consumer-citizens to access these NUCs and also shape the ways in which the various short- and mid-tier chains discussed in the rest of this paper can operate. From the limited data, we highlighted a few historic trends from the last decade, which, in most cases suggest a stagnating - or often even declining - trend in most NUCs' cultivation levels, but some positive examples were also demonstrated.

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>
# 4. Survey methodology

## 4.1 Identification of initiatives valuing/selling NUCs

In order to identify food environments in the seven DIVINFOOD countries that are conducive to the development of NUCs/NUCs-based products, an extensive search on the internet was made during the first trimester of 2023 to gather initiatives corresponding to short and mid-tier chains that are involved in the selling or in the valorisation of cereals and legumes NUCs. Although the focus was on finding initiatives dealing with NUCs, and in particular with the NUCs of the DIVINFOOD project, we expanded the search to initiatives that sold also other cereals and/or legumes. We used these search parameters because the definition of NUCs is country-specific and much information available on the internet for some initiatives (especially the shops) are not detailed enough to assess whether or not they deal specifically with NUCs. Taking into account initiatives dealing with other cereals and/or legumes has also enabled us to increase the number of initiatives in the database.

Identification of initiatives on the internet was made following the same purposive sampling procedure (Patton 1990) as described in a previous work led by members of DIVINFOOD Task 1.2 (see Loconto and Garrido-Garza 2021). It consisted on using keywords translated into the languages of each country on "google search" and "google advanced search". Keywords consisted of the 16 NUCs from the DIVINFOOD list, but also to NUCs that are specific to each country, and to generic terms like "ancient/old cereals/legumes", coupled with keywords on marketing channels (examples of search: "lupin and CSA", "producer of old cereals and direct sales"). Communication channels (mainly websites or Facebook or Instagram accounts of the initiative that emerged) were then scanned and only those initiatives associated with one or more features of short and mid-tier supply chains were kept. The kind of initiatives identified were thus very varied, ranging from farmers (kept only if they mentioned a selling channel, which are very different in terms of size, legal and collaboration forms - isolated farmers, farmers in different forms of associations such as farmer groups or cooperatives), community supported agriculture, physical market places, processors (such as bakers, millers, brewers, specialised in the sorting/processing of cereals/legumes, of processed products made from cereals/legumes (e.g. canned food, humus...)), restaurants, agritourism promoters, associations of conservation of old varieties or genetic conservation, all kind of stores favouring short sales chains (farmers' drives, farmers' stores, producers' stores, bulk stores, local products stores - the importance of legumes/cereals and the extent of their offer - sometimes also containing non-food - is variable for these types of initiative) and online platforms aiming at linking producers and consumers together (e.g., "Acheter à la source"; "La ruche qui dit oui"; "Farm2Fork Kft"; "Salento Km0"). In addition to direct searches on the internet, these online platforms mapping short and mid-tier chains were also used to find and locate more efficiently other more relevant initiatives.

From the communication channels (mainly from the initiatives' websites, but also from online platforms, Facebook, Instagram accounts or from internet posts) of the identified initiatives, a database was developed with the following fields: Name of the initiative; Country; Official website link; Facebook link; E-mail; Contact website; and if available, their public statement corresponding to their "About us" (retrieved from the page "about us", "who we are") and their self-description (mainly retrieved from the "first page" of their communication channel or if not detailed, consisting of reconstructed information from elements found regarding their crops,

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>
products, main activities, missions). "About us" and "Description" fields were translated in English with the help of google translate tool.

We tried to collect data as homogeneously as possible, following the procedure explained. However, collection was shared by 5 different members of the INRAE and Agri Kulti teams (1 for Denmark and Sweden, 1 for France, 1 for Hungary, 1 for Italy, 1 for Portugal and Switzerland) which may have led to a greater risk of introducing some bias in the data.

The sampling resulted in a database of 1,268 initiatives (see table below for details on the number of initiatives collected per country, see Appendix 2 to access the database).

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Number of initiatives included in the database per country</caption><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>N</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>172</td><td>13.6</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>382</td><td>30.1</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>163</td><td>12.9</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>186</td><td>14.7</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>105</td><td>8.3</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>166</td><td>13.1</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>94</td><td>7.4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>1,268</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

In order to gain a better understanding of the initiatives in our database that promote agrobiodiversity, and to give us an insight on the communication messages and values they put forward, a lexical analysis was carried out using the CorTexT manager platform on the 846 initiatives for which we were able to retrieve a 'description' text.

The figure below represents the map of co-occurrence of the most relevant noun phrases (monogram to up to 3 words) that were extracted from the 'description' texts. 311 terms were kept and plotted in a network mapping. Extracted terms give an overview of commercial activities of the initiatives, characteristics/values they highlight and products they handle.

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>
311 extracted terms from initiatives' description

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 13.** Online descriptions of 846 initiatives valuing agrobiodiversity</figcaption></figure>

Map interpretation keys: Terms are plotted according to their co-occurrence in the description texts studied using a distributional measure. On this map, each term is represented by a triangle with its size depends on the number of times the term was found in the description field. Each term is linked to its 5 closest terms (calculated on a basis of a distributional similarity measure – meaning that two terms are closer when they co-occur with the same other terms and thus have close appearance contexts). Graph layout and clusters (represented by coloured circles) are determined by Louvain resolution's algorithm. Clusters bring together terms that are strongly related to each other and thus retranscribes topic/dimension/meaning areas underlying the data. On the map, terms with a larger font size are the terms that are the most frequently found across the initiatives (numbers in brackets correspond to the number of initiatives expressing the terms), or the most intermediate (i.e., terms sharing strong links with terms from other clusters). Finally, to summarise and assess the importance of the dimensions underlying the data, clusters are named by the two most central words (i.e., a measure identifying the most critical terms of the network) and the number of initiatives that take part to the construction of the cluster are expressed into brackets. Finally, the 3 most represented countries for each cluster (determined by a $\chi^2$ measurement) are added.<fnref n="10" />

The network seems to be structured by separating initiatives according to their main activity.
Thus, the upper part of the network mainly involves initiatives whose main activity is selling

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The map can be explored online at the following links:
https://retina.cortex.net/#/graph/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.cortex.net%2Fdocs%2F21295d089e40c7b715ca693309df8eb0</footnote>
products (such as shops, online platforms...), while the lower part concerned those having an agricultural/production activity (such as farmers). Terms related to processing/food service are located in the central cluster of the map and seem to link "production" and "selling" clusters. The number of initiatives associated with each cluster give an indication of the proportion of each initiatives' type in our database.

The cluster which brings together the largest number of initiatives (i.e. 211 - named 'rotations & ground'), join both terms related to agriculture (farm, cultivation, organic agriculture, conservation agriculture...) and to processing of 'basic' products (flour, bread, bakery, pasta, millers...). The initiatives in this cluster focus their communication on cereals (wheat, rye, grains, corn, einkorn, ancient/old varieties, buckwheat, spelt...) and legumes (chickpeas, lentils, peas, square peas...). They communicate on biodiversity (local biodiversity, ancient varieties, new varieties<fnref n="11" />...), farming techniques (soil, ground, organic agriculture, crop rotation, green manures...) and traditional processing activities (natural sourdough bread, stone millstone, wood-fired oven, traditional technique...). 'Visit the farm' is also an activity linked to this type of initiatives. This cluster is most strongly associated with France, Italy and Switzerland.

A second cluster is linked by the term biodiversity, ancient grains, and farm to a medium-sized cluster (named 'agricultural company & company' - 53 initiatives - which puts this cluster in 7th place in terms of number of initiatives relative to the other clusters of the network 7). The initiatives in this medium-size cluster emphasise their territorial anchorage and their willing of transmission (territory, generation, heritage, small village). They talk about farming techniques, but in a way that seems more generic than the previous cluster (natural resources, organic crops, land). Agricultural companies in Italy are over-represented on it.

Two other small/intermediate clusters are found in the lower part of the network. 'Federal office for agriculture & plant genetic resources' bring 7 initiatives together (10th cluster in the network in terms of number of initiatives), almost only in Switzerland and focusing on the conservation of local varieties, genetic resources and diversity. Many links are shared with the cluster 'wild plants & medicinal plants' (48 initiatives - 8th cluster of the network). The initiatives of this cluster highlight permaculture, horticulture, botanical garden, small-scale garden activities, and are focused on herbs, flowers and wild plants. They communicate on old seeds. These initiatives seem to seek a connection with the general public (public awareness, guided tours). They are mostly located in Switzerland and Portugal.

The 'organic pulses & support local producers' cluster is made of only 2 initiatives (last cluster of the network in terms of size). They are a producer of organic pulses without any other communication and a cooperative of organic producers of legumes and cereals in France.

In the centre of the map is the intermediate-sized cluster (86 initiatives – 5th cluster of the network in terms of size), named 'kitchen & ingredients'. Its highlights terms transcribe processing activities or linkage to meals (kitchen, raw materials, cuisine, dishes, menu, lunch, gastronomy, flavours...). We find here initiatives such as restaurants, hotels, guesthouses or initiatives such as farm shops, market gardeners, processors (e.g., baker) with a food service activity. They

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ New, in this context, means that they have not been used before. It refers to a NUC and not a modern variety of wheat.</footnote>
communicate mainly on the convivial/naturality aspects (experience, natural ingredients, organic ingredients, harmony with nature, real butter...). The two Nordic countries (Sweden and Denmark) are the most represented in this cluster.

Another small cluster (6 initiatives – 11th cluster of the network in terms of size), named 'organic shop & respect for nature', is located in the middle of the network and brings together mainly organic shops with none or few other dimensions expressed in their communication. Portugal, Italy and Switzerland are the most associated to this cluster.

The cluster 'honey & cheeses' (3rd in terms of importance with 91 initiatives) bring together initiatives that deal in fact with a large number and/or specific food products that were not in our target (e.g. chocolate, tea, jams, meat, wine, etc...). This cluster meets also initiatives having delivery activities such as baskets, online shops, and farmers' stores. They communicate a little on the quality of the products (quality farm agriculture, selection of quality products) and highlight the locality, but rather at a regional or even a national level (local agriculture, regional products, national products). Sweden, Portugal and Denmark are the most associated to this cluster.

We find then the 4th cluster in terms of importance, 'circuit & transparency' (88 initiatives). This cluster is clearly positioned on the 'producer - consumer' link and working in a producer partnership manner (the most frequent terms are: producers, farmers, association, collaboration/partner producers, committed, members). We find initiatives such as CSA, platforms, producer stores. Their communication seems to be focused on the description of their operation (direct sale, distribution, circuit, contract, volunteers, points of sale...), on the very local area (terroir, local farms, proximity...), on the aspects of sustainability (rural areas, sustainable agriculture...), on solidarity (social ties, maintenance of peasant agriculture, fair remuneration and guarantee, fair price...), on quality, transparency and authenticity. These initiatives come mainly from France.

'Bulk and waste' represents the 2nd largest cluster with 151 initiatives. In here we find large initiatives that sell local products or which offer a large range of products (cleaning products, large number...) - mainly stores, including the bulk type. They communicate mainly on environmental aspects (waste, respect, eco-responsible, responsible consumption, selection of sustainable operations, carbon footprint, vegan products, seasonal products...) and by highlighting the local (local products, short circuit, development of the local economy, small local producers, farmers from the region), economic (economy, fair trade, attractive prices...) and quality (high quality, quality local products...) aspects. France and Portugal are the most associated to this cluster.

'Health food & minerals" (67 initiatives - 6th cluster of the network in terms of importance) includes initiatives - mainly shops - that are more focused on communicating the health/nutrition and naturalness aspects of products (health food, guarantee, vitamins, minerals, natural choice, organic food, biodynamic food ...). These initiatives are more linked to the Nordic countries and to Portugal.

Finally, a small cluster called 'Agricultural products & ecological transition' (14 initiatives – 9th cluster of the network) captures initiatives that are guided by a project or are mission first, or that promote their brand. Here we find large companies working collectively and communicating on their brand, and companies whose vocation is to offer labels (terms most frequently cited: bio, sector, brand, mission). Their communication is often around ecological aspects (sustainable

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>
production, ecological transition, impact on the environment). They are more associated to Italy,
Switzerland and France.

4.2 Survey instrument

A questionnaire was developed in order to gather more information about the identified
initiatives, the NUCs they deal with and a selection of variables was made so to establish a value-
based chain typology (i.e., notion of transparency, communication, supply/selling interactions,
economic sustainability performance).

The questionnaire (see Appendix 3) consisted of a total of 45 questions and 48 optional sub-questions and was designed to be simple, quick to answer, adapted to each type of initiatives and with a target of a maximum filling time of 15 minutes. Questions were divided into five parts:

* Part 1: initiative's profile (year founded, number of locations, city location, commercial activities, description, social missions pursed)

* Part 2: products and NUCs treated by the initiative, different information about the NUCs (origin, share activity related to NUCs, etc...), organisation of the supply and selling chains

* Part 3: digital tools used, communication (communication means used, qualities promoted, etc...)

* Part 4: certification systems used, NUCs' production communication, benefits perceived from the selling/valorisation of NUCs, NUCs' price and margin

* Part 5: competition perceived around NUCs, NUCs' production, processing and selling challenges.

The online survey was developed within the European's commission platform "EU Survey", first
in English, then translated into the seven DIVINFOOD countries' languages (i.e., German, French,
Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese, Danish, Swedish) with the help of the automatic transcription tool
offered by the EU application<fnref n="12" /> and finalised thanks to corrections by native speakers among the
DIVINFOOD partners working in WP1.

1,179 initiatives of the database (i.e., all initiatives for which contact information could be found
in the public sphere) were contacted, mostly by e-mailing via the EU survey platform (a few of
them, without e-mail, were contacted via their website contact form or their Facebook
application). The e-mail consisted of a text explaining the objective of the DIVINFOOD project and
of the questionnaire, the reason why there were being contacted (i.e., found their company's
website which suggested that they are involved in selling/valorising NUCs), the EU General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) information, the contact information of the task's leader and the
link to the survey in their native language<fnref n="13" />.

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="12">¹² EU Survey function https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ The online survey can be found here:
https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/DIVINFOOD_NUCsalesBenefits</footnote>
The questionnaire was opened between January 31th and April 17th, 2024. In an attempt to increase the response rate, several reminders were sent to the initiatives during the data collection period.

A total of 122 initiatives answered the questionnaire (see Table 2 for details of the number of respondents per country). This corresponds to a response rate of around 10% for the population (ranging from 5% for Sweden to 15% for Hungary), in line with response rates generally obtained for this type of online survey.

Questionnaire's results file was extracted from the EU Survey platform in an Excel format and analysed using the English version for the response form. All open free text fields completed in languages other than English were translated using the "Google translate" tool and mistranslations that would have impacted the data analysis were corrected. Data were imported and processed into R software (R Core Team, 2022). Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) were calculated for each question, for the sample as a whole and crossing by type of initiatives (see Section 5).

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>
# 5. Survey results

## 5.1 Introduction

This part of the deliverable presents the descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) of each question of the online survey. The purpose of this survey was to collect original data from those initiatives who are valorising NUCs in the currently “unfavourable” food environment, in order to better understand how value for agrobiodiversity is being created. Specifically in terms of the objectives of this deliverable, we were interested in collecting data from those initiatives who are making use of both their physical and digital food environments in order to develop better chains that value the NUCs that are being studied by the DIVINFOOD project partners.

Except for the « Survey description » part, where 122 answers were collected, statistics presented are related to the 78 initiatives having declared that they deal with NUCs (Q3.3). Indeed, the objective of the questionnaire was to collect information relating to the activities linked specifically to the commercial aspects of valorising NUCs. Therefore, if initiatives answered “no” or “don’t know” to the question about whether they “dealt with NUCs”, the questionnaire was closed and no further questions were asked. Thus, for those initiatives that had been purposively selected because the research team thought that they were dealing in NUCs, and thus contacted to participate in the survey but declaring in fact they were not (44 initiatives), only profile information (part 1 of the questionnaire) and the type of food that they traded are available.

The 78 “NUCS respondents” grouped initiatives with very different profiles in terms of number and type of commercial activities. Although there may be overlaps in activities, initiatives have been classified into five types (farmers, intermediaries, processors, shops and other - see Table 3 taking into account their major role determined with the help of their declared commercial activities (Q2.7), their self-description (Q2.11) and the information about their communication channels.

**The “farmer” category** includes initiatives involved in an “agricultural” production activity (whatever their other declared activities are). This category accounts for the majority of the sample (n=35, 44.8% of the 78 initiatives – 15 in France, seven in Italy, six in Hungary, three in Portugal and in Switzerland, one in Sweden and none in Demark). Almost all of these initiatives are also engaged in processing activities (i.e., they are millers, bakers, processors of pasta, processed products, and/or of seasonings, or have sorting and packaging activities), thus confirming conclusions from an earlier study that the majority of farmers participating in values-based supply chains are in fact producer-intermediaries (Loconto et al., 2021). Only nine of these 35 initiatives don’t seem to present this kind of processing activities.

Moreover, most “farmers” (n=21) appear to be “individual” (i.e., no particular characteristics/links to other farmers or cooperatives highlighted in their description). Five “farmers” seem to work more in a collective manner: a farm enterprise in Italy is part of a network promoting regional food and providing third-party activities (e.g., storage centre/mill) to other small businesses in its area; a collective of militant farmers and citizens that makes claims to food/farmer autonomy in France; three initiatives present a strong part of processing activities

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>
and work with a network of partners (two in France including one claiming to be associated with local partners; one in Italy - who also produce and sell seeds for sowing to farmers - aiming at developing a supply chain of quinoa in collaboration with partners specialised in processing). Two farmers in Switzerland work with the ProSpecieRara label (a label created by a Swiss foundation on heritage and genetic diversity); four farmers highlight their links with seed conservation associations/centres (two in Italy and one in Sweden and in France). Finally, two initiatives in Hungary and Portugal seem to be small scale vegetable farms focused on crop diversity with research/education/links with consumer as their main objective. Furthermore, two farms in Italy have the status of being a "social farm", which is a special legal category for farms that operate as social enterprises.

**The "shop" category** includes the initiatives in charge of a "physical" sales outlet (n=17, 21.8% of the sample - eight in France, three in Denmark and in Portugal, two in Sweden, one in Hungary, and none in Italy or in Switzerland). Types and product ranges (i.e., food or food & non-food) vary according to these initiatives. They include bulk stores, organic stores, local products stores. Three of them seem to integrate consumers' participation (two cooperative stores in Portugal and France, and a participatory non-profit supermarket in France); three others have a link with producers (run by a farmers' collective in France) and the final one is situated within the common area of a 'Third place' in France.

**In the "intermediary" category** are the initiatives whose main role is to act as a link between producers and consumers (n=11, 14.1% of the sample - five in France, and in Hungary, one in Italy, and none in Portugal, Denmark, Sweden or Switzerland). We find here initiatives that act as a CSA or that provide online platforms allowing consumers to find/order local products.

**The "processor" category** includes initiatives that process products but without any agricultural activity (n=8, 10.3% of the sample - two in Denmark, Italy and Sweden, one in France and in Hungary, and none in Portugal, or Switzerland). Two in Sweden are bakers associated with a café; one in Denmark is a restaurant; one in Hungary is a miller; two in Denmark and Italy are bakers; and two in France and Italy are companies that process, sort, and package cereals/legumes.

**The "other" category** includes initiatives that have specialised activities such as inputs production, education, advertising or research (n=7, 8.9% of the sample - five in Switzerland, one in France and in Portugal, and none in Denmark, Sweden, Hungary or Italy). Two of these in Portugal and Switzerland are seed production companies and four are associations implicated in the conservation/diffusion of traditional seed varieties (1 in France and 2 in Switzerland). These have agroecosystem-adapted crops or are committed to the preservation, enhancement and development of the natural (animal and plant genetic diversity) and cultural heritage. The last one in Switzerland defines itself as an independent knowledge hub committed to sustainable solutions for the agri-food industry.

Finally, when we talk about "short chains" in this result part, we are referring to initiatives that have declared having at most 1 intermediary between them and the producer for their supply chain or at most 1 intermediary between them and the consumer for their selling chain; about "medium chain" if they have declared 2 to 4 intermediaries and about "long chain" if they have declared more than 5 intermediaries.

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>
In the following section we will present the descriptive statistics of the sampled initiatives (those 78 who responded 'yes' to dealing with NUCs). We have organised our reading of the data mostly according to the actor type as this reading offers a better overview of the results. Most of the questions required multiple choice responses. In that case, results' tables (such as Table 7) therefore present the number of times each option was selected out of the whole sample, independent of the different combinations of multiple responses. The numbers thus contain the multiple responses chosen by the initiatives. In the text, we also mention the patterns of responses (i.e., the combinations of options constituting the answers) that are most frequently found within the sample. To disambiguate the way the results were observed, we used the term "the most cited combination of answers were" in the text, even if the most frequent response turns out to be the selection of a single modality only and not the combination of several modalities.

## 5.2 Database description

In this section, we provide a very short description of the database that we constructed from the application of the method described above.

### Q2.3: Initiatives' main location

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Number of initiatives responding to the questionnaire per country</caption><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>N</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>15</td><td>12.3</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>39</td><td>32.0</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>22</td><td>18.0</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>16</td><td>13.1</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>9</td><td>7.4</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>8</td><td>6.6</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>13</td><td>10.7</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>122</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

The number of total responses collected per country is in line with the number of initiatives listed in the database (i.e., average response rate of 10%, ranges from 5% in Sweden to 15% in Hungary), with France dominating the sample. We explain the higher numbers received from France according to two factors: 1) the French database was the most complete with 370 initiatives, whereas the second highest number of initiatives was Denmark with 164; 2) the survey was launched by INRAE, a French public research organisation that is well known and highly trusted in the French agri-food sector. Please see the methods section for more information about the survey method used.

### Q3.3: Among the foods covered by your initiative, do you consider any to be neglected or underutilised crops (NUCs, e.g., legumes or cereals from old, local or indigenous varieties)?
NUCs are "domesticated plant species that have been cultivated or consumed as food throughout human history, but have been reduced in importance over time...with many of them actually disappearing" (da Silva, FAO, 2012)

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Number of initiatives having declared dealing with NUCs by type of initiative</caption><thead><tr><th>Dealing with NUCS</th><th>Farmer n</th><th>Intermediary n</th><th>Other n</th><th>Process or N</th><th>Shop N</th><th>All N</th><th>Farmer %</th><th>Intermediary %</th><th>Other %</th><th>Process or %</th><th>Shop %</th><th>All %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>35</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>17</td><td>78</td><td>66.0</td><td>57.9</td><td>70</td><td>53.3</td><td>68</td><td>63.9</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>20</td><td>15.1</td><td>10.5</td><td>20</td><td>26.7</td><td>16</td><td>16.4</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know</td><td>10</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>24</td><td>18.9</td><td>31.6</td><td>10</td><td>20.0</td><td>16</td><td>19.7</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>53</td><td>19</td><td>10</td><td>15</td><td>25</td><td>122</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Despite the fact that we carried out a targeted search and contacted those initiatives that the researchers had identified as being involved in the sale or in the valorisation of NUCs, 44 initiatives - representing all 5 types of actors and of all 7 countries - declared that they did not know or did not deal with NUCs (36.1% of the total respondents of the questionnaire). Several explanations are possible for this result. First, even among the researchers, it is difficult to determine precisely the type of products treated by the initiative. For example, our reading of the information found on their websites may have misinterpreted the actual activities of the company. For example, 11 initiatives claimed that they did not deal with cereals/legumes. Second, the proposed definition of NUCs in this question may have been interpreted more or less severely depending on the initiative (particularly for the term "actually disappearing"). Finally, at least a few initiatives (online platforms and shops) said in the questionnaire comments that they don't really know the products that they sold on their platforms or that they didn't have the necessary information to add knowledge on the NUCs topic and selected the "no" or "don't know" responses rather than filling in the questionnaire.

The analysis of the free text questions (Q3.6/3.7 - Please specify the varieties of cereals/legumes that you consider as NUCS) and Q3.13 (Why do you think these are NUCS?) also seem to show an initiative-dependent interpretation of the notion of NUCs. Appendix 4 summarises the NUCs from cereals and legumes that were cited by the initiatives. These tables show that the level of details given varied according to initiatives. Thus, for example, some initiatives quoted very specific varieties of lentils (e.g. "gotlandslins") while other initiatives stuck to generic terms such as simply "lentils". Other initiatives considered the term NUCs in a very broad sense (for example, in Italy they have declared "lentils" as NUCs, which is not really the case as this is a very common pulse in many regions of the country), while others, whom we know to be involved with lentils from their websites, had only cited very specific varieties as NUCs (e.g. "Azuki bean") without mentioning lentils. In addition, some respondents had declared NUCs to be a small part of their actual production (e.g., a farmer described himself as a producer of ancient cereals (spelt, einkorn, evolutionary mixtures of ancient grains, millet, buckwheat) in rotation with legumes (chickpeas, peas, soy) but only responded "einkorn, spelt" as NUCs in questions Q3.6/3.7 - without evoking any legumes).

Appendix 5 summarises the justifications of NUCs identity that was provided by the initiatives. The reasons provided cover a range of very different themes (which are found across all initiatives' types/countries). Among the main themes we found:

1. NUCs are unknown (little-known products by consumers, rarely present or absent from traditional commercial channels, few grown, not care by the industry...) (cited by n=42 initiatives, 53.8%);

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>
2. There are particular seeds/varieties (local ecotypes, peasant seeds, not referenced in the official catalogue, ancient, abandoned, authentic, lack seeds...) (n=29, 37,2%);

3. There are difficulties to grow them (little value, not profitable, low productivity, little volumes...) (n=23, 29.5%);

4. They provide agro-ecological benefits (organic/agro-ecology production, not needing external inputs, great potential as sustainable, preserve biodiversity...) (n=13, 16.7%);

5. They provide nutritional benefits (better digestibility, low gluten strength, great interest both from a nutritional point of view, healthy, rich in protein, with a broad spectrum of essential amino acids...) (n=13, 16.7%);

6. They are difficult to process (need for dehulling after harvesting for its use, need great baking skills...) (n=6, 7.7%).

## 5.3 Descriptive analysis of the NUCs initiatives

In this section, we present the results of our questionnaire and first level analysis regarding the way in which the organisation of the food chains is valuing NUCs and the agrobiodiversity that they represent.

### 5.3.1 Profiles of the initiatives

In this first section, we describe a number of general characteristics of the entries found in our database in order to identify actor types, the diversity of commercial activities and the role of NUCs within a broader entrepreneurial strategy. The literature on alternative agri-food movements and on fair trade explain that the types of companies who engage in values-based food chains often have social missions. We explore this aspect also in this section.

#### Q2.3: Main location of initiatives dealing with NUCs

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Number of NUCs initiatives by country</caption><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>n</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>5</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>30</td><td>38.5</td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>10</td><td>12.8</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>5</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>8</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>78</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Initiatives responding negatively to the question about whether they deal with NUCs are found in all seven countries and across all actor types. Thus, the "NUCs' initiatives" sample reflects a similar distribution to that of all respondents with more than a third of respondents located in France. Denmark, Portugal and Sweden are the least represented, amounting to less than 10% of the initiatives (see Tables 2, 3 and 4).

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>
## Q2.2: Year funded

<table><caption>**Table 5.** Number of initiatives by funded year</caption><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td>n</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><= 2000</td><td>14</td><td>17.9</td></tr><tr><td>2001 - 2010</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td></tr><tr><td>2011 - 2020</td><td>45</td><td>57.7</td></tr><tr><td>>= 2021</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>78</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

The sample is mostly made up of recent initiatives, with 51 (65.4%) founded in or after 2011. “Intermediaries” are all founded after 2011 while all of the “other” initiatives were founded before 2011 (except one seed company founded in 2015). Among the 14 oldest initiatives, there are seven farmers (1875 to 2000), two processors (1819 and 1989), four others (1958 to 1999) and one shop (1989).

## Q2.6: How many other locations do you have?

<table><caption>**Table 6.** Number of locations per initiative</caption><thead><tr><td>Number of locations</td><td>n</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>48</td><td>61.5</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>16</td><td>20.5</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td></tr><tr><td>3-5</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>>10</td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>78</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

The sample is mostly made up of initiatives with a single location (n=48, 61.5%). The initiative which has declared more than 10 locations is an “intermediary”. It is an online platform aiming to provide open-source digital services to short food chains in France. The “Shops” all declared zero other locations, except a shop in France, which works closely with a farmer (defining itself as a “family business”). These results suggest that the shops involved in the value chains valuing NUCs are all rooted in the communities that they serve.

## Q2.7: How would you describe your commercial activities?

<table><thead><tr><td>Activities</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Food production</td><td>38</td><td>48.7</td></tr><tr><td>Selling food/retail</td><td>37</td><td>47.4</td></tr><tr><td>Processing</td><td>19</td><td>24.4</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>11</td><td>14.1</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>11</td><td>14.1</td></tr><tr><td>Agro-tourism</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>Transporting or delivery service</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 7.** Number of initiatives that selected each activity</caption><thead><tr><td>Activities</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Advertising/marketing/promotion/valorisation</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>Research</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>Inputs production</td><td>5</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Food storage/warehouse</td><td>5</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Wholesaling</td><td>4</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>Food service</td><td>4</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>Blogging</td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of activities selected by initiatives not limited

**Q2.7: Number of commercial activities selected by type of initiative**

<table><caption>**Table 8.** Number of activities selected by type of initiative</caption><thead><tr><td># activities</td><td>Farmer n</td><td>Intermediary n</td><td>Other n</td><td>Processor n</td><td>Shop n</td><td>All n</td><td>Farmer %</td><td>Intermediary %</td><td>Other %</td><td>Processor %</td><td>Shop %</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>15</td><td>40</td><td>25.7</td><td>63.6</td><td>57.1</td><td>62.5</td><td>88.2</td><td>51.3</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>15</td><td>25.7</td><td>18.2</td><td>28.6</td><td>12.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>19.2</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>12</td><td>28.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>15.4</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>5.7</td><td>18.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>8.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>14.3</td><td>12.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>5.7</td><td>0.0</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>

This question clarified the profiles of the different types of actors that responded to the questionnaire (see the introduction to this section). Even if the majority of the sample declared only one commercial activity (n=40, 51.3%), percentages of each commercial activities and the high number of combinations of commercial activities cited across the sample reflects the diversity of profiles in short and mid-tier food chains valuing agrobiodiversity. Food production and selling food/retail are the most cited activities (respectively n=38, 48.7% and n=37, 47.4%) in line with the sampling strategy.

Farmers' category seems to have a slightly more widely distributed profile than the other categories (see Table 8). This result confirms the producer-intermediary role of the majority of the farmers in our database.

**Q2.12: Does your initiative have a social mission?**

<table><caption>**Table 9.** Number of initiatives declaring having a social mission</caption><thead><tr><td>Social missions</td><td>N</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>48</td><td>61.5</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>20</td><td>25.6</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know</td><td>10</td><td>12.8</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>78</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>
## Q2.13: What are these missions intended to fight?

<table><caption>**Table 10.** Number of initiatives that selected social missions</caption><thead><tr><th>Social missions</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th><th>Declared social mission %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Unsustainable agricultural, production or distribution practices</td><td>39</td><td>50.0</td><td>81.2</td></tr><tr><td>Biodiversity decline</td><td>38</td><td>48.7</td><td>79.2</td></tr><tr><td>Unfair remuneration of producers</td><td>34</td><td>43.6</td><td>70.8</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental degradation</td><td>31</td><td>39.7</td><td>64.6</td></tr><tr><td>Climate change</td><td>26</td><td>33.3</td><td>54.2</td></tr><tr><td>Unfair global trade</td><td>22</td><td>28.2</td><td>45.8</td></tr><tr><td>Food insecurity</td><td>18</td><td>23.1</td><td>37.5</td></tr><tr><td>Gluten intolerance</td><td>18</td><td>23.1</td><td>37.5</td></tr><tr><td>Malnutrition</td><td>18</td><td>23.1</td><td>37.5</td></tr><tr><td>Overconsumption of meat</td><td>17</td><td>21.8</td><td>35.4</td></tr><tr><td>Obesity</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td><td>14.6</td></tr><tr><td>Food fraud</td><td>5</td><td>6.4</td><td>10.4</td></tr><tr><td>Undernutrition</td><td>4</td><td>5.1</td><td>8.3</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td><td>6.2</td></tr><tr><td>No social mission or don't know</td><td>30</td><td>38.5</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of social missions selected by initiatives not limited

## Q2.13: Number of social missions selected by type of initiative

<table><thead><tr><th># of social missions</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>19</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>30</td><td>54.3</td><td>18.2</td><td>28.6</td><td>62.5</td><td>11.8</td><td>38.5</td></tr><tr><td>1</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>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>0.0</td><td>9.1</td><td>28.6</td><td>12.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>2.9</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>5.7</td><td>27.3</td><td>28.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>9.0</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>8.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>14.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>11.8</td><td>7.7</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>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>8</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>8.6</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>17.6</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.9</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>11.8</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.9</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.0</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>13</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></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 11.** Number of social missions selected by type of initiative</caption><thead><tr><th># of social missions</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>Intermediate %</th><th>Other %</th><th>Processor %</th><th>Shop %</th><th>All %</th></tr></thead><tbody><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>

Thirty-eight percent (38.5%) of the whole sample (n=30) declared not being guided or not knowing whether their initiatives were guided by a social mission. The number of social missions selected by the initiatives varies across the sample, with 18 of them having one to four missions (37.5% of the initiatives declaring social missions); 22 (45.8%) having five to eight social missions and eight (16.7%) having nine to 13 social missions. Farmers' and processors' categories seem to present the highest proportion of initiatives without social mission.

"Unsustainable agricultural, production or distribution practices" and "Biodiversity decline" are the most cited social missions (respectively, n=39, 81.2% and n=38, 79.2% of those declaring social missions) followed by "unfair remuneration of producers" and "environmental degradation" (n=34, 70.8% and n=31, 64.6%).

A general tendency to combine social missions is found across the sample. The most cited combination is found only three times and concerned the four above-mentioned missions. However, almost all the initiatives claim to be concerned with production conditions (i.e. selection of "unsustainable practices", "biodiversity decline" and/or "unfair remuneration of producers"). Only three initiatives did not select at least one of these three missions: they are a social farm (in Italy, claiming that their "social farm" is their mission), a shop (in Denmark, claiming another mission of "ignorance of the best nutrition") and a producer (in Hungary, a miller claiming "Malnutrition + Gluten intolerance" missions).

This clearly positions these initiatives that have a social mission as being concerned for the environment, but more specifically being concerned about the current models of agriculture that are unfair to both the agroecosystems and the farmers. The importance of ancient cereals and legumes for health purposes, either for a vegetarian diet or for nutrition or gluten concerns, does not seem to be major drivers for those initiatives included in this study (n=28, 58.3% had selected at least one of the five entries related to nutrition).

### 5.3.2 Plant-based foods and NUCs

This part of the questionnaire was created in order to collect data about what NUCs are being valued in current food chains. The literature suggests that the number of intermediaries, the origin of the products, the types of contracts and the types of consumers are useful indicators of value that can be created for products through the market. We therefore developed questions that would enable us to measure this value for the ancient cereals and legumes that are the focus of this study.

In the previous deliverable 1.3, we reviewed the literature on the retail food environment for NUCs and we explained the consumer food environment and the 4Ps (product, placement, promotion and price). The questions that we included now on this section of our questionnaire were designed to enable us to collect data on these four aspects of the consumer food environment and better understand how different types of values-based chains are enabling the creation of benefits from NUCs in current consumer food environments.

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>
### Q3.1: What food does your initiative deal with? (i.e. that you produce, process, sell, promote/value and/or certify, depending on your initiative's activities)

<table><caption>**Table 12.** Type of food categories treated by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td>Type of food treated</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cereals/cereal-based products</td><td>69</td><td>88.5</td></tr><tr><td>Legumes/legume-based products</td><td>61</td><td>78.2</td></tr><tr><td>Vegetables/vegetables-based products</td><td>47</td><td>60.3</td></tr><tr><td>Seeds/seed-based products</td><td>44</td><td>56.4</td></tr><tr><td>Fruits/fruit-based products</td><td>36</td><td>46.2</td></tr><tr><td>Nuts/nut-based products</td><td>29</td><td>37.2</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>12</td><td>15.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of food categories selected by initiatives not limited

### Q3.1: Number of food categories treated by type of initiative

<table><caption>**Table 13.** Number of food categories selected by type of initiative</caption><thead><tr><td># of food categories</td><td>Farmer n</td><td>Intermediary n</td><td>Other n</td><td>Processor n</td><td>Shop n</td><td>All n</td><td>Farmer %</td><td>Intermediary %</td><td>Other %</td><td>Processor %</td><td>Shop %</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>14.3</td><td>9.1</td><td>42.9</td><td>12.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.8</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>11</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>13</td><td>31.4</td><td>0.0</td><td>14.3</td><td>12.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>16.7</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>11</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>16</td><td>31.4</td><td>0.0</td><td>14.3</td><td>25.0</td><td>11.8</td><td>20.5</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>11.4</td><td>0.0</td><td>14.3</td><td>25.0</td><td>5.9</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>8.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>25.0</td><td>23.5</td><td>11.5</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>17</td><td>2.9</td><td>54.5</td><td>14.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>52.9</td><td>21.8</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>0.0</td><td>36.4</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.9</td><td>6.4</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>

These results are in line with sampling strategy: only three initiatives claimed to be not concerned by cereals or by legumes (one is a vegetable farmer in Switzerland, one is a seed producer in Switzerland, and the last one is a CSA in Hungary, which nevertheless selected “legumes” for the type of NUC that it dealt with).

We found that farmers tend to still be rather specialised in their production, declaring the least number of food categories compared to the other actor types (n=27, 77.1% of this category deals with less than three food types). Intermediaries all declared six or seven food categories (except the CSA in Hungary which have selected only “vegetables”), processors declared between one and five food categories, whereas the majority of shops selected five or more food categories (n=14, 82.3% deals with five to seven categories).

The majority of cited combinations of food categories were: all categories except “other” (n=14, 17,9%); legumes + cereals (n=8, 10.3%); cereals alone (n=7, 9%); legumes + cereals + seeds (n=7, 9%); all seven categories (n=5, 6.4%).

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>
### Q3.3: What NUCs does your initiative deal with? (i.e. that you produce, process, sell, promote/value and/or certify, depending on your initiative's activities)

<table><caption>**Table 14.** Type of NUCs categories treated by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td>Type of NUCS treated</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cereals/Cereal-based products</td><td>67</td><td>85.9</td></tr><tr><td>Legumes/Legume-based products</td><td>38</td><td>48.7</td></tr><tr><td>Vegetables/vegetable-based products</td><td>28</td><td>35.9</td></tr><tr><td>Fruits/fruit-based products</td><td>15</td><td>19.2</td></tr><tr><td>Seeds/seed-based products</td><td>11</td><td>14.1</td></tr><tr><td>Nuts/nut-based products</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of NUCs categories selected by initiatives not limited

<table><caption>**Table 15.** NUCs' specialisation of the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td>Initiatives NUCS specialisation</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>NUCS cereals</td><td>39</td><td>50.0</td></tr><tr><td>NUCS legumes cereals</td><td>28</td><td>35.9</td></tr><tr><td>NUCS legumes</td><td>10</td><td>12.8</td></tr><tr><td>NUCS other</td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: "NUCS legumes" category groups the initiatives dealing with legumes only or with legumes and other categories - excluding cereals. "NUCS other" groups initiatives that deal with neither legumes nor cereals

### Q3.3: Number of NUCs categories treated by type of initiative

<table><caption>**Table 16.** Number of NUCs categories selected by type of initiative</caption><thead><tr><td># of NUCS categories</td><td>Farmer n</td><td>Intermediary n</td><td>Other n</td><td>Processor n</td><td>Shop n</td><td>All n</td><td>Farmer %</td><td>Intermediary %</td><td>Other %</td><td>Processor %</td><td>Shop %</td><td>All %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>18</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>30</td><td>51.4</td><td>27.3</td><td>42.9</td><td>25.0</td><td>23.5</td><td>38.5</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>11</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>27</td><td>31.4</td><td>18.2</td><td>28.6</td><td>62.5</td><td>41.2</td><td>34.6</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>9</td><td>8.6</td><td>9.1</td><td>14.3</td><td>12.5</td><td>17.6</td><td>11.5</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>5.7</td><td>27.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>11.8</td><td>9.0</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.0</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>2.9</td><td>9.1</td><td>14.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.9</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>

Our results are in line with the sampling strategy. Only one initiative - the vegetable farmer in Switzerland - is not concerned by NUCs from cereals or from legumes. Initiatives focusing solely on cereals are the most numerous (n=39, 50%), followed by those mixing cereals and legumes (n=28, 35.9%), whereas initiatives dealing with only with legumes are less frequent (n=10, 12.8%) (see Table 15).

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /></figure>
The majority of the initiatives deal with only one (n=30, 38.5%) or two (n=27, 34.6%) NUCs categories. The five initiatives declaring five or six NUCs categories have also declared a high number of food categories, they are: an association in Switzerland implicated in animal and plant heritage/genetic diversity; a farmer in Switzerland working with the ProSpecieRara label; a shop in France (in a third place - given many generic NUCs); an online platform in France (aiming to provide open source digital services to short food chains) and a CSA in France (given many generic NUCs).

In general, the initiatives tend to declare fewer NUCs categories than food categories: 25.6% gave as many food categories as NUCs categories (n=20); 21.8% gave one more food category than NUCs categories (n=17); 21.8% declared two more food categories than NUCs categories (n=17); 15.4% declared three more food categories than NUCs categories (n=12) and 10 (12.8%) declared between four and six more food categories than NUCs categories (i.e., they declared six to seven food categories and only one NUCs). In this final group, we find: two intermediaries in Hungary, two intermediaries in France and six shops (one in Hungary and in Sweden and, two in France and in Portugal). (two initiatives selected more NUCs categories).

The most cited combinations of NUCs categories are: cereals alone (n=25, 32.1%); legumes + cereals (n=12, 15.4%); cereals + vegetables (n=8, 10.3%); legumes alone (n=5, 6.4%); legumes + cereals + vegetables + fruits (n=5, 6.4%).

Appendix 4 summarises the NUCs varieties from cereals and from legumes quoted by the initiatives. For cereals (n=67 initiatives concerned), the NUCs cited correspond mainly to the category of wheat (n=84 citations), followed by einkorn (n=17 citations), and spelt (n=16 citations). Maize, rye, buckwheat, barley, fonio and teff were rarely declared (less than five citations). For legumes (n=38 initiatives concerned), the declared NUCs included lentils (n=20), peas (n=16), common beans (n=16), and chickpeas (n=12). Faba beans and lupines were rarely cited (four citations).

### Q3.14: What percentage of your activity is related to NUCS?

<table><caption>**Table 17.** Share of activity dedicated to NUCs by type of initiative</caption><thead><tr><th>NUCS share activity</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>&lt;5%</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>20</td><td>8.6</td><td>63.6</td><td>14.3</td><td>37.5</td><td>35.3</td><td>25.6</td></tr><tr><td>5 - 25%</td><td>12</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>26</td><td>34.3</td><td>9.1</td><td>28.6</td><td>25.0</td><td>52.9</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td>26 - 50%</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>9</td><td>17.1</td><td>9.1</td><td>14.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.9</td><td>11.5</td></tr><tr><td>51 - 75%</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>8.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>76 - 95%</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>17.1</td><td>18.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;95%</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>14.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>42.9</td><td>25.0</td><td>5.9</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>

NUCs represent a small part of the main commercial activity for the majority of respondents. We found that it was less than 5% for 25.6% of them (n=20) and between 5 and 25% for 33.3%

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>
(n=26). The share of activity linked to NUCs seems to be more evenly distributed for farmer compared to the intermediary, processor and shop categories. In these latter three, NUCs generally compose less than 25% of their commercial activities (respectively 72.7%, 62.5%, and 88.2% of the category vs. 42.9% for the farmers). Indeed, we see again here the tendency of farmers to be specialised.

The respondents declaring more than 95% of their activity linked to NUCS were: five farmers (all in France, two with strong processing activities related to cereals/legumes and working with collaboration with partners – they adopted a broad definition of NUCs; and three farmers-processors, specialised in ancient wheat varieties); three other types of initiatives (all associations focused on preserving varieties/ natural and cultural heritage – one in France and two in Switzerland); two processors (a baker focused on ancient cereals in Italy, and a bread factory with 100% spelt bread in Denmark); and a shop (in a third place where the NUCS definition is very broad and include all categories).

NUCS made up 76 to 95% of the commercial activity for six farmers and two intermediaries in our sample. The two intermediaries are a CSA in France dealing with a broad definition of NUCs across all categories, and an online platform in Italy. This online platform claims the protection and enhancement of the environmental and cultural heritage and works with NUCS in all food categories. The six farmers include: one in Switzerland working with the ProSpecieRara label; one small scale vegetable farm focused on crop diversity in Hungary; two individual farmers in France mainly focused on production of einkorn or wheat populations varieties; and two farmers working in a collective manner and rather specialised in cereals and legumes (one in France in association with citizen collective and one in Italy).

Even if the terms “old, ancient, cereals, legumes, varieties” seem to be less present in the descriptions of the initiatives that have declared less than 25% of their activity linked to NUCS, the distribution of our results are probably also partly related to the interpretation of the NUCS’ definition by respondents. We can only infer the extent to which these interpretations were broadly inclusive or narrowly exclusive in their interpretation. For example, a farmer declared less than 25% of their activity related to NUCS. Yet in the description they said that they produced modern and ancient wheat, small spelt, legumes including lentils, split peas, chickpeas and instead only declared two ancient varieties of wheat as NUCS. Some similar initiatives also reported a surprising range of percentages for their NUCS activities.

### Q3.15: What is the origin of the NUCS that your initiative deals with?

<table><thead><tr><td>NUCS origin</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Declared origin %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Same region</td><td>42</td><td>53.8</td><td>56.8</td></tr><tr><td>Same country</td><td>36</td><td>46.2</td><td>48.6</td></tr><tr><td>Same municipality</td><td>21</td><td>26.9</td><td>28.4</td></tr><tr><td>Same continent</td><td>14</td><td>17.9</td><td>18.9</td></tr><tr><td>Outside Europe</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td><td>9.5</td></tr><tr><td>Not concerned by sourcing, origin issues</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 18.** Origin of NUCs treated by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><th>NUCS origin</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th><th>Declared origin %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Don't know</td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of NUCs origin selected by initiatives not limited

**Q3.15: Number of NUCs origin selected by type of initiative**

<table><caption>**Table 19.** Number of NUCs origin selected by the initiatives</caption><thead><tr><th>Number of NUCS origin</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>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>5.7</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>20</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>41</td><td>57.1</td><td>72.7</td><td>57.1</td><td>25.0</td><td>41.2</td><td>52.6</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>24</td><td>25.7</td><td>27.3</td><td>42.9</td><td>37.5</td><td>35.3</td><td>30.8</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>8.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>25.0</td><td>5.9</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.9</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>5</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>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>

Only three initiatives declared not to be sourcing NUCs. These are two farmers who probably interpreted the question as referring to purchasing NUCs outside of their farm, and one processor with a large part of its commercial activity related to seed quality and producing their own raw materials in Italy. One cooperative store in France claimed that they did not know the origin of their products.

Most initiatives declare one (n=41, 55.4% of the initiatives declaring an origin) or two origins (n=24, 32.4%) for their NUCs. Three initiatives declared four or five different origins: one shop in a third place in France, a participatory non-profit supermarket in France and a farmer in Switzerland working with the ProSpeciRara label (they declared between three and six NUCs categories).

The most frequent combinations of origin are from the: same region selected alone (n=19, 25.6%); same country selected alone (n=13, 17.6%); same region and same country (n=9, 12.2%); same municipality selected alone (n=5, 6.8%).

The "same region" and "same country" are the most frequently origins selected (by about half of the initiatives, respectively n=42, 56.8% and n=36, 48.6%).

Of the five initiatives that source exclusively from the same municipality, they are all individual farmers (two in Hungary and in France and a small agroforestry production of vegetables for household consumption in Portugal) and thus are selling their own production through direct sales or through their own consumption.

Among the most "distant" origins, outside Europe was only mentioned once by a diversified organic shop in Portugal declaring "Khorasan wheat" as a NUC (but which nevertheless said to

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>
give priority to national/local products in its description). The same continent origin was cited alone three times (by a seed company in Switzerland, an association of seeds conservation in France, and an individual farmer in France who declared "old maize, old wheat, camellia and hemp" as their NUCs). Outside Europe was also selected in combination with other origins by six additional initiatives: a farmer in Italy (who is developing a quinoa supply chain, implicated in a research project and is trying to procure new lupine seeds from south America; an association in Switzerland that is working on *in situ* adaptation of crops; two processors (one in France sorting and packaging dried vegetables and cereals; and an organic bread factory in Denmark citing some specific NUCs), two shops (a participatory non-profit supermarket in France, and an organic shop in Portugal - this last one declaring some specific NUCs). Among these six initiatives, three listed very specific NUCs that have their origins in Africa and Latin America (i.e. chia, teff, fonio, cassava) which can explain this selected extra-EU origin.

These results suggest that the value chains are territorially anchored – but not at the municipality level and more at the level of the European regions or even nationally. This suggests that the majority of our initiatives are sourcing their NUCs through short and mid-tier chains that rely upon regional and national chains.

### Q3.16 and Q3.19: Do the NUCs that your initiative deals with come directly from producers? If indirectly, how many intermediaries (excluding the producer and your initiative) are involved for the supply of NUCs?

<table><thead><tr><th>NUCS Supply chain</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>Own producer</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>13</td><td>28.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>42.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>16.7</td></tr><tr><td>Own producer + Direct</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>14.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Own producer + Direct + Short supply chain (1 int.)</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>5.7</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Direct supply chain</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>25</td><td>25.7</td><td>63.6</td><td>0.0</td><td>25.0</td><td>41.2</td><td>32.1</td></tr><tr><td>Direct + Short supply chain (1 int.)</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>13</td><td>11.4</td><td>18.2</td><td>28.6</td><td>25.0</td><td>17.6</td><td>16.7</td></tr><tr><td>Direct + Short and Medium supply chain (1-2 int.)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>5.9</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Direct + Indirect - don't know the numbers of int.</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>0.0</td><td>9.1</td><td>14.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>11.8</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>Direct + Medium supply chain (1-2 int.)</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></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 20.** Type of NUCS supply chains</caption><thead><tr><th>NUCS Supply chain</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>Direct +<br>Medium<br>supply chain<br>(3 int.)</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>Short supply<br>chain (1 int.)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>11.8</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Short and<br>Medium<br>supply chain<br>(1-2 int.)</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.0</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Medium<br>supply chain -<br>don't know<br>the number of<br>int. (3 int.)</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>Medium<br>supply chain<br>(4 int.)</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>Long supply<br>chain (5 int.)</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>Indirect - don't<br>know the<br>number of int.</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>5.9</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Don't know<br>the type of<br>supply chain</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>Not concerned<br>with NUCS<br>sourcing/origi<br>n issues</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>5.7</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>12.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>3.8</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>

A little more than half of the initiatives included in our study are associated with a 100% direct supply chain (n=43, 55.1% corresponds to "own producer" or "own producer + direct" or "direct supply" chains) followed by a hybrid direct + short and/or mid-tier supply chain (n=19, 24.4% - with only four initiatives having a mid-tier chain with only up to three intermediaries: they are three processors (a baker/café in Sweden, a bread factory and a restaurant in Denmark) and a store in France.

Four (4, 5.1%) initiatives have a hybrid direct and indirect supply chain, without knowing the number of intermediaries: they are one "other" (independent knowledge hub in Switzerland), an online platform (aimed at providing open-source digital services to short supply chains in France), and two shops (participatory non-profit supermarket and a bulk store in France).

Only five initiatives (6.4%) don't source directly: they are two stores with an intermediary (in Sweden and Denmark), a CSA with one to two intermediaries (in Hungary) and two farmers with four to five intermediaries (an individual in Switzerland and a small agroforestry production in

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>
Portugal). Only three initiatives have an indirect supply chain without knowing the number of intermediaries (two diversified (food and non-food) shops in Portugal and a farmer claiming to have a great diversity of both plant and animal production activities in France. One other initiative (association for the development of site-adapted crops) in Switzerland do not know its type of supply.

Finally, three initiatives do not source NUCs. These are two farmers and the one processor with activities in seed quality and producing its own raw materials already were mentioned above.

These results further confirm the composition of our database as mostly short value chains that are territorially anchored but there are small percentage of mid-tier chains, that are sourcing to processors and food service providers, who generally have just one location.

### Q3.18: If directly, what type of contracts are established with producers for the supply of NUCs?

<table><caption>**Table 21.** Type of NUCs supply contract (for direct supply)</caption><thead><tr><td>Type of supply contract</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Having direct supply %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Own producer</td><td>20</td><td>25.6</td><td>33.3</td></tr><tr><td>1 time sale</td><td>18</td><td>23.1</td><td>30.0</td></tr><tr><td>Annual contract</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td><td>21.7</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term contract</td><td>10</td><td>12.8</td><td>16.7</td></tr><tr><td>Auction</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>13</td><td>16.7</td><td>21.7</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect supply</td><td>9</td><td>11.5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Not concerned by sourcing, origin issues</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Don't know the type of contract (direct supply)</td><td>5</td><td>6.4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Don't know the type of supply (direct or indirect)</td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of contracts selected by initiatives not limited

When asked about the types of contracts that are used, those initiatives that source directly for at least a part of their products (n=66), mostly rely on a single type of contract for their sourcing (n=42, 63.6% vs. n=6, 9.1% declaring two types of contracts and n=13, 19.7% being their own producer and n=5, 7.6% not knowing the type of contract).

That is, however, the largest consistency found in terms of the contracts as the specific type of contract found across the sector is quite variable and is not specific to short or mid-tier value chains. Instead, they vary between 1-time sales and annual contracts, which are slightly more used than long-term contracts.

These results suggest that the market demand (and also, perhaps the supply) is not consistent enough to enable the actors in the value chain to make longer term commitments that go beyond

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /></figure>
one year. The high number of "other" and "don't know" responses suggest that indeed the 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. This may be an additional reason why actors claim not to use so many binding contracts.

**Q3.20: and Q3.23: Does your initiative sell NUCs/NUC-based products directly to consumers? How many intermediaries are there between your initiative and the consumer?**

<table><caption>**Table 22.** Type of NUCs selling chains</caption><thead><tr><th>NUCS Selling chain</th><th>Farmer n</th><th>Interme<br>diary n</th><th>Other n</th><th>Processo<br>r n</th><th>Shop n</th><th>All n</th><th>Farmer<br>%</th><th>Interme<br>diary %</th><th>Other %</th><th>Processo<br>r %</th><th>Shop %</th><th>All %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Direct sales</td><td>17</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>14</td><td>44</td><td>48.6</td><td>72.7</td><td>14.3</td><td>50.0</td><td>82.4</td><td>56.4</td></tr><tr><td>Direct + Short sales<br>circuit (1 int.)</td><td>13</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>20</td><td>37.1</td><td>9.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>37.5</td><td>17.6</td><td>25.6</td></tr><tr><td>Direct + Medium sales<br>circuit (2 int.)</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>Direct + Short and<br>Medium sales circuit (1-<br>3 int.)</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>Direct + Don't know</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>Short sales circuit (1 int.)</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>Short and Medium sales<br>circuit (1-3 int.)</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>Don't know</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>Not concerned by food<br>sale</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>0.0</td><td>18.2</td><td>71.4</td><td>12.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>10.3</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>

The sample is made up almost exclusively of initiatives with 100% direct sales to consumers (n=44, 56.4%) or with a hybrid direct + short and/or mid-tier chains (n=22, 28.2%). Only two initiatives have up to two intermediaries between themselves and the food consumers. They are both farmers with processing activities, one is an individual farmer in Hungary and the other is working with a collective of farmers in France. On the other side, only two initiatives don't sell directly to consumers at all. They are a seed conservation association and a farmer selling to professionals in a mid-tier chain.

Only one initiative did not know how their products reached consumers. This was a small individual farmer working in collaboration with other producers and with an association of traditional varieties in Italy. Another farmer implicated in a network of committed growers, whose distribution and sales are carried out by another company in Sweden, declared that they did not know how? these products reached consumers, but this farmer also had their own direct sales to consumers.

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /></figure>
This leaves us with eight initiatives (10.3%) who are not selling food. Five of these are in the "other" actor type category, two are online platforms; and the final one is a processing company that is engaged in many activities linked to quality declared seeds production and sales, as well as farm advice.

Logically, rates of initiatives with an exclusively direct sales tend to be higher for the intermediary and shop categories as their type of enterprise is directly consumer facing (i.e., online platforms, CSA and shops).

### Q3.21: Can you estimate the share (%) of the NUCS/NUC-based products of your initiative that is sold directly to consumers?

<table><caption>**Table 23.** Share of NUCS' sold directly to consumers, for initiatives with a hybrid selling chain</caption><thead><tr><th>Share direct sales</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th><th>Having hybrid sells %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>=&lt; 10%</td><td>8</td><td>10.3</td><td>34.8</td></tr><tr><td>11 - 50%</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td>26.1</td></tr><tr><td>51 - 89%</td><td>6</td><td>7.7</td><td>26.1</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;= 90%</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td><td>13.0</td></tr><tr><td>Direct or indirect sales only or not concerned by food sales</td><td>55</td><td>70.5</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

The proportion of NUCS sold directly to consumers varies across the 23 initiatives having a hybrid direct/indirect sale chain. The three that declared selling their NUCS almost exclusively directly to consumers (+90% of their sales) are three individual farmers: two in France working with traditional wheat varieties (a baker and a producer of flour and pasta) and one in Hungary (a small-scale vegetable farm focused around diversity and with a strong involvement of consumers).

The analysis across these two questions – sourcing directly from farmers and selling directly to consumers – provides an important insight about the type of value chains that are operating and valuing NUCS. This first point is that there is a wide variety of modalities of sourcing and selling NUCS - thus diversity in marketing channels is confirmed as a core strategy. The second point is, as a general rule, NUCS are sourced directly from farmers and there is usually up to two intermediaries (including farmers' collectives, processors, retailers and food service companies) between the producers and the consumers. These results suggest that we are dealing in short and mid-tier chains as a core supply chain organising mechanism.

### Q3.22: How would you describe the consumers of the NUCS/NUC-based products you sell?

<table><thead><tr><th>Type consumers</th><th>All n</th><th>All %</th><th>Made direct sale %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Repeat consumers</td><td>39</td><td>50.0</td><td>65.0</td></tr><tr><td>Frequent consumers</td><td>29</td><td>37.2</td><td>48.3</td></tr><tr><td>One-off consumers</td><td>17</td><td>21.8</td><td>28.3</td></tr><tr><td>Members of a loyalty program</td><td>8</td><td>10.3</td><td>13.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 24. Type of NUCs consumers**</caption><thead><tr><td>Type consumers</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Made direct sale %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Don't know</td><td>7</td><td>9.0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Indirect sales only or not concerned by food sales</td><td>11</td><td>14.1</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

NB: number of consumers types selected by initiatives not limited

Among the initiatives that sell at least some of their NUCs directly to consumers, the majority mentioned a single type of consumers (n=38, 63.3% of the 60 initiatives which declared a type of consumers).

The remaining 36.7% (n=22) claim to have a diversity of consumer types ranging from two to four. The most cited combinations of consumer types are: repeat consumers (once monthly) selected alone (n=19, 31.7%); Frequent consumers (once a week or more) selected alone (n=13, 21.6%); One-off consumers (single purchase) and repeat consumers (once monthly) (n=6, 10%); One-off consumers (single purchase) and repeat consumers (once monthly) and frequent consumers (once a week or more) (n=6, 10%); Repeat consumers (once monthly) and frequent consumers (once a week or more) (n=5, 8.3%).

Over the sample, "repeat consumers" and "frequent consumers" are the consumer types that are the most frequently cited (selected by respectively n=39, 65% and n=29, 48.3%).

These results suggest that those consumers who are purchasing NUCs know where to find them and consistently return to purchase them. The NUCs sellers thus have a rather loyal customer base. There is also evidence of other consumers who are testing the products, perhaps coming back eventually to purchase the NUCs again.

### 5.3.3. Digital tools and communication of the initiatives

In short and values-based chains, previous studies have noted that there is an increased reliance upon digital tools that can be used for both marketing and communication purposes (Loconto et al. 2021; Garrido-Garza et al. 2024). This information is particularly important for the design of DIVINFOOD's WP1 as Tasks 3 and 4 will consist of experimenting with partners on the marketing and communication capacities of different tools as we try to add value to NUCs in the consumption domain. We therefore designed this portion of the questionnaire in order to help us to better understand how value is created for NUCs through current digital and other means of communication.

### Q4.1 and Q4.6: Do you use online platforms? Do you rely on other means of communication?

<table><thead><tr><td>Type of general communication</td><td>All n</td><td>All %</td><td>Declared communication %</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Online platforms</td><td>72</td><td>92.3</td><td>94.7</td></tr><tr><td>Word of mouth</td><td>63</td><td>80.8</td><td>82.9</td></tr><tr><td>Labels</td><td>33</td><td>42.3</td><td>43.4</td></tr><tr><td>Brochures/flyers</td><td>30</td><td>38.5</td><td>39.5</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>