COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on various aspects of short food supply chains Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the case for a local farming and direct sales labelling scheme
Date: 2013-12-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural production, consumer information, delivery, direct selling, foodstuff, labelling, location of production, quality control of agricultural products, rural development, socioeconomic conditions













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0501R(01) - EN











|



52013SC0501R(01)

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on various aspects of short food supply chains Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the case for a local farming and direct sales labelling scheme /* SWD/2013/0501 final/2 */









 || EUROPEAN COMMISSION ||   
Brussels, 6.12.2013 
SWD(2013) 501 final/2
 
COMMISSION STAFF
WORKING DOCUMENT
on various aspects of
short food supply chains
Accompanying the
document
Report from the
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council
on the case for a
local farming and direct sales labelling scheme 
{COM(2013) 866 final}
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3
2........... Information sources...................................................................................................... 4
3........... Revival of short food supply
chains and local food systems....................................... 5
3.1........ Producers...................................................................................................................... 6
3.2........ Consumers.................................................................................................................. 10
4........... Challenges  for "going
local"...................................................................................... 12
5........... EU level initiatives...................................................................................................... 14
6........... Short food supply chains: a priority in the CAP post 2013........................................ 15
7........... Food hygiene rules to accompany
the specificities..................................................... 17
8........... Opening and promoting access to
Markets................................................................. 17
8.1........ Promotion of short food supply
chains and local food systems................................. 18
8.1.1..... European Network for Rural
Development (ENRD)................................................. 18
8.1.2..... Information activities.................................................................................................. 19
8.2........ Public procurement..................................................................................................... 19
9........... Going beyond rural areas:
Innovation and research................................................... 20
10......... Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 21
Annex 1..................................................................................................................................... 22
Annex 2..................................................................................................................................... 25
Annex 3..................................................................................................................................... 28
Annex 4..................................................................................................................................... 30
COMMISSION
STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
on various aspects of short food supply
chains
Accompanying the document
Report from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council
on the case for a local farming
and direct sales labelling scheme 
1.           Introduction
Consumers are more and more alert about the
food they eat. Discoveries of large quantities of mislabelled food – sometimes
triggering widespread media coverage - have shaken society confidence in the
proper functioning of the food chain. In addition, food hygiene crises,
increased economic, environmental and climate concerns and awareness of social
responsibility towards the community have increased consumers’ interest in
knowing how, where and by whom food is produced and handled on its way from the
farm to the table, from the production site to the final place of sale. A
survey[1]
in 2010 showed that in all Member States, more than half of the respondents
associate food and eating with concern about food safety. 71 % of respondents
to a survey[2]
in 2012 said that the origin of food is important. In the same survey, 81 % of
the respondents agreed that agriculture is beneficial for the environment and
86 % agreed that agriculture helps to protect and preserve rural areas. 
Buying food produced locally and with a reduced
number of intermediaries handling it is one of the reactions. A growing number
of consumers want to buy fresh, seasonal food, produced in their local
environment, and as directly from the farmer as possible. Recent consumer
surveys at national or regional scale have shown, for example, that 70 % of
British consumers want to buy local food and 72 % of French consumers consider
it important[3].
The aim of this Commission Staff Working
Document is to put short food supply chains and local food systems into a
broader context of European Union (EU) policy by ensuring coherence and
co-ordination between various policy tools, to raise awareness about the
benefits of these systems, and to launch a reflection about the opportunities
for meeting the demand for local food. 
This Commission Staff Working Document
complements the Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council on
the case for a local farming and direct sales labelling scheme[4] by pointing to issues
going beyond the labelling. It aims at identifying the challenges faced by
short food supply chains and local food systems; presenting, analysing and clarifying
the various tools available at EU level to assist producers in marketing their
produce locally; and last but not least at giving orientations on how to get
the best of these systems to maximize their expected positive effects and
unlock their economic potential.  
2.           Information
sources 
In order to get a better view of local farming
and direct sales across the European Union, the Commission has undertaken
several activities: 
–              
Twenty-four Member States replied to a
questionnaire with regard to direct and local sales. The results of this
consultation were presented and discussed in May 2011 in the Permanent
Committee on PDO/PGI[5]
for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs. 
–              
The Commission received twenty-seven replies to
a questionnaire sent to Members of the Advisory group on Quality of
Agricultural Production and other relevant stakeholders. Two rounds of meetings
with individual stakeholders have taken place during spring and autumn of 2011.

–              
A Working group composed of experts nominated by
organisations represented in the Advisory Group on Quality of Agricultural
Production was established in October 2011. It met five times in the period of
one and a half year. The Working group has provided expert advice on short
supply chains, direct sales, local products and communication between farmers
and consumers. It has also examined the case for a local farming and direct
sales labelling scheme assisting producers in marketing their produce locally. 
–              
The Advisory group on Quality of Agricultural
Production[6]
has been informed about the work of the Working group at each of its meetings
between October 2011 and June 2013 and has discussed the issues of local
farming and direct sales. 
–              
The Commission asked for an external study with
the double aim of describing short supply chains and local food systems and of
gathering evidence justifying or not an EU level action with regard to
labelling. The study "Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in
the EU. A State of Play of their Socio-Economic Characteristics"
(hereafter: the Study on short food supply chains) has been published in March
2013[7]. 
–              
A high level conference "Local Agriculture
and Short Food Supply Chains"[8]
organised by the Commission in April 2012 addressed challenges faced by farmers
and a series of recommendations have been endorsed by the conference
participants.
3.           Revival
of short food supply chains and local food systems
Short food supply chains[9] and local food systems[10] have always existed.
However, the last two decades have seen a revival in many places in the EU. 
Selling farm products directly or through short supply chains is in many cases
an important source of revenue for farmers, contributing to their well-being
and to the viability of rural areas. For example, the share of farms estimating
that more than half of their production is sold directly to consumers is almost
25 % in Greece, around 18 % in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, and around 17 %
in Italy and Poland[11].

This shows that certain consumers try to
establish a long lasting relationship based on trust with farmers who are
committed to fulfil their expectations. They believe that short distances
between producers and consumers, few or no intermediaries and a proven link to
the territory preserve community values and allow all actors in the food chain
to identify themselves as members of that chain. This shows that there is an
untapped potential of development of short food supply chains and local food
systems.
Such relationships are beneficial for both
farmers and for the local community as a whole. This has been demonstrated by
various studies including the recent Study on Short Food Supply Chains and
Local Food Markets in the EU: a State of Play of their Socio-Economic
Characteristics. By reviewing literature and by own research, the study authors
have looked at impacts across the EU and confirmed positive impacts. With
regard to farmers, their role is enhanced as consumers understand better their function
not only with regard to food production but also with regard to providing public
goods like maintaining ecosystems, landscapes, and culture and tradition. Short
food supply chains can result in a higher share of the value of the final sales
price. This can result in a higher farm income and creates the opportunity to
expand and modernise agricultural and non-agricultural activity on the farm as
well as to improve viability of the farms.  
Consumers concerned are able to fulfil their
needs of food provision as well as better meet their environmental, climate,
social and health expectations regarding food. The evidence has shown that
consumers who would like to buy locally produced food often cannot recognise it
in the market place[12].
There is a need for bridging the distance between the consumers and the
farmers, which has manifested for example in initiatives of community supported
agriculture. In addition, many consumers attach to short food supply chains and
local food systems values such as social contact between people, involvement in
community life, solidarity and fair reward for services, and respect of the
nature and the environment. Fulfilment of these values can enhance community
life.   
The local community may furthermore benefit
from increased economic activity and a revival – or at the very least
maintenance - of local services. Growing demand for “local” products represents
an opportunity for strengthening and developing the competitiveness of rural
areas through encouraging economic activities to meet this demand. Supplying
local food systems is not only an opportunity for agricultural production, it
affects all post-primary production activities like processing, distribution
and retail. The spill-over effects of agricultural production destined to the
markets in proximity thus have a multiplication effect on the local community
by generating employment opportunities.
This modern view of relationship between
producers and consumers with regard to food as well as of ensuring
competitiveness at local level is even more important in the current situation
of economic crisis. The reaction “going local” is increasing the resilience
capacity of local communities as it helps maintaining and generating local
employment in many sectors, for example processing, retail and tourism. 
Public support to short food supply chains and
local food systems could help maximising these benefits. This has been
confirmed in the last years by the growing interest by public authorities as
well as by European institutions[13],
even calling on the Commission to propose the appropriate support and promotion
instruments. The debate on the importance of short food supply chains and local
food systems has also been launched by stakeholders and food chain actors.
3.1.        Producers
The share of the agricultural sector in the
total value added of the food supply chain has decreased from 31% in 1995 to
24% in 2005, while over the same period, the shares of the food industry,
wholesale and distribution sector have all increased[14]. A High Level Forum
for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain[15]
has recently examined competitiveness in the agri-food industry and contractual
practices in the food supply chain. It has developed a Code of conduct and a
self-regulatory framework for the implementation of fair trading practices
which will be put in practice by food chain actors on voluntary basis.
Moreover, the High Level Forum has invited the Commission to undertake
appropriate steps to ensure fair trading practices in the food supply chain. The
Commission is conducting an assessment of unfair business-to-business trading
practices in the food supply chain. The assessment is expected to be finalised
by the end of 2013.
Table: SWOT analysis of local farming and
direct sales
 Strengths: •         Diversity of product •         Fresh, seasonal food •         Transparency / traceability in the local farming and in particular direct sales •         Building relationship, trust •         Responsiveness to consumer's demand •         Control over the final price, more competitive consumer price, increase of bargaining power •         EU tools and support measures || Weaknesses: •      Small production volume, seasonality of production •      Relatively high cost of establishing and selling in alternative chains •      Low capacity to join existing certification schemes •      Lack of training, infrastructure, know-how and skills •      Cost of regulation/controls   
 Opportunities: •      Big interest in the origin of food and growing interest in buying « local » •      Increased consumer motivation for "fair" trade •      Opening of new marketing channels in the local economy •      Member States' and regional authorities ready to act/support •      Locally visible environmentally sound production and low carbon emitting supply chains || Threats: •      Competitiveness of the business model •      Societal changes: migration trends, ageing population •      Difficulties for consumers to recognise "local" food •      Long working hours, stress 
A recent study[16]
looked into difficulties of suppliers who consider their bargaining power in
relation to large retailers to be small; in particular this holds for small
suppliers and suppliers of fresh produce. Small suppliers not involved in
producer organisations or other form of co-operation face barriers to enter the
conventional commercial chains in terms of standards, investments and
distribution capacity. Due in part to under-investment, they are least able to
resist the power of large retailers and are likely to be the most vulnerable to
imposed changes in contract terms. The consequences of this pressure are a
considerable uncertainty for suppliers, a disincentive to invest and innovate,
and limited power to compete. 
Due to the pressures mentioned above, farmers
may use alternative forms of supply chains: those addressing consumers more
directly. In general, local farming aimed at supplying consumers in an area
close by typically has specific characteristics: artisan – instead of
industrialised production methods; use of traditional recipes and production techniques;
and sales locally with fewer intermediaries. Such "local" farming is
often linked to direct sales. These are the simplest food supply systems:
products go straight from producers to consumers. The objective is to allow
producers to capture a greater share of the retail price or offer their
products at a more competitive price to consumers, and increase profit[17]. Farm stands and
farmers' markets also provide consumers with a sense of the people and
production processes behind the food bought. People become aware of the
connection between farming and the food they eat. Short food supply chains
furthermore contribute to increased access to fresh, seasonal food and clearer
origin of the product.  
Short food supply chains help keeping the value
added within agricultural sector while at the same time bringing consumers
closer to the source of the food they eat.
Graph: Direct sales in selected Member States
Source: Farm
Structure Survey, Eurostat, 2007.
A Eurostat Farm Structure Survey 2007 has
showed significant differences among the Member States with regard to
development of direct sales. The farmers' answers to a question "Do the
direct sales to consumers account for more than 50% of the total sales?"
are presented in the graph.
Data are available for 17 Member States,
representing 89 % of all EU farms. On average, about 15% of these farms sell
more than 50% of their production directly to consumers, with significant
differences among Member States: from almost one quarter of all farms in Greece
to 0.1% in Spain.
Economic size classes between 1 and 8 ESU[18] have the highest
shares of farms selling more than 50% of their production directly to
consumers, whilst only about 3% of the farms belonging to size classes above
100 ESU sell more than 50% of their production directly to consumers.  
According to Eurostat’s Farm Structure Survey
2010, of the 12 million of agricultural holdings in the European Union, 7.3
million of agricultural holdings (60.4%) have an economic size of less than EUR
4 000 Standard Output[19].
These holdings employ 32% of the regular labour force in the agricultural
sector (measured in full-time equivalents). More than 50% of the persons
working in the European agricultural holdings work in a farm with less than EUR
4 000 Standard Output, which in absolute numbers corresponds to over 13
million people. Agricultural patterns characterised by small farm structures
are more present in the new MS where 78% of all agricultural holdings are
smaller than EUR 4 000 Standard Output, employing 48% of the agricultural
labour force (measured in full-time equivalents). While the above Eurostat
statistics are based on the economic size of the holdings, the market
participation approach has been used in the definition[20] of the
semi-subsistence farms; these are agricultural holdings which produce primarily
for their own consumption and also market a proportion of their output.
Eurostat provides data for 24 out of 27 Member States (no data are available
for Belgium, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom) on the number of holdings
producing mainly for their own consumption[21].
In 2010, 5.8 million holdings representing 49% of all holdings in the covered
24 Member States consumed more than half of their own production. 
Despite their low market participation rates
and relatively low profitability, small-scale farmers have an important role
with regard to the environment climate and natural resources, local economy and
social cohesion. Agriculture that is "local" by supplying consumers
in an area close by typically has specific characteristics: artisan – instead of
using industrialised production methods; use of traditional recipes and
production techniques; and sales use few intermediaries or are direct. The
objective is to allow producers to capture a greater share of the retail price
or offer their products at a more competitive price to consumers, and increase
profit[22].
Farm stands and farmers' markets also provide consumers with a sense of the
people and production processes behind the food bought. People become aware of
the connection between farming and the food they eat. Short food supply chains
furthermore increase access to fresh and seasonal food.  
Few marketing channels are open to small-scale
farmers, whose marketing is often hampered by the nature of the production
(non-standardised product), processing and storage limitations, lack of
infrastructure and difficult access to markets. The small levels of production
are also often not sufficiently interesting to major buyers (retailers, traders
and processing companies) that increasingly dominate the marketplace. 
Additional income from selling through short
supply chains may and does help small-scale farmers to continue their economic
activity. The Study on short food supply chains has found some evidence that
short supply chains in addition lead to increased local employment and
multiplier effects and have a positive impact on regional tourism. 
Finally, the impact assessment[23] related to EU quality
schemes highlighted the widespread failure of these schemes to attract
participation of small-scale producers. Small-scale producers in particular
perceive the system as burdensome and expensive. As a consequence, the
potential of quality schemes and quality products is not fully implemented
across the European Union. 
Taking into account that small-scale holdings
are relatively more involved in short food supply chains, use of appropriate
labelling information may contribute to increased visibility of their products
and boost their sales. The question is whether an EU labelling scheme would add
value taking account of the existing schemes, including EU quality schemes, and
whether an EU scheme could coexist with the existing national or regional
schemes.
3.2.        Consumers
Empirical studies of the purchasing behaviour
indicate a high level of interest in buying local and regional food. One study[24] indicates that in the United Kingdom, 70% wanting to buy ‘local’, nearly 50% wanting to buy more of it in the
future, and 60% saying that they are currently buying local. According to
Natural Marketing Institute[25],
71 % of French and 47 % of Spanish and British consumers claim that it is
important to buy local products. According to another study[26], 52% of Italian
consumers purchase directly from a producer at least once a year. These
consumers claim as the main motive, the price/quality ratio, but also other
characteristics of direct sales, for example rediscovering the territory,
access to seasonal products, and the social and environmental role of
agriculture. More specifically for meat, 10% of EU consumers indicated that
they buy meat or meat products directly from the farm[27]. 
The priorities of the Consumer Policy Strategy
for 2007-2013[28]
include: to increase consumer confidence in the internal market; to strengthen the
consumers’ position in the market place; and to ensure that consumer concerns
are taken into account in all EU policies. In general, the level of consumer
trust that retailers respect the rules protecting consumers, is higher for goods
(including some food products) than for services[29]. With a view to better
informing consumers, different information schemes have been developed at
national, regional and local, but also at European level. The Eurobarometer
survey on Consumer Empowerment[30]
has revealed a lack of knowledge and skills among consumers, including
regarding labelling and logo interpretation, which was supported by results of
the study on the functioning of the meat market for consumers[31]. Consumer organisations, surveys and studies point to certain risks of
information overload, proliferation of labels and consumer confusion[32].  
Consumer confidence can be enhanced by correct product
information. The General Food Law Regulation[33]
stipulates that the labelling, advertising, and presentation of food shall not
mislead consumers. Further provisions are set down in the general labelling
Directive[34]
and Regulation (EU) on the provision of food information to consumers[35]. In more general
terms, consumers are also protected by provisions of the Unfair Commercial
Practices Directive[36].
A UK study[37]
has looked into the use of the food description "local" and analysed
the inspection results of local authorities who checked the accuracy of
"local" claims with regard to 30 or 50 miles distance. They determined
that at least 18% of claims for products being "local" were false.
The study has found that the increasing focus on ‘local’ has resulted directly
from consumer interest in the origin of food, the impact of food transport on
the environment and a desire to support ‘local’ businesses. 
4.           Challenges 
for "going local"
Short food supply chains and local food systems
represent the diversity and richness of European agriculture which must be
preserved. They are however facing numerous challenges. These were addressed
during the conference organised in 2012 as follows: 
–              
Knowledge, training and skills: there is often a
lack of knowledge and expertise required to engage in creating a new activity
of selling directly to the consumer. Selling of products requires knowledge and
skills, different from those required for production. By selling directly, a
farmer becomes much more than a producer: (s)he is at the same time a marketing
agent, a distributor and consumer relations expert. Training is often necessary
to cope with all these challenges. 
–              
Structural and logistic issues: there may be a
lack of adequate facilities or even space to sell directly on the farm which
requires investment in buildings and selling facilities. A farm might be in a
place too remote for consumers to go there and ensuring appropriate transport
infrastructure is a prerequisite. Moreover, common processing facilities at a
disposal to those farmers who want to sell processed products may not be
available in close vicinity.
–              
Administrative burden: the documentation
required and costs incurred to comply with food hygiene legislation in
particular are sometimes considered as one of the main difficulties faced by
farmers who wish to develop short supply chains and sell to consumers directly.
This is notably the case for small-scale farmers. 
–              
Competition with major market players: the
volume and range of products offered by individual farmers is relatively small
and in addition usually seasonal. This limits the competitiveness of farmers
vis-à-vis distributors and wholesalers procuring on a larger scale who thus
find it easier to respond to the needs of industrial food producers and large
retailers. Association and co-operation models to join forces may not have been
successful in every environment and may be conditioned upon cultural
characteristics; this influences farmers’ ability to cope with stronger players
on the market.
–              
Access to public procurement: difficulties in
participating in public food procurement by local authorities, for example for
schools or hospitals, are often evoked. The reasons are similar as mentioned
above: fragmented offer and lack of collective approach make it difficult to
compete in a public tender.
–              
Low level of development of producer groups and
association systems: in some Member States or regions it is observed that a
level of association of farmers is lower than in other. In these cases farmers
have not joined a producer group or a co-operative despite the fact that
co-operation models can be most helpful to strengthen the position of farmers
on the market.
–              
The development level of local markets is not
homogenous: there are significant variations between the markets for products
to be sold locally. Some markets are not very responsive to changes, while
others see increasing interest and demand for local products. It is therefore a
challenge to make an appropriate marketing strategy for development of short
food supply chains.
–              
Financial constraints to access capital: farmers
find it difficult to set up new marketing activities because of cash flow
difficulties or limited access to loans. 
–              
Information and promotion activities: a
considerable number of consumers report difficulties in identifying products
made on farms nearby or in knowing where to buy such products. In other words,
there is often insufficient visibility of and knowledge about locally produced
products, as well as lack of information how to access them. Ensuring higher
visibility of these products, underpinned by information and promotion
activities, is also connected to a challenge of educating consumers about the
food.
The EU legislative framework, notably rural
development provisions, currently provides for a range of tools and support
measures to help farmers sell directly or through short food chains. In
addition, the Commission proposals for the CAP reform and rural development[38] seek to further
strengthen the EU commitment to local agriculture and short food supply chains,
as a way to unlock the full economic potential of such agricultural models. Their
growing importance justifies a new consideration of these systems as an
emerging foundation of a new focus of European agriculture, more based on
partnership of actors within local communities. The policy tools which are at
disposal of Member States are presented in Annex I.
5.           EU
level initiatives
In view of growing social and economic
importance of short food supply chains and local food systems, and of their
increasingly important place in the political debate across the Member States,
the Commission has committed to examine and discuss the issue more in detail.
When looking at the challenges of the CAP post 2013[39], the Commission
underlines that "EU citizens demand high quality and a wide choice of
food products, reflecting high safety, quality and welfare standards, including
local products". The Commission also underlined that "environment,
climate change and innovation should be guiding themes that steer the policy
more than ever before."
Short food supply chains and local food systems
offer opportunities to farmers and citizens. The Commission aims at putting
forward the tools sustaining their development and encouraging the food chain
actors and public authorities to use them to the benefit of all.  
In order to provide an overview of short food
supply chains and local food systems across the EU, an external study[40] was launched in 2011
and published in 2013. Consultations of Member States and stakeholders on
direct sales and local sales of agricultural products and foodstuffs took place
in 2011. During 2011 to 2013, experts have examined the issue of direct sales
and short supply chains, including how to develop a labelling scheme for
products sold directly or locally, with the objective of helping farmers find
alternative sales channels and diversify their sources of income, clarifying
rules for farm products sold in directly or locally and helping consumers to
better identify such products. 
The Committee of the Regions consideres[41] that the Commission
should "adopt definitions of 'Local Food Products' and 'Local Food
Systems', and introduce a new logo and identify a common symbol and scheme
identity for local products […]". 
In its resolution "Future of the CAP after
2013"[42],
the European Parliament makes clear that  improving competitiveness at different
levels, including local markets, should be a fundamental objective of the CAP
post-2013. 
The EP resolution "Fair revenues for
farmers: A better functioning food supply chain in Europe"[43] argues in favour of
simplification of procedures supporting the local and regional marketing of
food. It considers that measures should be taken for creating marketing outlets
for farmers to offer their products directly to consumers and for sales of
agricultural products on local markets.
In 2012, a high-level conference "Local
Agriculture and Short Food Supply Chains"[44]
organised by the Commission addressed the challenges faced by farmers and a
series of recommendations have been endorsed by the conference participants. The
conference focused on the use of policy instruments, facilitating access
to markets as well as reinforcing links between farmers and consumers, and
improving the implementation of relevant hygiene legislation applying to short
food supply chains. The conference gave voice to farmers, in particular small
ones, who presented success stories and challenges they are facing. It also
gave voice to consumers who shared their expectations as well as to public
authorities who described their activities supporting local agriculture and
short food supply chains.
Finally, in the framework of adopting
Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and
foodstuffs[45],
the European Parliament and the Council considers it warranted to request a
report of the Commission on the case for a local farming and direct sales
labelling scheme to assist producers in marketing their produce locally. Work
on this report shows that a range of tools are in place – including at EU level
- to help farmers sell through short food supply chains and to increase their
presence in local food systems. However, the actual use of these tools varies
considerably between regions and Member States. Challenges with regard to
engaging in local agriculture are not the same across the EU and hence a
combination of actions that Member States could make available to assist their
development should be tailored to the needs.
6.           Short food supply chains: a priority in the CAP post 2013 
As systems that contribute to unlocking the
economic potential of local communities, short supply chains are important
elements to face the economic crises. The Europe 2020
strategy is about delivering growth that is: smart, through more effective
investments in education, research and innovation; sustainable, thanks to a
decisive move towards a low-carbon economy; and inclusive, with a strong
emphasis on job creation and poverty reduction. Short food supply chains
contribute to:
–              
smart growth, through creating employment
opportunities at local level, and increasing knowledge and skills; and
increasing human and social capital through connections and networking,
community involvement and understanding of links between food, environment and
health;
–              
inclusive growth, by strengthening development
of local suppliers and services, retention of financial sources within local
economy, and increasing physical capital through supporting of local activities
through aid to investments, training; 
–              
sustainable growth, by contributing to the
protection of natural capital, environmentally sound and climate-friendly practices
and behaviours.
According to the conclusions of the above
mentioned conference, there are significant barriers which prevent or inhibit
short food supply chain and local food production systems to deliver its
contribution towards the overall goals of Europe 2020 embedded in the CAP.
These barriers are of two broad types: public policies in some cases favouring
larger farms and conventional supply chains; and difficulties specific to
farmers (age, knowledge and skills, lack of interest, lack of financial
resources, lack of infrastructure, etc.). The conclusions called on the
Commission to review the factors which are causing these barriers with the aim
to find ways to better support these kinds of systems across the EU.
EU rural development policy has been offering
measures which can help to establish and foster short supply chains, for
example through support for investment, training, certain forms of organisation
and the LEADER approach. As said, the present framework will be substantially
strengthened through the CAP reform, in order to help farmers meet some of the
challenges set out above. The development of short supply chains and local
markets will be an explicit element under future rural development priorities;
and a series of tools will support this priority. 
More precisely, two novelties for the future
rural development policy are explicit support for:
–              
horizontal and vertical co-operation among
supply chain actors for the establishment and development of short supply
chains and local markets;
–              
promotion activities in a local context
relating to the development of short supply chains and local markets"; and 
the possibility for Member States / regions of
including "thematic sub-programmes" within their main rural
development programmes, dedicated to short food supply chains.
Farmers in many regions of the European Union have successfully
entered short food supply chains[46].
Where this is not the case yet, Member States and regions and farmers there are
encouraged to use these possibilities for kick-starting new short food supply
systems. When preparing their rural development programmes for the period
2014-2020, Member States are encouraged to analyse the situation of short food
supply chains and local food systems on their respective territory in terms of
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and identify the needs that
have to be addressed. A thorough reflection on how a possible creation of a
sub-programme for short food supply chains could respond to these particular
needs should be done.
The most relevant
measures addressing short food supply chains are presented in Annex 1.
7.           Food hygiene rules to
accompany the specificities
Throughout the wide stakeholder consultations
with respect to short food supply chains referred to above, certain aspects of
EU food hygiene legislation (the "EU hygiene package"[47]) have been raised as a
key obstacle for farmers wishing to use such chains or sell directly.
The main conclusions of the 2012
Conference in this respect pointed to the need to better use the hygiene and
safety regulatory framework. The conclusions acknowledged that the EU hygiene
rules already allow sufficient flexibility to Member States to address
specificities of food production and food marketing, in particular for small
farmers, often the most concerned by the short supply chains and local food
production systems. However, it was also acknowledged that in practice, such
flexibility does not often reach the operators. 
For this reason, a conference/workshop on
flexibility was held on 2-3 October 2013 the outcome of which will permit an
informed evaluation of which amendments to the guidelines if any are necessary
to allow small food producers and short food supply chains to fully benefit
from the specific provisions foreseen at EU level. In addition, the Commission
is planning a review of the EU hygiene law, which will consider the
implementation obstacles, if any, of the specific provisions related to short
food supply chains (Annex 2).
Member States should take a more proactive role and adapt
legislation where possible to the benefit particularly of small farmers and
direct sales. A closer examination of the problems
raised shows that many problems that farmers face are due to implementation
choices made at Member State level or to failure to publicize effectively how
the flexibilities incorporated in the food hygiene package can be used. 
8.           Opening
and promoting access to Markets 
For successful
marketing of food directly or through short supply chains, a strategy
comprising several elements is needed in order to position, present and price
products accordingly. Firstly, the farmer's produce must be visible and
accompanied by the appropriate information. Secondly, communication and
promotion activities should be developed in order to convey correct messages
about the nature of the product and the way it is produced and sold. Thirdly,
having a variety of outlets instead of a single one may provide better opportunities
for maximizing profits. Farmers need to possess knowledge and marketing skills
for organising their sales as well as to recognise their marketing
opportunities.
The 2012 conference
has addressed the question of how to facilitate market access
for local farmers. The conference conclusions have underlined the importance of
creating trust between farmers and consumers and the significance of values
attached on one side to the production and on the other hand to the marketing
of agricultural products. “Going local” means a shared vision with quality,
environment, ethics, culture, social links and conviviality up front. Major
ingredients of “going local” are networking, trust and mutual knowledge, and
education of both farmers and consumers.
The conference conclusions indicated
that these values could be promoted by a new label for short supply chains,
under the condition that this would be an additional tool, simple and not
causing additional cost for producers. Most farmers have limited know-how, time
and financial resources to develop marketing strategies. Labelling information
adapted to the sales channel chosen could be the key for presenting their produce
on the market. 
Moreover, to allow
for a better market access, the conference outcome showed that public
procurement legislation should explicitly allow inclusion of “local products”
in public calls for tenders. Finally, local governance dealing with short
supply chains should involve local stakeholders, from farmers to distributors
and consumers, and support initiatives of getting locally produced food in
public institutions like schools, hospitals and other public canteens.
In addition, the
Study on Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU has revealed
that access to markets could be enhanced by fair labelling practices. Several
cases of misleading or wrongful labelling claims have been found, causing
unfair competition conditions. In order to open and promote access to markets
for products sold in short food supply chains and local food systems,
protection against imitations can play an important role. Appropriate labelling
information at EU level, underpinned by information and promotion activities,
including awareness rising of citizens could reduce the risk of misleading the
consumers.
Regardless of the possible creation of a label
at EU level, value added of products sold in short food supply chains or in
local markets could be increased by appropriate labelling. Labelling guidance
and best practices are presented in Annex 3.
8.1.        Promotion
of short food supply chains and local food systems
8.1.1.     European
Network for Rural Development (ENRD)
In the framework of EU rural development
policy, the ENRD has organised various activities in the past with regard to
short food supply chains and local products. 
A Working Group on Short Supply Chains (SSCs)
was established in April 2011. Today it includes 13 other interested National
Rural Networks (NRNs) and some EU organisations. The aim is to form a focal
point for cooperation and sharing of experience and the dissemination of
accumulated knowledge on local food and short supply chains to a wider
audience.
The publication "EU Rural Review"
from summer 2012 entitled "Local food and short supply chains"[48] was a joint effort of
the Working group. It presents experience and case studies provided by 10 NRNs.

For the future, further activities by the NRNs could be envisaged,
coordinated at European level by the ENRD. Taking into account that a
well-established network, comprising all Member States, exists and has already
been active in the field of short food supply chains and local agriculture, the
ENRD could be called to organise further activities for better promoting and
integrating short food supply chains and local food production systems.
8.1.2.     Information
activities
The Commission regularly co-finances
information measures relating to the common agricultural policy. In the 2013 call for proposals[49],
development of short supply chains is for the first time amongst the eligible
actions by rural actors. 
It is envisaged that short supply chains and
local products could be one of the topics for the Commission presence in fairs
across the EU. In particular, further participation of farmers engaged in short
supply chains and local food production systems could be sought.  
8.2.        Public
procurement 
Public procurement can support the development
of sustainable food supply chains with their purchases.[50] Many stakeholders have
raised EU public procurement rules as a further obstacle to developing short
chain and local sales of food to public institutions. Further explanations are
provided in Annex 4.
Public procurement tenders for supplying food
to public canteens might require stable quantities of
food over the whole year which a single farmer can hardly provide. To be able
to jointly bid in a public procurement tender, farmers should organise
themselves and take advantage of various models of co-operation. Besides
traditional forms like farmers' associations and producer groups, new
innovative approaches of co-operation have emerged. 
With the reinforced support to co-operation
activities with a view to increase collective ability of farmers, disadvantages
of fragmentation and small structures could be partly overcome. 
9.           Going
beyond rural areas: Innovation and research 
Active involvement of all actors in the short
food chains may increase their potential of bringing social, environmental and
economic benefits. As the main feature of short food chains is to reconnect
producers and consumers, better inclusion of consumers and notably those from
the cities seems to be a prerequisite for their successful development. Until
recently, short food supply chains were considered to be part of the
development of rural areas. Today they should be looked also from the
perspective of urban development. 
To better interconnect the actors, innovative
solutions are sought, often associated with uptake of new knowledge and new
technologies, in particular IT, and new organisational models[51]. The aim would be to foster food chain innovation and to look at sustainable modes of urban and peri-urban food provisioning.

In this context the
agricultural European Innovation Partnership (EIP) is relevant. The EIP aims to
foster a competitive and sustainable agriculture and forestry sector that
'achieves more from less' input and works in harmony with the environment. The
EIP adheres to the "interactive innovation model" which focuses on
forming partnerships - using bottom-up approaches and linking farmers,
advisors, researchers, businesses, and other actors in Operational Groups. This
will generate new insights and ideas and mould existing tacit knowledge into
focused solutions that are quicker put into practice. Such an approach will stimulate innovation from all sides and will
help to target the research agenda. Innovation under the EIP may be
technological, non-technological, organisational or social, and based on new or
traditional practices.
Operational Groups will bring together
farmers, researchers, advisors, businesses, NGOs and other actors to implement
innovative projects pursuing the objectives of the EIP for Agricultural
Productivity and Sustainability. Operational Groups can be supported by various
funding sources. 
Rural Development Policy and the Union
Research and Innovation Framework "Horizon 2020" will provide
particular opportunities for setting up Operational Groups in the period
2014-2020 and incentivise interested actors who engage in actions on
developing, testing and applying innovative approaches. The two policies
complement each other in giving emphasis to different objectives and main target
groups. Other policies, such as Cohesion and Education Policy, might offer
additional opportunities. 
10.         Conclusion
Various existing and proposed EU rules, tools
and support possibilities presented in this Commission Staff Working Document
provide for a solid framework for farmers on the one hand, and Member States
and regions on the other hand, to successfully support short supply chains and
to engage in local food systems. 
The authorities in the Member States are
offered to use the existing measures and the new ones to be adopted shortly in
the framework of rural development. The advantages of flexibilities provided by
EU rules in order to simplify the economic environment for farmers and minimise
their operating costs should be taken on board. Support for direct selling and
short supply chains can improve trust in the food chain, contribute to vibrant
local communities, link the countryside and cities, provide for environmental
benefits and contribute to a low carbon footprint and thus achieve a much broader
objective.
Annex 1
Rural development support
With regard to short supply chains and local
markets, the most relevant post-2013 support measures will be:
–              
Knowledge transfer and information actions (Article 15) – e.g. support for training courses, workshops,
coaching, demonstration activities and farm exchange visits;
–              
Advisory services, farm management and farm
relief services (Article 16) - e.g. advice to
farmers on finding alternative marketing channels; 
–              
Quality schemes for agricultural products and
foodstuffs (Article 17) – to help meet the initial
costs of farmers' participation in quality schemes (the range of such schemes
will be wider than in the current period and might involve schemes operating
through short supply chains) as well as to promote products covered by such a
supported quality scheme;
–              
Investments in physical assets (Article 18) – e.g. for investments in storage facilities and farm
shops to market products covered by Annex I of the Treaty (i.e. certain
"agricultural" products);
–              
Farm and business development (Article 20) – e.g. for investments needed to help market products not
covered by Annex I of the Treaty, such as jams or bread;
–              
Basic services and village renewal in rural
areas (Article 21) – especially investments in
small-scale infrastructure (e.g. rural marketplaces);
–              
Co-operation (Article
36) – see section 3.2 below;
–              
the LEADER approach (Articles 42-45).
Explicit support for short supply
chains and local markets: the Co-operation measure
Article 36 of the draft Rural Development
Regulation explicitly offers support for:
–              
"horizontal and vertical co-operation
among supply chain actors for the establishment and development of short supply
chains and local markets" (Article 36 (2) (d));
–              
"promotion activities in a local context
relating to the development of short supply chains and local markets"
(Article 36 (2) (e)).
Both types of support are on offer in the
context of co-operation between at least two entities (in line with the
name of the measure concerned, which is designed essentially to help overcome
the disadvantages caused in rural areas by fragmentation and small scale).
The co-operation projects must be new
and will be funded for a maximum of 7 years: the measure is intended to launch
new initiatives, not fund existing projects or provide long-term support.
A range of costs can be partly or fully
covered, depending on the exact nature of the project concerned and whether it
relates entirely to products falling within Annex I of the Treaty[52]. Examples of costs
include those related to:
–              
carrying out a feasibility study or drawing up a
business plan;
–              
the running costs of the co-operation (e.g. the
cost of running a co-ordination centre where fresh produce from several nearby
farmers is collected to be dispatched to nearby households through a joint
"box delivery scheme");
–              
investments (e.g. the cost of setting up the
co-ordination centre mentioned above);
–              
promotion.
For the purposes of granting support under
this rural development measure, the meaning of the terms "short
supply chain", "local market" and "in a local context"
will be set out in additional detail through delegated acts. Discussion with
Member States experts on this issue are on-going to provide specifications
which will help the measure to work effectively in a targeted way,
and with reasonable coherence with other policy instruments.
Thematic sub-programmes
Article 8 of the draft Rural Development
Regulation offers Member States / regions the possibility of including "thematic
sub-programmes" within their main rural development programmes.
A thematic sub-programme is effectively a "programme
within a programme" – devoted to a topic which is so important[53] for the Member State /
region concerned that it requires extra visibility and analysis, as well
as (in some cases) higher support rates for beneficiaries.
The maximum aid intensity of a measure
supporting an operation within a thematic sub-programme addressing "short
supply chains" is 10 percentage points higher than in normal cases
(see Article 8 (3)).
In addition, any thematic sub-programme must
include: 
–              
a specific analysis of the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) related to the theme of the
sub-programme in the area concerned;
–              
specific targets at the level of the
sub-programme, with a selection of measures to be used to achieve those
targets;
–              
a separate indicator plan with planned
outputs and expenditure.
The architecture of a thematic sub-programme
therefore mimics that of the main rural development programme – and must be
consistent with this, although it enjoys a "semi-autonomous"
life.
Annex 2
EU hygiene
package
With respect to impact on small farmers and
food supply chain, current EU hygiene rules can be summarised as follows: 
–              
General hygiene provisions for primary
production 
–              
General hygiene requirements for all other food
business operators 
–              
The application of procedures based on the HACCP[54] principles 
–              
The obligation of approval of the establishment 
–              
Specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin

–              
Fees for the organisation of official controls
on specific rules for products of animal origin 
Several exclusions and
derogations from and adaptations to the current EU rules - the so called
"Flexibility provisions" for competent authorities and for food
business operators – exist. Their aim is to assist Member
States who are best placed to find solutions to local situations. In case of
local agriculture and short food supply chains, application of flexibility
provisions could result in possible adaptations of the hygiene legislation in
order to contribute to unlocking economic potential of these systems.
Flexibility provisions have been explained and published, as
guidelines[55],
by the Commission in 2010 and can be summarised as follows:
Exclusions
A key measure to facilitate direct sales by
farmers and short supply chains is the fact that the direct supply, by the
producer, of small quantities of primary products to the final consumer are
excluded from the application of the whole EU hygiene package. This also
applies to such sales if made by local retail establishments directly supplying
the final consumer. The sale of raw milk, honey, eggs, fruit or vegetables from
farms can thus benefit from this exclusion.
Derogations
In addition to this exclusion, the "EU
hygiene package" allows Member States to derogate from certain provisions,
under specified circumstances. 
–              
For example, slaughterhouses need not have a
separate place with appropriate facilities for the cleaning, washing and
disinfection of means of transport for livestock, if official authorised places
and facilities exist nearby.
–              
Most relevant for farmers processing food is the
possible derogation that the premises where foods with traditional
characteristics are exposed to an environment necessary for the
part-development of their characteristics (e.g. the maturation of cheese) may
in particular comprise walls, ceilings and doors that are not smooth,
impervious, non-absorbent or of corrosion resistant material and natural
geological walls, ceilings and floors. In other words, such premises on a farm
can be accepted to have walls not in line with the requirements for bigger food
establishments.
These examples are directly relevant for small
and medium enterprises (SME) and thus also for most farmers wishing to engage
in direct or short chain sales. However, several Member States have not used
the possibilities for such derogations. 
Adaptations
Finally, Member States may adapt requirements
laid down in the Annexes of the hygiene package in specific circumstances,
often most relevant for SME, for example:
–              
To enable the continued use of traditional
methods of production (at any stage of production, processing or distribution
of food);
–              
To accommodate the needs of food businesses
situated in regions that are subject to special geographic constraints (e.g.
adaptation in small slaughterhouses or SME in mountain regions or islands,
important for the local supply of food);
–              
To adapt requirements on the construction,
layout and equipment of establishments.
Member States must notify the Commission the
measures on flexibility they want to apply.
These flexibility provisions provide solutions
for small businesses as regards compliance for approval and for adaptations
needed to give appropriate responses to local problems and to ensure a
proportionate approach. Based on the notifications received from Member States
on national measures to adapt to small activities, the Commission however
concludes that Member States may not have availed of all flexibility
possibilities offered in the hygiene package. Therefore, 
–              
the wording of existing guidance documents and
of the hygiene regulation will be evaluated and if necessary adapted with the
aim to allow small food producers and short food supply chains to fully benefit
from the specific provisions foreseen in EU hygiene law;
–              
in 2014, in the framework of the Better Training
for Safer Food (BTSF) programme, specific training for competent Authorities in
the Member States on the correct application of flexibility provisions is
foreseen;
–              
the Commission will organise, already in 2013,
specific workshops, with the participation of Member States' Authorities and
involved stakeholders, for explaining the flexibility rules in the hygiene
package with the aim to apply an uniform approach within the Member States in
the light of the FVO's report on the application of flexibility provisions in
certain Member States;
–              
the Commission published in 2010 on its website
(http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/hygienelegislation/index_en.htm)
two guidance documents addressed to food business operators and competent
Authorities, on the flexibility provisions. These guidelines are structured in
the form of questions and answers, with the scope to use a practical approach
easy to read for everybody;
–              
HACCP systems are a key element to ensure the
safety of our food placed on the market but should and could be tailored to the
size of the production and risks involved. National guides developed in some
Member States can help food business operators to better understand and
implement an HACCP plan tailored to the risk of the production and size of the
establishment. 
Annex 3
Labelling practices
Rules on food labelling applicable to all foods
are laid down in Directive 2000/13/EC[56].
They have been updated by the Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011[57] on the provision of
food information to consumers, which shall apply from 13 December 2014. The
Commission presented in 2010 EU best practice guidelines for voluntary
certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs[58] to help improving
transparency, credibility and effectiveness of voluntary certification schemes
and ensuring that they do not conflict with regulatory requirements. These
guidelines are addressed to schemes with third-party attestation and provide
recommendations regarding scheme participation and development, scheme
requirements and correspondence claims, certification and inspections and
mutual recognition and benchmarking/overlap with other schemes[59]. 
These guidelines for voluntary certification
schemes may be used for self-declaration schemes as well. 
In order to provide appropriate information to
consumers, self-declaration labelling schemes for short food supply chains and
local food systems should have the following characteristics:
–              
A clear concept of the scheme's objectives and
specified eligibility requirements. This would allow to distinguishing one
scheme from others; and inform consumers clearly what the scheme is addressing.
–              
A clearly recognisable geographical boundary of
the scheme. This would allow consumers to understand and relate to the area
where the scheme is operating.
–              
Labelling should focus on re-creating the
relationship between agricultural producers and consumers. This could be achieved
in particular by:
·               
Indication of the farmer who has produced the
product covered by the scheme by his/her name and address allows consumers to
better identify with the producer, and creates value and meaning around the
product and its origin. At the market place, contact information of the farmers
should be provided to allow direct contacts and visits of the farm. Points of
sale and catering facilities should be equipped with information about the
farmer - producer (leaflets, brochures, etc.). Such transparency thus goes
beyond the tracing required for hygiene purposes.
·               
Information about specific characteristics and
attributes of the product, representing values which are exchanged through
short supply chains and local food systems, in particular social and cultural
values built on traditional knowledge, skills and customs, like artisanal
production, hand-made products, traditional recipe, traditional breeds and
species.
·               
Clear indication of the type of the supply
chain, for example direct sale, sales through one intermediary, etc. allows
consumers to "attach"  a fair price to the product, by having
information about the actors in the chain to be remunerated.   
·               
In case of processed food, transparency about
the sourcing of raw materials and ingredients should be ensured. 
–              
Consideration should be given, if appropriate,
to specific graphic identifications or symbols that could further contribute to
product visibility and communication about the scheme. Consumers may associate
such identifications to the objectives and values that a scheme represents. As
consumer knowledge about farmer's produce reduces proportionally to the growing
distance between the farmer and the consumer, it should also be taken into
account that a logo is relatively more useful for geographically extended
schemes.
Annex 4
Public procurement rules
The Directive on public procurement[60] provides for criteria
on which the contracting authorities shall base the award of public contracts.
These should be either various criteria linked to the subject–matter of the
public contract, for example quality, technical merit, environmental
characteristics, delivery period and others laid down in Article 53 of the
Directive, or the lowest price only. There is no obligation to buy based only
on the lowest price.
For hotel and restaurant services, fewer rules
for public service contracts apply. The rules applicable to these services
require ex-post transparency and equal treatment, allowing to take into account
the specificities of the services: Article 23 concerning setting out the
technical specifications and Article 35 (4) concerning sending a notice of the
results of the award procedure. 
Green public procurement
Food and catering are among 10 priority sectors
for green public procurement, identified by the Commission[61]. A Handbook on green
public procurement "Buying green![62]"
is designed to help public authorities successfully plan and implement green
public procurement. It explains the possibilities offered by European Union law
in a practical way, and looks at simple and effective approaches to greening
contracts. In addition, the Commission has presented a toolkit[63] for use by public
purchasers. It includes recommended green public procurement purchasing
criteria for priority product and service groups, amongst other food and
catering services. Therefore, it is worth reminding that public procurement
rules do not set up obstacles to buying green.
In addition, a political agreement has been
reached between the European Parliament and the Council[64] including several
modifications to current procurement rules which may also be relevant for
direct or short chain food purchases by public institutions. One of them is the
introduction of a life-cycle cost concept. This encourages public authorities
to consider the full life-cycle of products in their purchasing decisions. The
life-cycle cost will include internal costs and monetised external
environmental costs. Member States and contracting authorities will remain free
to decide whether to integrate life-cycle costing in their procurement
procedures. Where direct or short chain purchases do indeed lead to lower
life-cycle costs, a switch to such a system could provide further encouragement
and thus lead to additional business opportunities to farmers.
Contracting authorities may take into account
criteria linked to the production process of the goods or services to be
purchased. 
Review of the public procurement policy
Further changes provided for by the political
agreement for the future public procurement policy which are of particular
relevance for short food supply chains and local food are:
–              
a simplified approach for SMEs;
–              
a specific and simpler regime for services like social,
health and education services, including the possibility for Member States to
eliminate the price as sole award criterion. This may concern services like
food catering for schools and hospitals and other restaurant services.
Together with the inclusion of externalities
into the costs and the use of quality criteria, local products may find it easier
to enter public canteens.
[1]               Special Eurobarometer survey: Food related risks, No
354, 2010.
[2]               Special Eurobarometer survey: Europeans' attitudes
towards food security, food quality and the countryside, 389, 2012.
[3]               http://agrilife.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/SFSChainFinaleditedreport_000.pdf
[4]               http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/reports/index_en.htm
[5]               Protected Designations of Origin / Protected
Geographical Indications.
[6]               http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/consultations/advisory-groups/quality/index_en.htm
[7]
              Knefsey, M., Schmutz, U., Venn, L., Balint, B., Trenchard, E.:
Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play of
their Socio-Economic Characteristics. European Union, 2013, available at: http://agrilife.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/SFSChainFinaleditedreport_000.pdf.
[8]               http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events/small-farmers-conference-2012_en.htm
[9]               Sales from a farmer to a consumer with a reduced
number of intermediaries; direct sales are short food supply chains without an
intermediary.
[10]             Production, processing, trading and consumption of food
occur in a relatively small geographical area.
[11]             Farm Structure Survey, Eurostat, 2007.
[12]             Eurobarometer survey has shown that around half of
respondents have difficulties. Special Eurobarometer survey: Europeans'
attitudes towards food security, food quality and the countryside, 389, 2012.
[13]             More information on the activities by the Member States
as well as on the initiatives by the European Parliament and the Committee of
the Regions is provided in the Commission Report on the case for a new local
farming and direct sales labeling scheme.
[14]             Commission Communication “A better functioning food
supply chain in Europe", COM(2009)591.
[15]             Established by the European Commission in July 2010.
[16]             The impact of private labels on the competitiveness of
the European food supply, LEI, 2011, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/food/files/study_privlab04042011_en.pdf
[17]             Jarosz L., The city in the country: Growing alternative
food networks in Metropolitan areas, in: Journal of Rural Studies, 24
(2008), p. 231-244.
[18]             ‘European Size Unit’ (ESU) is a standard gross margin
of 1.200 EUR that is used to express the economic size of an agricultural
holding. This corresponds to approximately 1.3 ha of cereals or one dairy cow
or 25 sheep or an equivalent combination of these.
[19]             Since 2010, economic size is no longer measured in ESU;
this has been replaced by Standard Output. For more information, see page 19 of
the following document: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/rural-development/2012/ch2_en.pdf
[20]             Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on Support for
Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, OJ L
277, 21.10.2005.
[21]             A holding is considered to produce mainly for own
consumption if more than 50% of the value of its final production is consumed
by the holder’s household. This should not be confused with self-consumption of
the agricultural holding, i.e. the use of product as an input (e.g. fodder for
animals).
[22]             Jarosz L., The city in the country: Growing alternative
food networks in Metropolotanian areas, in: Journal of Rural Studies, 24
(2008), p. 231-244.
[23]             Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council on agricultural product quality schemes, COM(2010) 733.
[24]             Local Government Regulation, Buying food with
geographical descriptions – How ‘local’ is ‘local’?, 2011. 
[25]
            Les chiffres de la consommation responsable, édition 2010,
available at: http://www.mescoursespourlaplanete.com/medias/pdf/RapportwebVF-2010.pdf
[26]             Coldiretti – Agri2000: Osservatorio Internazionale
sulla vendita diretta nelle aziende agricole – Quarta Edizione, 2009.
[27]             The survey showed significant differences between
countries: from 26% of Latvian and 22% of Slovenian consumers buying meat
directly from the farm, to 2% in Portugal. Study on the
functioning of the meat market for consumers in the EU, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_research/market_studies/docs/mms_follow-up_study_2012_en.pdf
[28]             EU Consumer Policy strategy
2007-2013, Empowering consumers, enhancing their welfare, effectively
protecting them COM(2007) 99 final. 
[29]                    European Union: Consumer Markets. Scoreboard,
8th edition. Making markets work for   consumers, 2013, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_research/editions/cms8_en.htm
[30]             Special Eurobarometer "Consumer Empowerment",
No 342,  2011.
[31]             http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_research/market_studies/docs/mms_follow-up_study_2012_en.pdf
[32]                    BEUC: Where does my food come from? BEUC consumer survey on origin
labelling of food, 2013.
BEUC: From a Common
Agricultural Policy to a Common Food Policy, 2010. 
Harbaug, R., Maxwell,
J.W., Roussillony, B.: Label Confusion, The Groucho Effect of uncertain.   
Standards, Indiana
University, 2010. 
Better Regulation
Executive/National Consumer Council, Warning too much information can harm,
2007. Which? Making sustainable food choices easier, 2010. 
[33]             Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements
of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down
procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L 031 , 01/02/2002, Article 16.
[34]             Directive 2000/13/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and
advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109, 6.5.2000,
p. 29. 
[35]                    Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of
food information to consumers, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18.
[36]             http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32005L0029:EN:NOT
[37]             Local Government Regulation, Buying food with
geographical descriptions – How ‘local’ is ‘local’?, 2011. 
[38]             Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), COM(2011)627 final/2.
[39]             The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural
resources and territorial challenges of the future, COM(2010)672 final.
[40]             http://agrilife.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/SFSChainFinaleditedreport_000.pdf
[41]             Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'Local food
systems" (outlook opinion), 2011/C 104/01.
[42]             European Parliament Resolution of 8 July 2010 on the future
of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, P7_TA(2010)0286.
[43]             European Parliament resolution of 7 September 2010 on
fair revenues for farmers: A better functioning food supply chain in Europe,
P7_TA(2010)0302.
[44]             http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events/small-farmers-conference-2012_en.htm
[45]             OJ L 343 of 14.12.2013, p. 1.
[46]             EU Rural Review from July 2012 provides for best
practice examples in various Member States, showing how to cope with challenges
to the benefit of all actors:
                http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/app_templates/filedownload.cfm?id=E8F24E08-0A45-F272-33FB-A6309E3AD601
[47]             Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of of 29 April 2004 on   the hygiene of foodstuffs, OJ L
139, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
Regulation
(EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004
laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, OJ L 139,
30.4.2004, p. 55.
Regulation
(EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules
for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended
for human consumption, OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 206.
[48]             http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/app_templates/filedownload.cfm?id=E8F24E08-0A45-F272-33FB-A6309E3AD601
[49]             OJ C 264, 13.9.2013, p. 11.
[50]             For example, Rome[50] is providing to schools
150.000 meals per day, whose ingredients are 70% organic, 11% fair trade and 24
% local. For developing this green food market a range of obstacles have been
overcome. The Roman authorities started to change the contract auction scheme.
Innovative award criteria have been introduced in order to develop the
sustainability of the offered products and services. Another example is from
Brittany where 12 million of meals are served yearly in schools. The regional
authorities decided to include local products, also by fostering co-operation
between the personnel of the canteens, school authorities and local farmers. Source:
FNH and CIVAM: Guide de la restauration collective responsiable. A l'attention des collectivités et des entreprises, Version 2, 2011.

[51]             In the framework of 7th Framework Programme,
two projects FOODMETRE and SUPURBFOOD related with short-chain delivery of food
to urban and peri-urban areas are on-going. FOODMETRE looks at planning and innovation in food area to ensure sustainable
development of metropolitan regions. One of its goals is to identify concepts
as well as practical examples for food chain innovation in the context of
small-scale urban, peri-urban and peri-urban-rural forms of agriculture and
food production up to large-scale metropolitan production regimes geared
towards feeding urban populations. SUPURBFOOD looks at
sustainable modes of urban and peri-urban food provisioning. This research will
analyse the way in which several European city regions
deal with short supply chains in food, nutrients, water and carbon.
[52]             Support for operations whose outputs do not consist
purely of such products is subject to the EU's normal rules on state aid –
which will influence exactly what may be supported, and the maximum level of
support.
[53]             Sub-programmes should be used sparingly: otherwise, the
coherence of the "standard" programmes could be lost.
[54]             Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points.
[55]             http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/hygienelegislation/index_en.htm
[56]             Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the member
States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs,
OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.
[57]             OJ L 304 of 22.11.2011, p. 18.
[58]             OJ C 341 of 16.12.2010, p. 5.
[59]             The Commission has asked for an external study on functioning
of voluntary food labelling schemes which will also look at the compliance of
the schemes with the EU guidelines. The publication of the study is planned for
end of 2013.
[60]             Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works
contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, OJ L 134 of
30.4.2004, p. 114.
[61]             Commission Communication "Public procurement for a
better environment",  COM(2008)400. 
[62]                    http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/gpp/buying_green_handbook_en.pdf
[63]              http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/toolkit/food_GPP_background_report.pdf
[64]                    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/imco/subject-files.html?id=20120214CDT38033