The best practices and potential of participation of smallholders in the short value-chains in the Western Balkans and Turkey.
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: Türkiye, Western Balkans, agro-industry, environmental protection, farmer, food resources, food safety, quality standard, research report, supply chain, sustainable development

The best practices and potential 
of smallholders’ participation in 
short value chains in the Western Balkans 
and Turkey 

Authors:  Suzana  Djordjevic  Milosevic, Judith  Möllers,  Federica  Di 
Marcantonio, Pavel Ciaian 

Field Researchers: Danica Nesevic, Etleva Thimo, Andja Vukcevic 
Zoric,  Ahmet  Ali  Koç,  Darko  Buzarovski,  Ivan  Tasev,  Aleksandar 
Damnjanovic, Predrag Markovic 

Editors: Suzana Djordjevic Milosevic, Judith Möllers, Pavel Ciaian, 
Frederica Di Marcantonio, Boban Ilic, Dori Pavloska Gjorgjieska 

2021 

1 

EUR 30785 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This publication is a technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It 
aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a 
policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is 
responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used 
in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The 
designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part 
of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation 
of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  
Pavel Ciaian 
Address: C/ Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Seville, Spain 
Email: pavel.ciaian@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34 95 448 8429 

EU Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC125555 

EUR 30785 EN 

PDF

ISBN 978-92-76-36185-5 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/921512 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021  

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse 
of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except as otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the 
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse 
is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material 
that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union, 2021, except the bottom-left cover image, orchard; the bottom-right cover image, sheep in stable, and the 
Regional Rural Development Standing Working Group logo; all © Regional Rural Development Standing Working Group. 

How to cite this report: Djordjevic Milosevic, S., Möllers, J., Di Marcantonio, F., Ciaian, P., The best practices and potential of smallholders’ 
participation in short value chains in the Western Balkans and Turkey, Djordjevic Milosevic, S., Möllers, J., Ciaian, P., Di Marcantonio, F., Ilic, 
B., Pavloska Gjorgjieska, D., eds., EUR 30785 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-36185-
5, doi:10.2760/921512, JRC125555. 

2 

Contents 

FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 4 

CONTRIBUTORS .............................................................................................................................................. 5 

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 7 

2.  SAMPLE AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 9 

3.  SHORT FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS IN THE WESTERN BALKANS AND TURKEY: SURVEY RESULTS...... 11 

3.1. 
3.2. 
3.3. 
3.4. 

TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEYED FARMS .......................................................................................... 11 
PRODUCTION PORTFOLIO ............................................................................................................................. 13 
SALES CHANNELS USED BY SMALL FARMS FOR SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS .............................................................. 14 
THE ROLE OF SHORT FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS IN PROMOTING THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF SMALL FARMS ....................... 21 

4.  BEST PRACTICES FOR AND BARRIERS TO SMALL FARMERS’ PARTICIPATION IN SHORT FOOD 
SUPPLY AND VALUE CHAINS ...................................................................................................................... 25 

4.1. 
4.2. 
4.3. 
4.4. 

BEST PRACTICES FOR SHORT FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS FOR SMALL FARMERS’ PRODUCTS .............................................. 25 
FARM PRODUCTS BEST SUITED TO SALES IN SHORT FOOD SUPPLY AND VALUE CHAINS ............................................. 28 
KEY BARRIERS TO MAKING BEST USE OF SHORT FOOD SUPPLY AND VALUE CHAINS .................................................. 34 
POLICIES SUPPORTING SMALL FARMERS’ ACCESS TO MARKETS ............................................................................. 37 

5.  CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 42 

5.1.  MULTISECTORAL SUPPORT AND RURAL DIVERSIFICATION .................................................................................... 43 
CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH ADVISORY SERVICES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE .................................................... 43 
5.2. 
5.3. 
PROMOTION OF PARTNERSHIPS AND COORDINATION OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE SHORT FOOD SUPPLY AND VALUE 
CHAINS  44 
5.4.  ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND PAYMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ............................................................... 44 
INCREASING THE INVESTMENT CAPACITY OF SMALLHOLDER FARMS ....................................................................... 45 
5.5. 
REGIONAL COOPERATION ............................................................................................................................. 45 
5.6. 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 47 

ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................................... 48 

ANNEX 1. THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS .................................................................... 48 

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 65 

LIST OF BOXES ............................................................................................................................................. 66 

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... 67 

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ 68 

3 

 
 
Foreword and acknowledgements 

Recent years have seen a proliferation of initiatives to promote the development of various types of local food 
systems  and  short  food  supply  chains  (SFSCs),  such  as  on-farm  direct  sales,  farmers’  markets  and  shops, 
delivery schemes and more formal partnerships between producers and consumers, in the European Union as 
well as throughout the world. The local food systems or SFSCs aim to reduce the distance between farmers and 
consumers  by  limiting  the  number  of  operators  connecting  the  farmer  to  the  final  consumers,  the  shortest 
option being direct sales from the producer. 

Marketing  products  through  SFSCs, combined  with  other  diversification  activities,  is often  seen  as a  way  to 
respond to the needs of farmers to retain a higher share of value added created in exchanges. For consumers, 
SFSCs can respond to their demand for local products with assured provenance. Several other economic, social 
and environmental benefits are associated with SFSCs, such as strengthening local economies, contributing to 
food security, sustaining small farms and businesses and potentially improving carbon footprints. 

The average size of farms is quite heterogeneous across Western Balkan countries/territories and Turkey and 
is, on average across the region, very small. In the Western Balkans, the largest farms are in Serbia, which has 
an average of above 5 ha of utilised agricultural area (UAA) per holding, and the smallest farms are in Albania, 
where the average  size is 1.2 ha of UAA  per holding. Small farms  account  for  more than 59 % of the total 
agricultural  land  in  the  Western  Balkans.  This  is  similar  in  Turkey.  Many  of  these  farms  are  often  not 
economically viable in a conventional sense and many of them represent subsistence farming. One of the ways 
to  allow  these  small  farms  to  remain  in  business  and/or  to  allow  farmers  to  improve  their livelihoods  is to 
capitalise on their ability to produce high-value niche products and market them through local markets, be it 
for local consumers or for visiting tourists. 

In this context, the objective of this report is to provide an overview of such practices in the Western Balkans 
and Turkey in order to analyse their potential impacts on economic aspects as well as their social sustainability. 
The  report  contributes  to  the  identification  of  the  complex  nature  of  the  relationships  between  smallholder 
farmers and  markets where  various  SFSC schemes exist, as governed  by various  contractual arrangements, 
which may provide opportunities for small farmers to improve their viability and growth. Furthermore, the study 
provides insights to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of existing policies and thus offer evidence-based 
support for policymaking. More comprehensive knowledge of the small farmers’ participation in SFSCs would 
allow policymakers to better design and target national support schemes and EU pre-accession assistance. In 
particular, the results of this report may contribute to a better understanding of how the instrument for pre-
accession assistance for rural development could be adjusted, improved and tailored to address the needs of 
smallholder farmers with particular focus on their potential participation in the SFSCs. 

On this occasion, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the Regional Rural Development Standing Working Group 
in South-Eastern Europe (SWG) would like to thank all experts and field researchers involved for their valuable 
contributions.  We  would  like  to  gratefully  acknowledge  Liam  Breslin,  Marius  Lazdinis  and  Zigo  Rutkovskis 
(Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development)  for  their  support  provided  throughout  the  data 
collection process and for their valuable feedback on the results. 

On behalf of the JRC 

Mr Giampiero Genovese 

Head of Unit 

On behalf of the SWG 

Mr Boban Ilic 

Secretary General 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contributors 

Authors 

Suzana Djordjevic Milosevic (1), Judith Möllers (2), Federica Di Marcantonio (3), Pavel Ciaian (3) 

Field researchers 

Danica  Nesevic (4),  Etleva  Thimo (4),  Andja  Vukcevic  Zoric (4),  Ahmet  Ali  Koç (5),  Darko  Buzarovski (4),  Ivan 
Tasev (4), Aleksandar Damnjanovic (4), Predrag Markovic (4) 

Editors 

Suzana Djordjevic Milosevic (1), Judith Möllers (2), Pavel Ciaian (3), Federica Di Marcantonio (3), Boban Ilic (4), Dori 
Pavloska-Gjorgjieska (4) 

(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 

Singidunum University, Belgrade, Serbia 
Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies, Halle (Saale), Germany 
Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Seville, Spain 
Regional Rural Development Standing Working Group in South-Eastern Europe 
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

The overall objective of this report is to identify and conduct analysis of short food supply chains (SFSCs) among 
small farmers in the Western Balkans and Turkey. The report’s analyses are based on the primary data collected 
from 397 smallholder farmers through semi-structured interviews in all Western Balkan countries/territories 
(Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Kosovo,  Montenegro,  North  Macedonia,  Serbia)  and  Turkey.  The  report 
analyses shed light on several issues related to smallholders and SFSCs, such as types of sales channels used 
by  small  farmers  for  selling  their  products;  the  level  of  information  about  and  knowledge  of  the  SFSC; 
contractual arrangements applied; the use of food safety and quality standards; best practices of and barriers 
to  small  farmers’  participation  in  SFSCs;  the  role  of  SFSCs  in  promoting  environmentally  friendly  farming 
practices; the role of  SFSCs in promoting the economic  viability of small farms; and the role of agricultural 
policy in supporting small farmers’ access to SFSCs. Based on these analyses, the report also derives policy 
recommendations. Overall, the report concludes that SFSCs are an attractive way of adding value to primary 
food  production  and  improving  small  farmers’  livelihoods  in  the  Western  Balkans  and  Turkey.  Key  policy 
measures  that  could  boost  small  farmers’  participation  in  short  value  chains  are  improvement  of  advisory 
services; provision of investment support targeted to small farmers and SFSCs; better access to finance; and 
enhanced support for cooperation and bottom-up initiatives for partnerships. 

Keywords: Western Balkans, Turkey, smallholders, short food supply chains, agrifood sector 

 This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/1999 and 
the International Count of Justice Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. 

6 

 
 
 
                                           
1.  Introduction 

Short  food  supply  chains  (SFSCs)  have  received  growing  attention  in  the  academic  literature  and  among 
policymakers in recent years, which has been motivated by the evidence suggesting that the development of 
such alternative food distribution channels may provide multiple benefits to both farmers and consumers, as 
well  as  having  the  potential  to  promote  more  sustainable  rural  development.  According  to  Regulation 
(EU) 1305/2013,  an  SFSC  is  defined  as  ‘involving  a  limited  number  of  economic  operators,  committed  to 
cooperation,  local  economic  development  and  close  geographical  and  social  relations  between  producers, 
processors  and  consumers’.  Similarly,  according  to  the  United  Nations  Industrial  Development  Organization 
(UNIDO)  (2020),  SFSCs  can  be  defined  along  the  following  three  dimensions:  ‘the  reduction  of  the  physical 
distance between the farmer and final consumers; the reduction of the number of steps that connect the farmer 
to final consumers; [and] the increase of cultural and social proximity between farmers and consumers’. The 
SFSC can include various forms of sales channels, such as direct sales to consumers on the farm or through 
farmers’ shops, farmers’ markets, home delivery, box schemes, collective sales, or sales to restaurants, hotels 
and private catering companies. The food sold through SFSCs can include various types of products produced 
locally,  including  both  crops  and  livestock,  and  with  value  added  in  various  ways,  such  as  through  higher 
freshness of delivered foods, through processing, through producing high-value and specialised products, local 
specialities and traditional food, combined with on-farm experience and agritourism, or through building trust 
with consumers in terms of food quality and safety (Kneafsey et al., 2013; EIP-AGRI, 2015; Charatsari, Kitsios 
and Lioutas, 2020; UNIDO, 2020). 

By  reducing  the  distance  between  primary  agricultural  producers  and  final  consumers,  SFSCs  significantly 
reshape how production and relationships are organised and governed in the chain compared with long food 
supply  chains,  which  ultimately  can  have  significant  implications  for  all  three  dimensions  of  sustainability: 
economic, social and environmental. From the economic point of view, SFSCs may contribute to the ability to 
better respond to changes in consumer preferences for local and higher-value products, may increase farmers’ 
value added and  may promote more resilient farm-based livelihoods.  Various types of SFSC, such as  direct 
sales to consumers,  may have a great potential for providing economic sustainability  to small farmers. The 
development of SFSCs may also have a social dimension, reflected in the potential increase in local employment 
in  remote  or  less-developed  areas  where  job  opportunities  are  often  scarce.  Besides  social  and  economic 
sustainability, SFSCs may contribute to environmental sustainability by decreasing waste, saving energy through 
shortening transport distances and providing the opportunity for more efficient use and preservation of local 
natural  resources.  Although  the  realisation  of  economic,  social  and  environmental  benefits  is  not 
straightforward  and  depends  on  the  location-specific  factors,  sector,  production  type,  type  of  chain  and 
individual characteristics of consumers and producers, SFSCs are often perceived to promote development and 
improvement  of  small  farmers’  livelihoods  (Galli  and  Brunori,  2013;  Kneafsey  et  al.,  2013;  Canfora,  2016; 
Charatsari, Kitsios and Lioutas, 2020; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla, 2020; UNIDO, 2020; Stein and 
Santini, 2021). 

As a result, SFSCs could represent an important component of sustainable future prospects of rural areas and 
the  development  of  their  communities  in  Europe.  The  development  of  rural  regions  often  depends  on  the 
existence  of  small  farmers  in  many  parts  of  Europe.  This  particularly  applies  to  Western  Balkan 
countries/territories and Turkey, where small farmers dominate the agricultural sector. However, small farmers 
in  Western  Balkan  countries/territories  and  Turkey  often  face  challenges  in  developing  their  farm  activities, 
accessing markets and providing decent livelihoods for their household members. Many rural areas in the region 
are subject to substantial ageing and depopulation processes, which threaten the maintenance and conservation 
of  economic  activities,  as  well  as  the  cultural  and  natural  heritage  of  rural  areas.  The  Western  Balkan 
countries/territories and Turkey thus face the challenge of protecting the cultural and natural heritage of rural 
regions,  while  at  the  same  time  they  need  to  increase  the  economic  viability  of  smallholder  farming.  The 
development of short value chains combined with policies targeting smallholders’ access to these chains could 
be  important  to  address  some  of  these  challenges  (Latruffe,  Davidova  and  Desjeux,  2008;  Kazakova  and 
Stefanova, 2010; Kneafsey et al., 2013; Ciaian et al., 2018). 

To this end, the overall objective of the report is to provide in-depth insights of SFSCs among small farmers in 
the Western Balkans and Turkey. More specifically, the report aims to shed light on several issues, such as the 
type  of  sales  channels  used  by  small  farmers for  selling  their products;  the  level  of  information  about  and 
knowledge of the SFSC; contractual arrangements applied; the use of food safety and quality standards; best 
practices of and barriers to small farmers’ participation in SFSCs; the role of SFSCs in promoting environmentally 
friendly farming practices; the role of short supply chains in promoting the economic viability of small farms; 
and the role of agricultural policy in supporting small farmers’ access to SFSCs. Based on these analyses, the 

7 

 
report also derives policy recommendations in six fields: the multisectoral and area-based approach to capacity 
building,  advice  and  technical  assistance,  cooperation,  farming  practices,  investment  capacity  and  regional 
networking. 

The report’s analyses are based on a survey of 397 smallholder farmers involved in SFSCs. The survey data 
were collected through semi-structured interviews during 2020 covering all Western Balkan countries/territories 
(Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia) and Turkey. 

This report is based on the results of the project Study of best practices and potential of participation of the 
smallholders in the short value-chains in the Western Balkans region and Turkey, initiated and funded by the 
Joint  Research  Centre  and  the  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  of  the  European 
Commission and implemented by the Regional Rural Development Standing Working Group  in South-Eastern 
Europe (SWG). 

8 

 
2.  Sample and methodology 

The  analyses  carried  out  in  this  report  are  based  on  the  primary  data  collected  through  semi-structured 
interviews  with  smallholder  farmers  involved  in  SFSCs.  The  interviews  were  carried  out  during  2020.  The 
questionnaire used in the interview drew from existing survey instruments developed by the Leibniz Institute of 
Agricultural  Development  in  Transition  Economies  (IAMO)  (Fritzsch  et  al.,  2011),  and  was  enhanced  by  new 
sections targeting specific aspects of SFSCs. The survey questionnaire (see Annex 1) comprises the following 
sections: 

introduction, 
farming objectives, 
advisory service, 
collaboration, 

 
 
 
 
  marketing and short supply chains, 
 
 
 
 
 
 

agricultural factors of production – land, farm assets and labour, 
production, processing and sales channels, 
investments through grants and credit, 
income, 
infrastructure, 
future farm and livelihood strategies. 

The  sample  comprises  397  farmers  involved  in  various  types  of  SFSC  across  all  Western  Balkan 
countries/territories and Turkey (see Table 1 for details). The sample is not statistically representative of the 
overall population and chains, but the selection reflected a broad range of typical smallholder farmers in the 
regions.  Although  the  sample  is  not  nationally  representative,  the  nationalities  of  the  397  farmers  broadly 
reflect the countries/territories’ sizes, except for that of Turkey, from which a relatively small number of farmers 
were surveyed (23 farms from the Antalya region). For the Western Balkans, Serbia contributed responses from 
136 farms (34 % of the overall sample), Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina contributed responses from 68 
farms  (17 %),  Kosovo*  and  North  Macedonia  contributed  responses  from  38  farms  (10 %)  and  Montenegro 
contributed responses from 26 farms (7 %). 

Specifically, the survey targeted local SFSCs such as: 

 

 
 

 

direct  marketing  (‘at  the  farm  gate’)  including  diverse  ‘box  schemes’  and  any  other  kind  of  online 
marketing; 
farmers’ markets; 
small-scale local processing (on-farm or off-farm local processing, such as the production of home-
made preserves or artisan food processing in the vicinity of farms); 
gastronomy and agritourism. 

The  sampled  farmers  are  characterised  by  small-scale  production.  The  focus  of  the  survey  was  to  identify 
primary farm products and products produced through small-scale processing that are sold through SFSCs. To 
this end, a variety of fresh agricultural products and artisan products produced on-farm (processed products) 
were targeted in the survey. 

Eight field researchers were engaged to establish direct contacts with farmers. Face-to-face interviews were 
implemented  through  a  Microsoft  Access-based  survey  app  provided  by  the  IAMO.  The  IAMO  international 
consultant also supported the survey team with the preparation of the electronic data collection. Before the 
survey  started,  the  draft  questionnaires  were  piloted  in  each  country/territory.  The  piloting  phase  took  into 
consideration the diverse characteristics of farms, locations and types of products. During the pilot, a follow-up 
discussion was held by the researchers in order to check whether the questions were easily understood  and 
whether  any  important  aspects  had  been  omitted.  These  aspects  were  reported  by  the  researchers  and 
integrated in the final version of the questionnaire. 

9 

 
 
Table 1. Number of respondents per country/territory 

Country/territory 
Serbia 
Bosnia and Herzegovina 
Albania 
North Macedonia 
Kosovo* 
Montenegro 
Turkey 
Total 

Number of respondents 
136 
68 
68 
38 
38 
26 
23 
397 

10 

 
 
3.  Short food supply chains in the Western Balkans and Turkey: survey 

results 

3.1.  Types and characteristics of surveyed farms 

About half of the sampled farmers specialised in crops, one quarter specialised in livestock and the rest mainly 
had mixed farms. In a few cases, farmers indicated a specialisation other than these three main types. 

The average farm size was 7 ha, ranging from an average of 1.6 ha in Albania to 5 ha in Serbia. In Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Serbia and Turkey, crop production was the prevalent type of farming, whereas in Albania orchards 
were  the  most  significant  subcategory  of  land  use.  In  Kosovo*  and  North  Macedonia,  pastures  prevailed, 
whereas in Montenegro pastures and fields for crop production were of similar importance (Table 2). 

Table 2. Average land used per farm for agricultural production in 2019 (ha) 

Country/territory 

Albania 
Bosnia and 
Herzegovina 
Kosovo* 
Montenegro 
North Macedonia 
Serbia 
Turkey 
All 
countries/territories 

Crop 
production 
0.41 

Pastures/ 
meadows 
0.20 

3.18 

0.12 
2.56 
1.30 
7.56 
3.41 

3.72 

1.94 

2.05 
2.53 
2.24 
2.77 
0.00 

1.89 

Orchards  Vineyards 

0.90 

1.74 

0.22 
0.34 
0.88 
1.33 
0.83 

1.09 

0.00 

0.69 

0.34 
0.15 
0.02 
0.01 
0.00 

0.17 

Vegetable 
gardens 
0.27 

Total land 
per farm 
1.57 

0.61 

0.31 
0.19 
0.27 
0.18 
0.74 

0.32 

8.10 

2.89 
5.77 
4.71 
10.68 
4.98 

6.72 

NB: The averages of the subcategories do not add up to the total farm size, as they were calculated over all farms. 

The majority of surveyed farmers were male. They had an average age of 48 years and most had received high 
school education, but had only practical experience in agriculture. Thus, the sample was populated by relatively 
young small-scale farmers. 

The average farmer in the sample does not have any professional education but  rather relies on their work 
experience on the farm, and that is why these farmers mostly rely on advisory services (1). Compared with the 
usual very low level of coverage of smallholder farms by advisory services in the region, the surveyed farmers 
had a relatively high use of advisory services: 55 % of farmers over all the countries/territories had contact 
with  advisors.  The  number  was  particularly  high  in  Montenegro,  with  85 %  of  the  surveyed  sample  having 
accessed advisory services, whereas the shares in the other countries/territories were 66 % in Kosovo*, 59 % in 
Albania, 56 % in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 53 % in North Macedonia and 50 % in Serbia. Only in Turkey was the 
use of the advisory system by surveyed farmers lower, at only 26 %. Lack of territorial presence of advisors 
was the main reason why several farmers did not use that service. This applied in 22 % of all cases, but the 
problem was most prevalent in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo* and Montenegro. In contrast, a lack of trust in 
advisors was the main reason provided by Albanian (25 %), Serbian (9 %) and Turkish (6 %) farmers for not 
using advisory services. 

The  overall  impression  from  the  interviews  was  that  advisory  support  is  rather  poor,  especially  in  terms  of 
marketing.  In  line  with  this,  farmers  indicated  that  they  do  lack  information  on  markets  and  prices  and/or 
marketing-related skills. The ratings for this support were moderately high. However, in Albania, Kosovo and 
North  Macedonia,  lack  of  information  on  markets  and  prices  was  seen  as  prevalent,  whereas  support  for 
marketing-related skills was considered to be lacking in Montenegro and North Macedonia. However, the overall 
impression  from  the  field  was  that  farmers  are  in  great  need  of  marketing-related  skills  and  information, 
sometimes even more than their own assessment would indicate. 

Furthermore, the survey results suggest that collaboration between farmers is relatively common and usually 
it is informal for about 75 % of farmers. Formal collaboration was reported by 18 % of the surveyed farmers. 
The highest shares of formal collaboration were found in Kosovo* and in Bosnia and Herzegovina (for more 

(1) 

Advisory services could include provision  of knowledge and assistance  in the adoption of technology and innovative practices to 
improve agricultural productivity, accessing markets, promoting sustainable production and accessing public support. 

11 

 
                                           
than 30 % of farmers). Formal collaboration is mostly used for joint input purchases and marketing, whereas 
informal collaboration is most often used for sharing machinery or exchanging free-of-charge assistance when 
needed. 

The main reasons provided by surveyed farmers for being engaged in farming were to avoid leaving the land 
unused and to maintain the farm for the next generation. These two reasons were considered very important 
by more than half of the respondents (Table 3). Also considered important by farmers are the inclusion of family 
members in farming activity, use of new technology to increase production, and improvement of marketing, 
possibly through direct sales. These aspects reflect the tradition and values linked to the land. Farmers feel the 
burden of keeping the land and farm assets profitable for the next generation; they also show relatively high 
levels of entrepreneurial attitudes and openness to innovation. On the other hand, there is a considerable share 
of farmers who are not very engaged beyond primary production, stating that they want to sell in bulk and deal 
with  marketing  as little  as  possible.  There  are  also  signs  that  not  all  farmers  see  a  future  in  their farming 
business activities. Indeed, 10 % of farmers reported a willingness to exit farming, and 15 % indicate that they 
are engaged in farming until they find better jobs. 

However, results are heterogeneous across countries/territories. Albanian farmers place greater value on the 
possibility of maintaining land and farm assets so that they are in a good condition for the next generation and 
on not leaving the land unused, whereas farmers in Montenegro favour the adoption of new technologies and 
entering the market with processed goods with added value. 

Conversely, in North Macedonia and Turkey, farmers were oriented to either diversifying their activities or exiting 
the farming sector. In Kosovo* and Serbia, none of the aforementioned aims appeared to be strongly preferred 
by farmers. 

12 

 
Table 3.  Farming  objectives  of  respondents  in  all  study  countries/territories  (number  of  respondents,  %  of 
respondents) 

Household’s aims in farming (1 = not important at all → 7 = very important) 

2 

3 

9 
2.2 

9 
2.2 

3 
0.8 

14 
3.5 

14 
3.5 

7 
1.8 

19 
4.8 

16 
4.0 

13 
3.3 

49 
12.3 

48 
12.1 

1 
To engage household members with work on the farm 
5 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
1.3 
Not to leave land unused 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
To increase production using new technology 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
To specialise in profitable crops 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
To maintain farm for next generation 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
To exit farming 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
To enter market with processed goods with added value 
30 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
7.6 
To sell farm products in bulk 
Number of respondents 
55 
13.8 
% of respondents 
To sell farm products directly to local customers/markets 
14 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
3.5 
To improve marketing strategies 
28 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
7.0 
To use farming as an income source only until better jobs become available 
31 
Number of respondents 
7.8 
% of respondents 

227 
57.2 

207 
52.1 

60 
15.1 

78 
19.6 

46 
11.6 

76 
19.1 

18 
4.5 

27 
6.8 

12 
3.0 

5 
1.3 

28 
7.0 

8 
2.0 

21 
5.3 

9 
2.3 

43 
10.8 

41 
10.3 

4 

28 
7.0 

21 
5.3 

20 
5.0 

22 
5.5 

12 
3.0 

26 
6.5 

33 
8.3 

47 
11.8 

27 
6.8 

42 
10.6 

23 
5.8 

5 

6 

7 

72 
18.1 

26 
6.5 

38 
9.6 

41 
10.3 

19 
4.8 

13 
3.3 

29 
7.3 

26 
6.5 

39 
9.8 

55 
13.8 

23 
5.8 

76 
19.1 

75 
18.9 

62 
15.6 

75 
18.9 

193 
48.6 

254 
64.0 

197 
49.6 

182 
45.8 

75 
269 
18.89  67.8 

16 
4.0 

56 
14.1 

49 
12.3 

104 
26.2 

60 
15.1 

19 
4.8 

12 
3.0 

175 
44.1 

103 
25.9 

168 
42.3 

179 
45.1 

16 
4.0 

3.2.  Production portfolio 

In the description of the production  portfolio, we distinguish primary production of crops and livestock from 
production of processed products. Across the surveyed farmers, 304 (77 %) indicated that they were producing 
crops, 180 (45 %) indicated  that they  worked in livestock farming and 244 (61 %) indicated that they were 
involved in processing activities as part of their production. 

Crop production was  mainly dedicated to growing  fruit and vegetables. On average, more than  50 % of the 
surveyed  farmers’  crop  production  portfolio  included  fruits,  with  apples  and  raspberries  being  the  most 
prevalent, followed by plums. Vegetables were grown by 37 % of crop-producing farmers. The most common 
were tomatoes and potatoes, and to a lesser extent peppers and other vegetables. In contrast, cereals and other 
field  crops  are  less  frequently  grown.  Some  niche  products,  such  as  medicinal  herbs  and  nuts,  were  also 
mentioned by few participants (50) as being a significant part of their production portfolio. 

Livestock production in the region is mainly dominated by dairy farming. Nevertheless, goats, sheep, cattle and 
pigs represent the main sources of meat production, while poultry and egg farming are less common among 
the surveyed farmers. Beekeeping seems to be also very important, whereas fish production (e.g. trout) is limited 
to few farmers. 

Regarding processing activities, Table 4  provides an overview of the main  categories  of processed products. 
Overall, more than 60 % of surveyed farmers were involved in processing the products they produced. The most 
commonly processed products include dairy products (36 % of surveyed farmers), fruit preserves (30 %) and 

13 

 
 
 
alcoholic drinks (22 %). The relatively high share of farmers engaged in this activity indicates that SFSC business 
is complemented by adding value through processing activities. 

Table 4. Products subject to processing activity (number and percentage of respondents engaged in processing 
each product) 

Processing category 
Meat products 
Dairy products 
Fruit preserves 
Vegetable preserves 
Flour and other mill products 
Alcoholic drinks 
Non-alcoholic drinks (beverages) 
Dry plant or mushroom products 
Meals served 
Bee products 

Number of farmers  Percentage of farmers 
45 
89 
72 
35 
6 
53 
33 
23 
38 
43 

18.52 
36.36 
29.51 
14.40 
2.47 
21.90 
13.64 
9.50 
15.64 
17.70 

On average, farms processed a maximum of two products, mostly dairy products followed by fruit preserves. 
Alcoholic drinks, meat and bee products also  played an important role in farmers’  processing activities. The 
types of product processed, however, differed between countries/territories. In Albania and North Macedonia, 
dairy  products were clearly dominant, followed  by bee  products. In Bosnia and  Herzegovina and Serbia, the 
dominant processed products were fruit preserves and drinks (alcoholic drinks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and 
alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks in Serbia). Kosovar processors focused mainly on dairy and meat products, 
whereas  in  Montenegro  and  Turkey  dairy  and  fruit  preserves  were  the  most  important  processed  goods. 
Montenegro also had the highest share of meals served in the region (almost 30 %). 

3.3.  Sales channels used by small farms for selling their products 

The surveyed farmers had a relatively strong market orientation (Figure 1): on average, 85 % of the production 
was  sold,  whereas  9 %  was  consumed  in  the  farmers’  homes  and  the  remaining  7 %  was  lost/wasted. 
Montenegro stands out as the country with the lowest percentage of production sold at the market (74 %), with 
18 % for own consumption. In contrast, farmers in Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia sold more than 85 % 
of their production in the market. Overall, only 18 of the 397 farms sold less than 50 % of their production, 
whereas 258 farms sold more than 80 %. 

14 

 
 
Figure 1. Production distribution by country/territory 

AL

BA

XK

ME

MK

RS

TR

0%

20%

91,3

80,8

85,1

74,2

92,7

85,0

82,1

40%

4,1

4,6

11,8

7,4

9,0

5,9

17,8

8,0

3,6

3,7

11,2

3,8

4,0

13,9

60%

80%

100%

Sold or in stock for selling

Consumed

Wasted

3.3.1.  Type of sales channels 

SFSCs, which are described as involving a limited number of economic operators, a commitment to cooperation, 
local economic development, and close geographical and social relations between producers, processors and 
consumers (Regulation (EU) 1305/2013), may take various forms. In the survey, we distinguished between sales 
to the final consumer, sales to small businesses and sales through a farmers’ organisation. These three main 
forms of sales channels cover various subcategories. Sales to the final consumer, for instance, can be on-farm 
direct sales, but may also include box schemes, solidarity purchasing groups, street market sales, etc. We have 
investigated these sales channels for the main (up to three per country/territory) plant and animal products, as 
well as for processed goods. 

Nevertheless, although the sample was designed to survey farmers operating in SFSCs, we observe a relatively 
high number of these farmers in the long supply chain. Figure 2 shows the predominant sales channels adopted 
by farmers in the various countries/territories. Surveyed farmers in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia 
and Turkey used mainly SFSCs to market their products, whereas farmers in Albania and North Macedonia sold 
their products mainly through the long supply chain. On average across all countries/territories, 60 % of sales 
were  within  short  supply  chains.  When  asked  whether  it  was  difficult  to  find  local  consumers  for  the  farm 
produce, farmers in all countries/territories did not consider this to be the case (Table 5). There was an indication 
of  some  concern  only  in  Macedonia,  where  a  rating  of  4.5  indicated  that  some  farmers  agreed  with  the 
statement. 

15 

 
 
AL

BA

XK

ME

MK

RS

TR

Figure 2. Long versus short food supply chains (% of respondents) 

38,9

61,1

66,9

55,4

72,5

68,5

82,2

40%

37,8

0%

20%

33,1

44,6

27,5

62,2

31,5

17,8

60%

80%

100%

Short food supply chain

Long food supply chain

Table 5. Difficulty reaching local consumers (average score) 

Albania  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina 

Kosovo*  Montenegro  North 

Serbia  Turkey 

Macedonia 

1.3 

2.3 

2.5 

1.2 

4.5 

3.0 

3.1 

‘It is difficult to 
find local 
consumers for 
our products’ 

NB: The table shows averages relating to answers given on a scale from 1 to 7; 1 = ‘do not agree at all’ and 7 = ‘fully agree’. 

A more detailed distribution of surveyed farmers’ sales channels and subchannels for primary crop and livestock 
products is depicted in Table 6. Overall, 28 % of primary crop products were sold through long supply chains, 
mostly traditional wholesalers and exporters. The remaining crops went to  SFSCs. Here, the biggest share of 
produce was used for own processing (32 %), followed by direct sales to the consumer (25 %) and sales to 
small businesses (8 %). Only 3.6 % of the raw plant produce was sold through farmers’ organisations. 

For primary livestock products, the share of produce that went for further processing on the farm was lower, at 
17 %. The use of long supply chains was also lower, at 11 %, with sales being made mostly through processors 
and  the  agrifood  industry.  Within  the  SFSC  subcategories,  sales  of  primary  livestock  products  to  small 
businesses from the region were almost double those of plant products, but the clearly dominating channel for 
livestock products was direct sales to the final consumers. Over half of livestock products produced were sold 
through this SFSC, mostly directly at the farm gate (on-farm direct sales). As it is hard to imagine that such 
shares of livestock are sold as live animals to final consumers, we assume that farmers wrongly included under 
this category also meat products, for which they actually provided a slaughtering service as well. It is highly 
probable – considering that processing equipment, as we will see later, is absent from the majority of farms – 
that such slaughtering on the farm sometimes happens under conditions that are not in line with food safety 
standards. 

For sales to the final consumer, direct on-farm sales are the best-established channel. This method of delivery 
correlates with the tradition of urban people over the previous century, when many got fresh products from 
their  farming  families.  This  tradition  is  continued  with  the  on-farm  purchases.  Other  channels  such  as  box 
schemes and agritourism are still underdeveloped. However, in the light of the recent pandemic situation, box 
schemes and agritourism have received some renewed attention. 

16 

 
 
 
 
Livestock products 
Frequency 
56 
36 

Table 6. Sales channels for primary products (number of respondents, % of respondents) 

Main channels/subchannels 

Own processing 
Long supply chains 
Processors / agrifood industry 
Supermarkets / retail chains 
Traders/wholesalers and exporters 
Small businesses 
Local processors or food businesses 
Local small shops 
Urban food businesses 
Farmers’ organisations 
Cooperatives 
Other farmers’ groups/associations, etc. 
Producer organisations 
Final consumers 
Box schemes / internet selling 
Direct delivery to final consumers 
Local farmers’ markets 
On-farm direct sales to final consumers 
Own agritourism (gastronomy) 
Street markets 
Urban farmers’ markets 

Crop products 
Frequency 
215 
186 

51 

24 

169 

% 
32.09 
27.76 
18.68 
6.04 
75.27 
7.61 
35.42 
58.33 
6.25 
3.58 
40.91 
18.18 
40.91 
25.22 
2.42 
6.67 
29.7 
48.48 
3.03 
4.24 
5.45 

49 

6 

170 

% 
16.92 
10.88 
80.56 
5.56 
13.89 
14.8 
57.69 
25 
17.31 
1.81 
66.67 
0 
33.33 
51.36 
0.62 
18.01 
8.07 
70.19 
1.86 
0.62 
0.62 

The surveyed farmers’ sales channels for processed products are depicted in Table 7. The majority of processed 
products  are  sold  directly  to  the  final  consumer,  including  about  80 %  of  dairy  products,  dried  products, 
vegetable and fruit preserves, bee products, and alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. Meat products – of which 
67 % are sold directly to final consumers – are also delivered in significant quantities to small local businesses 
(33 %). 

Long supply chains seem not to be particularly important for sales of processed products, except for  cereal 
products, of which one third are sold through long supply chains. Farmers’ organisations, which play only a small 
role in the sale of primary products, also seem not to play an important role in the sale of processed products. 
Meals served are usually marketed directly to consumers, although there are examples in the region of ‘rural 
to  urban’  catering,  marketed  through  delivery  services  or  even  catering  companies.  Data  obtained  from 
qualitative interviews underline that direct marketing is chosen as a response to the traditionally built trust in 
products from small farms. For instance, people tend not to trust confectionary honey sold in supermarkets as 
a  result  of  frequent  cases  of  fraud.  For this reason, efforts  are  made  in  some  countries/territories,  such  as 
Serbia,  to  organise  marketing  for  small  beekeepers  through  cooperative  channels.  However,  issues  of  fair 
competition remain, and small producers of high-quality honey are reluctant to sell through these channels until 
low-quality honey is removed from the market (Table 7). 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7. Sales channels for processed products (number of respondents, % of respondents) 

Number/% of 
respondents 

Meat 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
Dairy 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
Vegetables 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
Fruits 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
Flour 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
Alcoholic drinks 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
Non-alcoholic drinks 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
Dry plant products 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
Bee products 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
Prepared meals 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
Other 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 
All products 
Number of respondents 
% of respondents 

Direct to 
final 
consumer 

Long supply 
chain 

Small 
businesses 

Farmers’ 
organisations 

Other 

Total 

30 
67.7 

72 
80.1 

28 
80.0 

58 
80.6 

3 
50.0 

42 
79.2 

30 
90.1 

19 
82.6 

36 
83.7 

37 
97.4 

2 
100 

357 
81.3 

— 
— 

2 
2.25 

3 
8.6 

5 
7 

2 
33.3 

3 
5.7 

— 
— 

4 
17.4 

3 
7 

— 
— 

— 
— 

22 
5.0 

15 
33.3 

12 
13.5 

2 
5.7 

5 
7 

1 
16.8 

7 
13.2 

1 
3.03 

— 
— 

4 
9.3 

1 
2.6 

— 
— 

48 
10.9 

— 
— 

3 
3.4 

2 
5.7 

3 
4.2 

— 
— 

1 
1.9 

2 
6.1 

— 
— 

— 
— 

— 
— 

— 
— 

11 
2.5 

— 
— 

— 
— 

— 
— 

1 
1.4 

— 
— 

— 
— 

— 
— 

— 
— 

— 
— 

— 
— 

— 
— 

1 
0.2 

45 
100 

89 
100 

35 
100 

72 
100 

6 
100 

53 
100 

33 
100 

23 
100 

43 
100 

38 
100 

2 
100 

439 
100 

3.3.2.  Price setting and contractual arrangements 

Figure 3 presents the various price setting strategies adopted by farmers across the various products, namely 
crops, vegetables and fruits. More than half of the sampled farmers declared that they check the prices on the 
farmers’ market on a daily basis before setting their own prices. Farmers hence follow the trends of the farmers’ 
markets, where prices are higher and uniform at the beginning of the day, allowing limited variations for regular 
customers, and lower at the end of the day. Fewer than 20 % of the farmers offer discounts on large-volume 
orders, whereas 10 % of them prefer to sell at lower prices but in bulk. Promotional prices, such as ‘buy one, 
get two’, are quite unusual and usually reserved for fruits, whereas premium prices for traditional products and 
those derived from old varieties are applied when possible. About 20 % of farmers indicated that they used 
other kinds of price setting. Other kinds of arrangements were more frequent in the past but are still used by 
some  farmers  who  exchange  crops  for  fertilisers  and  pesticides  from  large  companies  that  also  monitor 
production and provide farming advice. 

18 

 
Figure 3. Price setting for plant products (% of answers in the category) 

Setting prices high, since products are of exceptional
quality / organic / protected origin etc.

Setting prices high, but providing ‘pay one, get two’ or 
similar promotions

Setting low price, but sell only in bulk (selling large
quantities of product at once)

Setting a high initial price when entering the market, and
then decreasing it during the season

Following daily prices on the farmers’ market

Selling traditional / old variety products for a high price

Setting moderate prices for customers ordering more
products at once

Other

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

Fruit (%)

Vegetable (%)

Crop (%)

Yet, as shown in Figure 4, formal (written) contractual arrangements are not very common among the small 
farmers. Oral contracts or contracts with no fixed arrangements seem to be preferred by farmers. More than 
60 %  of  the  sampled  farmers  sell  their  products  without  any  agreement.  For  crops,  for  which  the  share  of 
contractual arrangements was highest, only 16 % of farmers used formal contractual arrangements. Livestock 
products were sold with no fixed contractual arrangements in 69 % of all sales, whereas only 6.5 % of sales 
were covered by a written contract. Processed products followed a similar pattern to crops, but with a slightly 
lower share of written contracts (10 %). Anecdotal evidence from the fieldwork suggests that there is limited 
use of contractual arrangements because of the lack of trust in contracts. 

Figure 4. Sales with and without contractual arrangements (% of respondents) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Crops

Livestock

Processed products

Formal (written)

Non-formal (oral)

No fixed arrangement at all

The typical length of a contract was different between crops, livestock and processed products (Figure 5). Crops 
are generally traded after harvesting; thus, the contractual duration reflects the seasonality of the production. 
On the other hand, livestock and processed goods are sold on the basis of longer-term contracts (1 or 2 years). 

19 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5. Contract duration (% of respondents) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Crops (%)

Livestock (%)

Proccessed products
(%)

One delivery

Seasonal delivery

Long-term contracts

3.3.3.  Food safety and quality standards applied in short supply chains 

The  issue  of  food  safety  and  quality  standards  could  potentially  be  a  constraint  to  entering  SFSCs.  Table 8 
presents results on the quality setting applied by surveyed farmers. Overall, the majority of farmers apply a 
minimum approach to food safety and quality standards: around half of the crop and livestock products that 
were analysed in the survey were produced following minimum food safety standards, and another 30–40 % 
were produced based on the idea that the traditional low-input farming is a sufficient quality set-up. This was 
also the case for farmers who processed their products. 

Nevertheless, there are significant differences in the application of food safety and quality standards across 
countries/territories (Table 8). It is noteworthy that the introduction of certifications is more prevalent in some 
countries/territories, such as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo*. In Albania and Turkey, traditional 
low-input farming is more recognised as a quality strategy, whereas in Montenegro the minimum standards 
approach is most widespread. 

For livestock farming, the picture looks similar, but traditional low-input farming becomes even more important, 
especially  in  Albania  and  Kosovo*,  but  also  in  Serbia.  A  noteworthy  exception  is  North  Macedonia,  where 
certifications of various kinds were applied to a larger extent than in other countries/territories. 

Food  safety  and  quality  standards  for  processed  products  show  similar  patterns,  where,  depending  on  the 
country/territory,  farmers  tended  to  follow  traditional  approaches  or  the  minimum  standards  approach.  For 
Albania, Kosovo* and Turkey, traditional approaches represented a sufficient  quality set-up, whereas Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia followed minimum food safety standards, indicating 
that these countries had stricter rules imposed. 

Overall, smallholder farms in the survey were not particularly concerned about food safety standards. It seems 
that,  under  the  current  regulatory  framework  and  market  situation,  farmers’  application  of  a  minimum 
standards approach is sufficient in most cases. 

20 

 
 
Table 8.  Food  safety  and  quality  standards  applied  by  surveyed  farmers,  by  country/territory  and  type  of 
production (% of respondents) 

Country/
territory 

Traditional low-
input farming 

Minimum food 
safety standards 

Use of certifications 

Other 

AL 
BA 
XK 
ME 
MK 
RS 
TR 

L 

C 
42.0  91.7 
11.0  13.0 
23.5  84.4 
— 
— 
30.0  5.9 
28.3  40.8 
85.7  100 

C 
33.9 
71.4 
58.8 
91.4 
70.0 
59.1 

P 
82.5 
2.0 
65.7 
— 
— 
14.7 
84.6  — 

L 
8.3 
76.1 
15.6 
82.9 
58.8 
56.1 
— 

NB: C = crops, L = livestock, P = processed products. 

10.9 

L 
C 
P 
24.1  — 
8.8 
17.6 
88.0 
17.6  — 
20.0 
80.0 
8.6 
66.7  — 
9.4 
73.4 
— 
— 

17.1 
35.3 
3.1 
— 

L 
C 
P 
— 
— 
8.8 
— 
— 
7.0 
— 
11.4  — 
— 
20.0  — 
— 
33.3  — 
— 
3.1 
7.9 
14.3  — 
— 

P 
— 
2.0 
— 
— 
— 
2.3 
15.4 

3.4.  The role of short food supply chains in promoting the economic viability of 

small farms 

Farmers  who  decide  to  market  their  products  through  SFSCs  and/or  engage  in  processing  their  primary 
production and add value aim to increase their incomes and often employ family labour. Although SFSCs may 
enable higher prices, smallholders’ efficiency may fall behind the overall productivity of the agricultural sector 
owing to reduced possibilities of benefiting from economies of scale and specialisation. To stay competitive 
with commercial and large-scale businesses and retailers, they therefore need to improve productivity and cut 
logistic expenses (e.g. transport, middlemen), which could be sustainable if a local demand for SFSC products 
exists. On the one hand, such local or regional demand is generally on the rise. On the other hand, it is expected 
that, in the event of significant growth of the SFSC sector, a stricter regulatory framework in terms of taxation 
(so far not present, since only dairy processing was completely regulated in all countries/territories, whereas 
other kinds of processing were in the grey zone) and food safety and quality standards, among others, may be 
introduced. This may require professionalisation and formalisation of the practices of farmers involved in SFSCs 
(e.g. business registration, record-keeping, adoption of higher food safety and quality standards), which may 
have implications for their economic viability. 

The  survey  results  show  a  relatively  wide  range  of  yearly  household  incomes  among  the  surveyed  farms, 
typically ranging from around EUR 8 000 to around EUR 13 000 in 2019 (Figure 6). The highest median income 
was  in  Montenegro,  at  EUR 13 200,  and  the  lowest  was  in  North  Macedonia,  at  EUR 7 000.  The  average 
household  income  was  skewed,  as  several  surveyed  farmers  earned  relatively  high  incomes.  Note  that  the 
incomes reported in Figure 6 are not directly comparable across surveyed farmers because of the heterogeneity 
of household sizes. 

21 

 
 
Figure 6. Total household net incomes of surveyed farmers in 2019 (EUR per household) 

24613

21591

17385

16504

14706

11000

13232

13200

10000

10000

12700

11107

7000

7775

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

AL

BA

XK

ME

MK

RS

TR

Average income

Median income

As shown in Figure 7, the surveyed farmers drew income from various sources, including off-farm employment 
and other business activities. However, the income from primary farm production and processed farm products 
dominated the income portfolios of the surveyed farmers. The primary processed farm production accounted 
for more than 50 % of farmers’ household incomes across the countries/territories. The second most important 
income source was salaries from off-farm employment, varying between 4 % and 24 % of farmers’ household 
incomes across the countries/territories. Other income sources generally accounted for less than 10 % of the 
farmers’ total income across the countries/territories. 

In Albania, close to 80 % of the surveyed farmers’ income came from the farm, mostly from primary production. 
Only small shares of income were derived from non-farm sources. The picture is similar in Kosovo* (Figure 7). 

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, salaries from employment made a considerable contribution to the farm household 
income  portfolio.  They  were  the  third  biggest  income  source  (17  %),  after  farm  income  and  incomes  from 
primary  processed  farm  production  (69 %).  Income  from  tourism,  gastronomy  and/or  forestry  also  had  a 
sizeable share, at 8 %. Although farmers in Bosnia and Herzegovina often possess more forested land than 
farmers in other countries/territories of the region, income from forestry was still relatively low, since it is often 
only used for subsistence needs (firewood) (Figure 7). 

The  income  portfolio  of  the  surveyed  Montenegrin  farmers  looks  rather  different  from  those  in  the  other 
countries/territories, in particular because the processing of farm products contributed a significant portion of 
the total household income (50 %). This could be interpreted as quite a developed diversification strategy to 
make the best use of limited natural resources, which is supported by the highest median income of the region 
being in Montenegro. Although there is considerable potential for tourism in Montenegro, farming incomes from 
tourism were relatively low (4 %). Salaries contributed 13 % of household incomes, which could suggest that 
there are employment opportunities in urban areas or from tourism outside the farm (Figure 7). 

In North Macedonia, the main income sources were from primary farm production (56 %) and processed farm 
production (16 %). Compared with other countries, income from off-farm  businesses was significant, with a 
12 % contribution to the farming income portfolio. In addition, income from tourism and gastronomy (and from 
forestry) was higher than the average, at 7 %, whereas off-farm salaried work contributed 4 % (Figure 7). 

An interesting composition of incomes was recorded in Serbia. Primary farm production provided the largest 
proportion of income, at 31 %, whereas processing contributed 23 %. Salaries from off-farm employment also 
contributed  significantly  to  the  farming  income  portfolio,  at  24 %,  which  is  the  largest  share  across  the 
considered countries/territories. A relatively high proportion of income was from pensions and social payments 
(9 %), which reflects the ageing of the Serbian rural population. Such diversified income portfolios may be a 
result of the need of small farmers to lower their income risk. It is also the outcome of the half-century-long 
trend of recruiting workers from urban areas to the rural environment. A new social group has been built by 
these workers, who have not abandoned farming or their rural  homes, but also have off-farm employment. 

22 

 
 
Such  livelihood  strategies appeared  justified  after the  collapse  of  industries,  when  farming  was  a  fall-back 
option. Those who returned to farming are keen to have a ‘reserve job’ in urban areas (Figure 7). 

Finally,  in  Turkey,  primary  farm  production  clearly  dominated  the  income  portfolio  (75 %).  Income  from 
processing was almost irrelevant, and the second highest contribution was from off-farm businesses, at 14 %, 
which is the largest share across the countries/territories considered (Figure 7). 

Figure 7. Sources of net household income by country/territory (% of total income of surveyed farmers) 

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AL

BA

XK

ME

MK

RS

TR

Income from primary farm production

Income from processed farm production

Income from other farm related business (i.e. agritourism, gastronomy,
forestry)
Income from employment (salaries)

Income from off-farm business (not farm related)

The impact of participation in SFSCs through processing of farm production is shown in Table 9. The table also 
includes the contribution of other farm-related activities, such as tourism, collection of wild fruits and services 
provided to other farmers. Farmers clearly positively value the impact of the contribution of processing or farm-
related activities to their income. More than 60 % of surveyed farmers stated, that prior to engagement in these 
activities, their income was much lower or lower than today. However, there are also around 30 % of farmers 
for whom this was not the case (i.e. their income was higher without these activities). 

Table 9. Self-assessment of income changes due to the introduction of processing and farm-related activities 

income  change  compared  with  before  the 

Actual 
introduction of processing / farm-related activities 
 Much lower than today 
 Lower than today 
 The same as today 
 Higher than today 
 Much higher than today 
Total number of households 

Number of 
respondents 
78 
101 
24 
37 
48 
288 

% of 
respondents 
27.1 
35.1 
8.3 
12.8 
16.7 
100 

The surveyed farmers were also asked to evaluate the future prospects of their farms and related business 
activities within the following 2 years. Almost two thirds of all interviewed farmers assessed their prospects of 
successfully adapting within 2 years as good (50 %) or even excellent (14 %). Around one quarter of farmers 
foresaw difficulties, and only 4 % felt that they might not be competitive at all within 2 years. The remainder 
(7 %) indicated that they did not know. 

23 

 
 
 
Table 10. Assessment of prospects of the farm business within 2 years (% of respondents) 

of 

‘Excellent 
prospects 
successfully 
adapting’ 
8.82 
20.59 

5.26 

Albania 
Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina 
Kosovo* 
Montenegro  65.38 
10.53 
North 
Macedonia 
Serbia 
Turkey 

8.82 
4.35 

‘Have 
good 
prospects  of 
successfully 
adapting’ 
36.76 
57.35 

60.53 
26.92 
44.74 

61.03 
13.04 

‘Will 
difficulties 
adapting’ 

have 
in 

‘Will  be  not 
competitive  at 
all’ 

‘Don’t know’ 

42.65 
20.59 

21.05 
3.85 
28.95 

23.53 
21.74 

0.00 
1.47 

0.00 
0.00 
7.89 

4.41 
26.09 

11.76 
0.00 

13.16 
3.85 
7.89 

2.21 
34.78 

We observe heterogeneous results across countries/territories in the farmers’ assessment of future prospects 
(Table 10). Farms in Montenegro were most confident in terms of their future viability. The majority expressed 
positive expectations of future business prospects. In contrast, farmers in Albania were the most pessimistic, 
with 43 % of them indicating that they expected difficulties with adapting within 2 years. Similarly, but to a 
lesser extent, a sizeable share of farmers in North Macedonia and Turkey either expected difficulties or feared 
that they would not remain competitive within 2 years. 

Another possible positive impact of using SFSCs and processing activities could be expected in terms of farm 
employment.  Traditionally, small  farmers  in  the  Western  Balkans  farm  their  land  primarily  using  household 
labour. However, in our survey, this was the case only for slightly more than half of the farms. The family labour 
approach  was  more  prevalent  (with  at  least  70 %  of  farms  entirely  run  using  family  labour)  in  Kosovo*, 
Montenegro and Turkey. Typically, one farm employed 2–4 household members (3.5 on average). The number 
of  individuals  providing  family  labour  was  slightly  higher  than  the  overall  survey  average  in  Kosovo*  (4  on 
average) and slightly lower in Serbia (3) and Turkey (2). 

Some farms reported using casual unpaid workers (e.g. relatives or neighbours). Such unpaid casual labour was, 
for example, used on 43 Serbian farms and on 16 Albanian farms. Paid workers were more often used in our 
sample: 161 of 397 farms (41 %) reported employing at least one worker (58 in Serbia, 38 in Albania, 26 in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 18 in North Macedonia, 10 in Kosovo*, 6 in Turkey and 5 in Montenegro). 

For the work related to processing and/or marketing of agricultural products, small farmers were employing 
mainly family labour. However, in some areas, the share of farms with hired labour was higher (e.g. 40 % for 
tourism and 13 % for farms engaged in the commercial collection of wild berries). 

24 

 
 
4.  Best practices for and barriers to small farmers’ participation in short 

food supply and value chains 

The  results  of  the  survey  show  that  various  types of  SFSC  are  represented  in  the  study  region.  The  survey 
revealed that farmers tend to prefer the simplest solutions, such as on-farm direct sales. Adding value through 
processing is an important element of making best use of SFSCs. Although local demand seemed not to be a 
significant  barrier  in  the  current  context,  making  use  of  urban  markets  should  certainly  become  part  of 
promising  best  practices.  A  number  of  challenges,  such  as  the  implementation  of  higher  quality  standards, 
prevent the farmers from taking full advantage of this urban marketing channel. Focusing on healthy, high-
quality products using organic production methods (certified or trust based) is expected to be the key to reaching 
a higher-priced urban segment of conscious consumers. In line with this, in the next section we identify a number 
of SFSCs that could be considered best practices. We then discuss the products best suited to SFSCs, the main 
barriers faced by farmers and relevant policy support to improve small farmers’ access to markets. 

4.1.  Best practices for short food supply chains for small farmers’ products 

One common channel through which to access SFSCs is traditional farmers’ markets. These markets remain 
an  attractive  and  easily  accessible  sales  channel  through  which  urban  customers  can  find  fresh  fruits  and 
vegetables. The outcomes of the survey, however, show a low number of farmers selling their products in urban 
markets compared with the most preferred local markets. The need to boost the participation of these farmers 
in urban markets and tap the demand of urban customers represents a key factor in enhancing the participation 
of farmers in SFSCs. 

An SFSC for fresh products sold through  urban farmers’ markets is rather simple. It consists of a farmer or 
his/her  representative  selling  fresh  products  directly  to  the  customers  in  a  marketplace  designated  for  this 
purpose. The main constraint in using this SFSC channel is the availability of adequate means of transport, as 
ideally  vehicles  with  cooling  systems  are  needed  to  preserve  the  quality  of  transported  fresh  products. 
Otherwise, access to farmers’ markets is relatively easy, as they are widespread and can be found in every 
large town in the study region. Some are very famous, such as the Bit Pazar in Skopje, North Macedonia. 

Direct marketing through box schemes, organised through online shopping, may be seen as an attractive 
alternative  to  on-farm  sales.  Box  schemes  are  suited  to  the  sale  of  fresh  fruits  and  vegetables,  as well  as 
preserves. Dairy and meat products are also suitable  for this type of sale unless  cooling becomes an issue. 
Products with organic production methods are often offered through box schemes. 

The box scheme concept is promising for products of extraordinary quality, which are not easily found in other 
outlets, such as fresh fruits and vegetables with a certificate of organic production. It may also be an option 
for areas where a farmers’ market is not available. The box schemes may be particularly appealing, as they 
could be seen as a replacement for the tradition of people living in urban areas being sent food from parents 
or grandparents who live in rural villages. The scheme is currently only modestly developed in the region (mainly 
covering some special traditional and organic products), but has some growth potential for a certain consumer 
segment with a high consciousness of the environment and healthy lifestyles. The COVID-19 pandemic may 
further contribute to growing awareness of the quality of food and a preference for home delivery, which is 
sometimes offered with box schemes. Limitations are that fresh products are highly seasonal, are subject to 
price variations and cannot be easily stored for long durations. Therefore, the inclusion of preserves offers the 
possibility of mitigating some of these risks. 

An early example of a box scheme was developed by the members of the non-governmental organisation Terras 
from Subotica, Serbia, which delivers baskets of organic products to customers. This example was followed by 
other  organic  farmers  in  Serbia.  Promotion  is  mainly  done  through  the  internet,  and  orders  are  organised 
through  mobile  phone  messenger  services.  This  is  exemplified  by  the  company  Mlekara  Petrov  from  Veliko 
Središte, Serbia, which delivers its high-quality products in this way. In addition, Facebook is used, such as in 
the case of the organisation Mali proizvodjači hrane u Srbiji (Small Producers of Food in Serbia). Another good 
example of the use of box schemes is a milk delivery scheme in Livno, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Milk is delivered 
to customers’ doors in glass bottles. The initiative was a response to consumer demand for raw milk. The local 
authorities provided support to farmers to meet food safety standards and to purchase bottles. In this case, the 
schemes could be seen as a reactivation of the traditional practice of direct delivery of milk and dairy products, 
which was commonly used before big industries and distributors entered the market. This initiative has helped 
small farmers to compete on the market and escape the pressure they faced in long sales channels. 

25 

 
Despite the benefits that these schemes might bring to farmers in terms of better prices, there are a number 
of constraints and challenges that need to be managed in order to fully operate and benefit from them.  The 
main challenges are the availability of the adequate means of transport, marketing skills, openness to engaging 
with customers and internet access. Transport remains a critical issue, since the majority of farmers do not 
possess  adequate  vehicles,  but  rather  use  ordinary  family  cars  or  expensive  post  and  courier  services.  In 
particular, the use of delivery services is not appropriate for all products; for instance, jars are often broken, or 
delivery takes a long time so that fresh products are spoiled when they reach the consumers. Interviews with 
farmers using this type of delivery method suggest that directing investments towards adequate vehicles, but 
also  towards  creating  hubs  for the  further  distribution  of  products,  is  required  given  that  the  deliveries are 
usually not to consumers’ homes, but are often to car parks or similar places in the city. As the above example 
of a milk delivery scheme shows, collaborative actions are a promising means of solving some of the constraints 
and challenges faced when using these sales channels. 

Small-scale on-farm processing of various products, such as wild fruits, mushrooms and bee products, offers 
another  interesting  way  of  benefiting  from  SFSCs  and  diversifying  incomes  while  tapping  the  opportunities 
offered from tourism. Depending on the location, ‘pick-your-own’ schemes and direct marketing of fresh and 
processed goods may also, in combination with processing, be attractive sales channels. 

One prominent example is of non-wood forest products, traditional products of this region, which for a long 
time have been sold primarily through long supply chains, resulting in only a relatively small share of the total 
product  value  staying  with  the  collectors.  However,  the  demand  for  non-wood  forest  products  on  the 
international  market  is  high  and  may  be  seen  as  risking  the  overuse  of  natural  resources.  Therefore,  less 
intensive use combined with adding value and using SFSCs could result in a win–win situation. Figure 8 presents 
the  elements  of  a  short  food  supply  and  value  chain  of  non-wood  forest  products.  Examples  exist  in  all 
countries/territories of the region, especially in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, where it is 
common to find stands on the main roads along the Adriatic coast selling non-wood forest products alongside 
other products (e.g. honey, olives, olive oil). 

Figure 8. Short food supply chain map of non-wood forest products (example from the SWG study showing 
the situation in the Prokletije / Bjeshket e Namuna region) 

Rural tourism, gastronomy and catering constitute another area through which to reach urban consumers 
through SFSCs. The success of this SFSC depends on sustaining a relatively high degree of gastronomic skills, 
a high quality of products offered and good marketing skills. Therefore, this area is not easily accessible to 
smallholder farmers. Yet rural tourism has a long tradition in the region; its role in generating additional income 
for farmers dates back to the period between the two world wars. The study results highlight that traditional 
artisan products and gastronomy are key pathways to best practices. A variety of fresh agricultural products 
are processed to create artisan products on farms in the region, including dairy products, such as white cheese 
in brine, peppers in sour cream and kaymak in sacks; vegetable and fruit preserves, such as ajvar and jam; wine; 
brandy; fruit juices and syrups; olive oil; meat products, such as dry ham; and medicinal and aromatic plant 
mixtures. The analysis shows that the sale of these products through SFSCs not only offers the possibility of 

26 

 
 
increasing family incomes and employing household members, but, in some cases, also generates additional 
jobs for the local population. 

This is particularly true of rural tourism. Rural destinations are usually visited in the summer and at weekends 
throughout the year by people seeking recreation and a healthy lifestyle. The COVID-19 pandemic moved such 
rural tourist places into focus, as they provided safe alternatives to foreign holidays, still accessible during the 
pandemic. However, the increased interest in these destinations also revealed some weaknesses in terms of 
both the limited amount of accommodation and the food supply and value chains for the local food industry. 
Indeed, although there are good examples, such as cultural tourism in the Drina–Sava region (Figure 9), many 
areas are not part of regional tourism  strategies,  making them  comparatively unattractive, or unknown and 
difficult  to  access.  Furthermore,  lack  of  professional  advertising  of  these  areas  reduces  the  opportunity  for 
farmers to promote their products/services in an efficient way, and they usually fail to offer attractive tourist 
activities. A solution could be the promotion of vertical partnerships, which can provide a win–win link between 
small farming and tourism. Such partnerships are best placed to respond to the rising demand for nature-based 
tourism locations with a link to local traditions, specialities and gastronomy. 

Figure 9. Short food supply chain map of tourism in rural areas (example from the SWG study in the Drina–
Sava area-based development region) 

Gastronomic offers and catering have been expanding during the COVID-19 pandemic. Farm households started 
to deliver fresh meals and home-made locally produced products to urban customers in nearby towns. Besides 
prepared dishes and fresh products such as vegetables, spices, fruits, meats, eggs and dairy products, sweets 
and pastries were also delivered to consumers. Promotion and marketing relied on advertisements of weekly 
menus,  whereas  orders  were  generally  taken  by  mobile/online  messenger  services  or  through  social  media, 
although the traditional channel of phone calls was usually used with elderly customers. These developments 
of contacts with urban customers represent a potential opportunity to be maintained and further exploited to 
market SFSC products. To this end, key elements could  be enhancing the production  of high-quality organic 
products, a specific label for traditional products and the implementation of high food safety standards in order 
to increase trust among urban consumers. 

Finally,  most  SFSCs  and  best-practice  examples  discussed  above  could  benefit  from  a  higher  degree  of 
collaboration among farmers. Through collaboration, small-scale farmers can increase their market  power 
and/or widen the variety of products they offer, be it for a market stand, a box scheme or even on-farm sales. 
Collaboration  is  also  instrumental  in  facilitating  collective  investment  in  marketing  skills  and  marketing 
activities. Similarly, collaboration among small farmers might improve farm efficiency  by redistributing work 
among the group members according to individual skills. For this reason, collaboration might specifically address 
some issues that lead to farmers preferring long supply chains to sell their products. The survey results reveal 
that one reason for this preference is that many farmers perceive themselves as mainly primary producers and 
are reluctant, or lack capacity, to engage in marketing of products through SFSCs. Other reasons put forward 
by  surveyed  farmers  who  do  not  (further)  engage  in  SFSCs  include  lack  of  labour,  equipment  or  financial 
resources, which constrains their ability to add value to their products and to participate in SFSCs. In any case, 
27 

 
 
collaboration could be an important door opener. However, trust is a key ingredient for successful collaboration 
and  it  is  one  important  reason  why  collaboration  and  participation  in  collective  sales  channels  are  still 
underused.  Often,  collaboration  is  rejected,  because  it  is  not  perceived  as  truly  collaborative,  but  rather 
dominated  by  some  specific  interest  group  or  entity  (specific  local  enterprises).  For  this  reason,  such 
collaboration does not offer the full benefits that could be realised from well-organised cooperative projects 
led by trusted project managers chosen by the farmers themselves. For the success of cross-farm cooperation, 
it is important that farmers perceive themselves as a group, acting or responding jointly in line with a joint aim. 

Another key aspect of promoting SFSCs as best practice is that they are commonly linked to environmentally 
friendly  farming  practices  and  sustainable  use  of  natural  resources.  There  are  two  main  perspectives  in 
explaining the relationship between SFSCs and the environment. First, the traditional family farms are linked to 
a value system that embraces a close bond to the land and  places importance on maintaining the farm for 
future  generations.  This,  together  with  the  traditional  low-input  farming,  supports  farm  practices  that  are 
sustainable (e.g. high nature value farming practices). Second, cutting the sales channels short implies that the 
final  consumer  is  closer  to  the  producer,  which  incentivises  delivering  high-quality  and  safe  food,  as  the 
consumer may hold the producer directly responsible. Of course, not all smallholder farms follow sustainable 
farming practices. For instance, overgrazing is a problem in some areas.  In addition, land abandonment and 
degradation have become issues, as farmers are sometimes no longer able to take care  of their fields (e.g. 
because  of  old  age).  However,  the  farms  in  this  survey  did  not  encounter  these  types  of  problems.  On  the 
positive side, small farms in the region still remember and utilise traditional management of biological waste 
though composting and utilising this biomass as an organic fertiliser, which keeps small farms’ carbon footprint 
low. On the negative side, shortages of appropriate machinery for storing and distributing manure and slurry in 
small farms  may  create  a  high  water footprint.  Moreover, the  relatively low level of professional education 
among small farmers might have some adverse consequences for the environment, for example regarding the 
use of pesticides and nitrogen leakage in groundwater due to inappropriate manure storage. 

4.2.  Farm products best suited to sales in short food supply and value chains 

Results from interviews suggest that the most profitable and best-suited products for sales through SFSCs are 
milk  and  dairy  products  and  fruits  and  vegetables  in  fresh  and  processed  forms.  Meat  and  meat 
products, and cereal and bee products, were also at the top of the list of products that are considered the 
most  profitable  for  selling  in  local  markets  through  SFSCs.  However,  the  range  of  suitable  products  differs 
between countries/territories. 

For  surveyed  Albanian  farmers,  fresh  vegetables  such  as  potatoes,  beans,  onions,  peppers  and  tomatoes 
represent  the  most  suitable  products  to  be  promoted  through  SFSCs.  Among  fruits,  apples  were  preferred, 
followed by plums, melons and citrus fruits. Concerning processed products, farmers suggested that milk and 
dairy products (i.e. cheese and butter) were the most relevant. Besides these products, farmers also mentioned 
non-standard  products  such  as  medicinal  plants,  fish  products  and  nuts  as  being  suitable  to  be  marketed 
through SFSCs. 

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, honey was the product that was mentioned most often by surveyed farmers as a 
suitable and profitable product to be sold through SFSCs. Other relevant products for SFSCs include raspberries; 
wines; processed products such as jams, cheeses, brandies, liqueurs and juices; and a number of vegetables 
and fruits and their processed versions, including tomatoes, paprika, cucumbers, plums, watermelons, apples, 
cherries and strawberries. Teas and products made from herbs were also mentioned. 

In Kosovo* livestock products were placed at the top of the list of products best suited to SFSCs. In particular, 
milk and various kinds of milk products (cheese, cream, kaymak, kashkaval (yellow cheese), yoghurt) were the 
most often mentioned, alongside meat. Other products that had some relevance to SFSCs were vegetables such 
as peppers, tomatoes and onions. Rather seldom mentioned were fruits (including grapes, raspberries and forest 
fruits), wine, and traditional food and meals. 

Farmers in Montenegro provided a quite diverse range of products suitable for SFSCs. The list covered milk and 
milk products (cheese); honey and other bee products; various kinds of fruit and particularly fruit beverages; 
and other products produced from fruits, such as wine, apple brandy, blueberry liqueur, juices, syrups and jams. 
Tea, meat/sausages and a few types of vegetable were also mentioned (e.g. beets, beans and carrots). 

In North Macedonia, honey was clearly top of the list of products best suited to SFSCs, followed by apples and 
potatoes. Other mentioned products were milk and cheese, anise, cherries, plums, cabbage, brandy and wine, 
as well as livestock products including meat, and fish. 

28 

 
In  Turkey,  important  products  mentioned  as  suitable  for  SFSCs  were  tomatoes  and  various  kinds  of  milk 
products  (cheese,  yoghurt,  butter).  Furthermore,  a  wide  range  of  fruits  were  mentioned,  including  lemons, 
oranges,  melons,  cherries,  apples,  mandarins,  apricots  and  pomegranates.  Suitable  vegetables  included 
pumpkins,  cucumbers,  peppers,  aubergines,  cauliflower  and  peas.  Sesame,  olive  oil,  maize,  meat,  eggs  and 
walnuts were mentioned at least once by the surveyed farmers. 

According to small farmers in Serbia, products that are the most profitable to be sold in local markets through 
SFSCs and have the largest customer base are raspberries, cheese and honey. In addition, the surveyed farmers 
identified a wide range of products suitable for SFSCs, spanning live animals; fish; milk and meat; fruits and 
vegetables; and various types of processed products (e.g. dairy products, preserves, wine, juices). 

To provide a better picture of the products that are best suited to sales through SFSCs, some case studies from 
the field are provided below. 

Box 1. Best-practice case study for honey 

Beekeeping has traditionally been a small-scale practice in the region, but, in the last decade, numbers of bee 
farms have rapidly increased. However, the environmental conditions have not been ideal, given that the sector 
suffered from many losses in the last 5 years. In the past, the typical bee farmer was a retired man with a high 
level of education who  was  undertaking this activity for  pleasure or as an additional source of income. The 
current beekeepers tend to be younger, be specialised in beekeeping and have a few hundred beehives. 

The farmer selected for this best-practice case study is a 50-year-old man with high school education, who is 
considered the biggest beekeeper in a remote area of the border mountains of the Balkans. He owns more than 
250  beehives.  He  is  also  the  president  of  a  beekeeping  association,  through  which  he  motivates  smaller 
beekeepers to participate in collective sales channels. His professional skills rely only on practical experience 
and he does not make use of advisory services. 

For  this  individual,  farming  and  beekeeping  represent  a  way  to  provide  work  opportunities  for  his  family 
members and to make use of his land. Out of the total production, only a small proportion (5 %) was retained 
for  own  consumption;  95 %  of  his  production  was  sold  directly  to  local  customers  without  any  form  of 
contractual arrangement. Price setting was based on the daily prices of honey at the farmers’ market. Honey 
provided  96 % of  his income from on-farm direct  sales, whereas other  bee products  accounted for a small 
proportion: pollen  3 %  and  bee  swarms 1 %.  According  to  the  farmer,  honey,  pollen  and bees are  the  most 
profitable products to be sold in the local market, although it is not easy to find local consumers for pollen and 
swarms, and even more difficult for honey. According to him, it is also relatively difficult to meet demanded 
standards. He seems to be keen to improve his marketing strategies, by establishing partnerships or entering 
markets with processed products with added value. His general attitude  towards collective sales channels is 
positive and he considers them easy to access in his area. Currently, the beekeepers formally collaborate with 
other farmers through a producer organisation engaged in machinery exchange. Informal collaboration is used 
to exchange labour. The interviewed farmer reported that it is hard for him to hire a worker at the salary he can 
afford to pay. Thus, besides himself and two unpaid workers, he is currently employing only one paid worker. 

The farmer indicated that marketing and farming development are constrained by poor local infrastructure (bad 
roads,  lack  of  selling  points,  etc.).  He  also  considered  government  support  not  sufficient  and  would  see 
certifications of various kinds as extremely important for his business. The farmer had not applied for a rural 
development grant, but he used a bank loan for purchasing processing equipment. Nevertheless, the farmer 
assessed  his  business  prospects  as  good,  and  he  planned  to  further  invest  in  processing  and  marketing. 
According  to  him,  policy  support  should  concentrate  on  farmers’  collaboration  (e.g.  producer  groups).  Other 
important areas where he considered support to be required include special development projects that support 
rural non-farm businesses and improving access to low-cost credit (with affordable interest rates) and grants. 
He also thought that targeted business training could have a positive impact. Finally, he insisted that better law 
enforcement and protection of bees are necessary, since bees are under severe threat. 

Box 2. Best-practice case study for lamb and cheese 

Meat  production  has  a  comparative  advantage  in  the  region  due  to  the  availability  of  grassland  and  good 
conditions for ruminants (sheep, goats and cattle). In particular, lamb is traditionally one of the most successful 
products of the Western Balkan countries/territories and Turkey. Insights from one of the biggest lamb producers 
in the survey are presented in this case study. The lamb farmer is 42 years old. He has an elementary education, 
and  no  formal  or  informal  agricultural  training.  He  relies only  on  his  practical  experience  and  does  not  use 
agricultural advisory services. His farming activities aim to employ his family members and make the best use 

29 

 
of  the  land  they  possess.  Their  main  marketing  strategy  is  to  sell  farm  products  directly  to  local 
customers/markets. 

In  2019,  this  livestock  farmer  had  sold  96 %  of  his  production,  and  the  rest  was  consumed  by  his  family 
members. All sales were marketed through SFSCs. This livestock farmer did not participate in any formal or 
informal collaboration with other farmers. The farmer had a negative attitude towards collective sales channels 
and believed that such collectives were even non-existent in his area. In his opinion, the most profitable products 
to be sold in local markets and through SFSCs in his area are Sharra lamb and Sharra cheese. 

In its primary production, the farm employed six family members, who were assisted by three paid workers. 
Around 60 % of family income was derived from lamb production, which was sold to final consumers without 
any formal contractual arrangements. Pricing was established by following daily prices on the farmers’ market, 
whereas the quality setting followed the traditional low-input farming method. 

Selling lambs was not seen as difficult. Although meat was not processed on the farm, the introduction of meat 
processing was planned for the near future according to the farmer. Currently, sheep milk processing took place 
on the farm. Again, all six family members were involved. The cheese produced from sheep milk was sold on 
the  open  market  in  the  vicinity,  and  price  and  quality  setting  followed  the  same  approach  as  for  meat.  No 
particular difficulties were reported regarding selling cheese, which provided 40 % of the family income. 

However, the availability of labour was seen as one of the main limitations to further business development. 
Previous  investments,  such  as  for  the  processing  activities,  did  not  require  loans  or  grants,  but  a  future 
application for external capital sources was planned. Most likely, the farm would invest more in processing, but 
investments in direct marketing were also being considered. Such investment would depend on access to low-
cost finance (credit with affordable interest rates), grants or development funds. According to this farmer, the 
type of production activities that he carries out requires policy support, particularly in the form of financial and 
marketing support, as well as in the form of infrastructure improvements. 

Box 3. Best-practice case study for cheese 

The dairy farmer in this case study is a middle-aged man with a high school education, but no formal agricultural 
training. He relies on his own experience of dairy farming, but also on advisory services.  The farmer has no 
intention to quit farming in the near future but wants to maintain the farm assets and keep the farm in a good 
condition for the next generation while providing a decent life for his family. Eight family members are engaged 
in the farming, cheese processing and direct sales. Although direct sales represent an important sales channel, 
he  sells  half  of  his  farm  production  through  long  food  supply  chains.  Overall,  the  farm  sells  90 %  of  its 
production, and the rest is consumed by the farmer’s household. 

In terms of the production structure, it is a family farm with mixed production. In 2019, the farm used a total 
of  40.3 ha  of  land:  10 ha  was  used  for  crop  production  (maize  and  oats)  and  30 ha  was  used  for 
pastures/meadows,  including  alfalfa;  in  addition,  0.3 ha  of  land  was  used  to  cultivate  vegetables  for  own 
consumption. The family possessed cooling facilities and dairy farming equipment. Around 70 % of household 
income  was  derived  from  farm  production,  mainly  from  dairy  production,  with  a  small  share  from  meat. 
Processed farm products contributed 29 % to household income, and pensions contributed 1 %. 

Milk was mostly processed into cheese.  Some of the cheese produced was sold through long supply chains, 
where the buyers were supermarkets / retail chains. Raw milk and meat were also sold through long supply 
chains (processors). Informal contractual arrangements (oral) were used for selling these products, although 
the relationship with cheese and milk buyers was long term, whereas for meat it was usually based on one-off 
deliveries. For cheese, the price was set relatively high, since the product was of exceptional quality. For other 
products, prices were set based on market prices. A producer group collected the milk from the farm. The farmer 
also  collaborated  with  other  farmers  informally.  His  general  attitude  towards  collective  sales  channels  was 
extremely positive. 

In addition, the farm sold processed food products within its agritourism business. Four family members were 
engaged in processing or marketing agricultural products. Furthermore, five paid casual workers supported the 
family  from  time  to  time  in  this  activity.  Two  family  members  and  two  paid  workers  were  engaged  in  the 
agritourism branch. Marketing of the tourist services was done through tourist agencies. 

This  family  farm  has  used  various  grants  for  its  farm  development,  including  Modernize  and  Innovate  the 
Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) for the procurement of machinery (in 2010), the instrument for pre-
accession assistance for rural development (IPARD) for machinery (in 2016) and a bank loan for infrastructure 
and the development of processing capacity (in 2017). In future, they aim to apply for financial assistance to 

30 

 
invest  in  improvement  of  the  required  quality  standards  and  they  consider  that  their  prospects  are  good, 
particularly  if  they  have  access  to  consulting  services  and  information  on  business  opportunities;  targeted 
business training; and grants and favourable credit and loans for investments. Improved physical infrastructure, 
better law enforcement and reduced insurance costs and tax burdens are also seen as important for further 
development of their business. On the other hand, support for farmers’ collaboration (e.g. in producer groups) 
is perceived as less relevant. 

In general, the farm considers the most profitable activity to be the production and selling of cheese, butter and 
meat through SFSCs on the local market. Future perspectives are oriented to expanding activities in terms of 
adding value through own processing and agritourism. 

Box 4. Best-practice case study for apples and cherries 

The fruit producer presented in this case study is 54 years old, and leads a family farm with three active and 
two elderly family members. As head of the household, he holds a high school diploma and also has non-formal 
agricultural education (short courses). Besides his personal experience, he makes use of agricultural advisory 
services. He participates in collective channels and is a very active member of a farmers’ association. In addition, 
he is involved in lobbying decision-makers to address farmers’ problems. He is a dedicated farmer whose main 
objectives consist of engaging household members in the farm activities and keeping the land used in order to 
maintain  the  land  and  farm  assets  in  a  good  condition  for  the  next  generation.  However,  given  that  fruit 
production is not a very profitable activity, fruit farms tend to change their business orientation quite often. 
Exiting farming is also relatively common in the sector. 

The farmer cultivates 4 ha in total, employs 4 family members and 10 paid workers and possesses storage 
facilities. Income from primary farm production accounts for 90 % of the total household income, and pensions 
account for the rest. Apples and cherries provide 40 % of the total income; the rest of the production income 
comes from other fruit production (10 %) and other farm activities. The farmer applies traditional low-input 
farming; he considers this a sufficient quality standard and the pricing is set accordingly. Most of his contractual 
agreements are informal and not fixed. 

Although his present strategy is to sell the farm products in bulk and to deal with marketing as little as possible, 
he intends to improve his marketing strategies by specialising in profitable products that are easy to sell and 
to increase production by using new technologies. The possibility of entering the market with processed products 
with added value is seen as highly  valued, and is as highly valued as selling farm products directly to local 
customers/markets.  The  farmer  is  currently  collaborating  with  other  farmers  formally  through  a  producers’ 
interbranch organisation for joint input supply, joint use of advisory services, joint marketing and machinery 
exchange. 

In  2019,  this  farmer  sold  98 %  of  his  production,  and  the  remaining  2 %  was  lost  in  various  steps  of  the 
production process. Of the total production, 30 % was sold through SFSCs, whereas the rest was sold in bulk 
(long  supply  chain).  The  farmer  sold  apples  to  traders/wholesalers  and  exporters  in  the  long  supply  chain, 
whereas  cherries  were  sold  through  short  supply  chains  to  small  urban  food  businesses.  According  to  this 
farmer, the most profitable products to be sold in local markets or through SFSCs in his area are apples and 
cherries. However, he finds it significantly more difficult to find consumers for apples than for cherries, which 
are generally sold without much difficulty. Other constraints faced by this farmer in accessing SFSCs relate to 
the difficulty of meeting standards demanded by consumers. Probably the most important challenges faced by 
the farmer are low prices and their large fluctuations, and high competition among producers selling locally. 
Adaptation to local demands, improvement of skills in agricultural  production and improving  his negotiation 
position might represent  key factors for success, especially if  accompanied  by  more accessible  government 
support. The farmer has so far used a rural development grant for the construction of a cooling facility, and a 
bank  loan  for  the  modernisation  of  agricultural  equipment  on  the  farm.  The  farmer  plans  to  invest  in  own 
processing,  direct  marketing  and  tourism/catering,  and  intends  to  apply  for  financial  assistance  for  these 
purposes. Investing in meeting quality standards is also greatly needed, although it might be costly. 

The  farmer  would  be  highly  interested  in  adding  value  to  his  products  through  processing  or  through  other 
farm-related business, if there is improved access to low-cost finance (credit with affordable interest rates) or 
if  grants  would  be  available  to  finance  participation  in  various  development  projects.  Furthermore,  the 
availability  of  support  for  farmers’  collaboration  would  also  make  him  decide  to  invest  in  these  areas.  The 
farmer stated that targeted business training as well as an improved business environment (law enforcement, 
lower  tax  burdens,  cheaper  insurance,  coupled  payments,  etc.)  might  also  contribute  to  further  business 
development and participation in SFSCs. 

31 

 
Box 5. Best-practice case study for raspberries 

The  farmer  included  in  this  case  study  is  involved  in  the  production  and  processing  of  raspberries.  He  also 
collects non-timber forest products and medicinal plants. He is 57 years old and possesses a bachelor of science 
degree and an agricultural vocational school diploma. The farmer is a user of the agricultural advisory services 
provided as part of the contract with the contractor providing inputs. This farmer is the president of the local 
agricultural cooperative, which has a significant impact on the economic and social development of the nearby 
villages and the region. Three family members are actively involved in farm activities; in addition, he employs 
six paid workers. 

This farmer does not intend to abandon his land or leave it unused, or to exit farming. His objective is to employ 
family  members  and  to  maintain  land  and  farm  assets  to  keep  the  farm  in  a  good  condition  for  the  next 
generation.  He  intends  to  increase  the  production  scale  by  using  new  technologies,  by  improving  marketing 
strategies,  including  establishing  partnerships  for  this  purpose,  and  by  entering  the  market  with  processed 
products with added value. The farmer pays equal attention to selling farm products in bulk and selling farm 
products directly to local customers/markets. Currently, he collaborates with other farmers formally within a 
cooperative  for  providing  joint  input  supply,  machinery  exchange  and  joint  marketing.  His  general  attitude 
towards collective sales channels is positive and he considers access to collective sales channels to be generally 
easy.  He  sees  no  particular  obstacles  to  entering  any  market,  except  maybe  for  those  that  require  official 
paperwork/documentation (e.g. supplying restaurants), because his farm is not registered as a business entity. 
Complying with the food safety standards of potential collective sales channels might be difficult, as might 
delivering  the  required  quantity  of  products;  however,  these  problems  are  considered  not  to  be  significant 
constraints for the farmer. 

In 2019, the farmer sold 100 % of his production. Around 80 % of farm production was sold through SFSCs, 
and  20 %  was  sold  through  long  food  supply  chains  (in  bulk).  According  to  the  farmer,  the  most  profitable 
products to be sold in local  markets and through  SFSCs in his area are raspberry and blackberry juices and 
various  fresh  fruits.  The  main  factors  constraining  the  increase  in  production  for  this  farm  are  primarily 
challenges  in  meeting  quality  standards  demanded  by  various  buyers  and  finding  buyers.  Other  challenges 
faced by the farmers include poor local infrastructure and the need to improve skills. 

The farmer used 0.7 ha of land for agricultural production in 2019. The farm possesses a cooling chamber and 
also rents one storage unit. Around 80 % of total income is from the primary production and 20 % is from the 
processing. Raspberry production provides 66 % of the total income, blackberry production provides 14 % and 
medicinal plant production provides 20 %. The main buyers for all three products are long supply chain buyers: 
traders/wholesalers and exporters. 

Price  negotiation  is  based  on  market  price  development.  However,  the  farmer  provides  price  discounts  for 
customers ordering more products at once for all three products (i.e. raspberries, blackberries and medicinal 
plants). Formal (written), one-off contractual arrangements are used for selling all three products. Sales and 
marketing  of  raspberries  and  blackberries  are  perceived  to  be  moderately  hard  by  the  farmer,  whereas  the 
sales and marketing of medicinal plants are not considered difficult at all. The farmer also processes his fruits 
into  non-alcoholic  beverages  and  sells  them  to  the  cooperative  under  the  formal  (one-off)  contractual 
agreement. Prices are set/fixed each year. The prices he charges are relatively high, since the products are of 
exceptional quality, organic, of protected origin, etc. The farmer was considering the possibility of introducing 
quality setting through certifications (various types) for the three primary products that he sells. 

The farmer has used rural development grants for purchasing a drying chamber and planting material. In the 
future, he plans to invest in processing equipment, a selling point/stand and improvement of quality standards. 
The  future  decision  to  invest  in  these  areas  depends  on  the  availability  of  the  financial  support  and  on  an 
improved business environment. According to the farmer, a key factor that is important in improving access to 
support is the simplification of criteria for grants and various forms of state/donor support. 

Box 6. Best-practice case study for vegetables 

The farmer included in this case study is typical of a small farmer producing vegetables in this region. He is 
52 years  old  with  a  primary  school  education  and  no  formal  agricultural  education;  he  has  only  practical 
experience. He does not receive support from an agricultural advisory service. He leads a farm that employs 
four adult family members. 

His farming objective is to sell farm products directly to local customers/markets, but he opts for bulk sales in 
some cases, in particular to avoid unfavourable situations in local markets. The medium-term objectives of the 

32 

 
farmer are to exit farming as it is not a profitable business. He plans to use farming as an income source only 
until he finds a better job. In the mean time, he intends to specialise in profitable crops that can be sold on the 
local market, and plans to introduce processing for adding value to his products. 

This farmer does not collaborate with other farmers, either formally or informally. His general attitude towards 
collective sales channels is slightly negative. He is aware of the existing collective sales channels but finds it 
difficult  or  impossible  to  access  them,  mainly  because  of  his  inability  to  provide  the  quantity  of  products 
required to be delivered by the potential collective sales channels. 

In  2019,  the  farmer  sold  20 %  of  produced  products,  whereas  losses/waste  represent  80 %  of  production. 
Around  70 %  of  sold  products  were  marketed  through  SFSCs;  the  rest  were  marketed  through  long  supply 
chains. According to the farmer, the most profitable products to be sold in local markets and through SFSCs in 
his  area  are  pumpkins,  tomatoes  and  cauliflowers.  The  farmer  finds  it  relatively  difficult  to  locate  local 
consumers for his products and to meet the quality standards they demand. He believes that he lacks marketing 
skills as well as skills that are required for conducting more competitive production. Relatively low product prices 
prevailing on the market and poor local infrastructure represent the key constraints for selling his products and 
reaching consumers. His farm lacks access to affordable financing, preventing him from developing the farm 
and improving the commercialisation of the production. The farmer perceives that the government support is 
not sufficient to fill this gap to help him with farm business development. 

In  2019,  pumpkins  represented  100 %  of  the  farm  income.  They  were  sold  directly  on  the  farm  to  final 
consumers without contractual arrangements and were priced based on daily prices set on the farmers’ markets. 
The  farmer  considers  traditional  low-input  farming  as  a  sufficient  quality  set-up  but  perceives  that  the 
marketing and sale of such products is challenging. The farmer does not process farm products. The farmer has 
not used financial assistance in the past. The primary farm production accounts for 50 % of the total household 
income, and the rest comes from off-farm business. 

The farmer intends to invest in direct marketing and plans to apply for financial assistance for this purpose. He 
would welcome better availability of financial support, provision of information on business opportunities and 
access  to  consulting  services.  Furthermore,  the  improvement  of  infrastructure  and  reduced  administrative 
burdens  (e.g.  taxes)  would  also  help  the  development  of  his  farming  activity.  Other  support  that  could  be 
beneficial for his business development might include training and support for cooperation. 

Box 7. Best-practice case study for fish 

The small farmer selected for this case study is a middle-aged man, an entrepreneur who has invested in fish 
production after being previously active in another type of business activity. A typical small farmer involved in 
aquaculture in the region, as is the case in the current case study, is often also involved in the food service and 
hotel  sector,  and  the  aquaculture  production  is  often  established  on  inherited,  purchased  or  abandoned 
farmland with access to a high-quality water source. The farmer in this case study has a high school diploma, 
but no formal education in agriculture. His farming is based on practical experience and without support from 
advisory  services.  The  farmer  feels  that  he  does not  require  support  from  advisory  services,  although  he  is 
aware that his production-related skills should be improved so that the farm can become more competitive. He 
perceives that he has sufficient access to information on prices and market developments, yet he admits that 
he lacks marketing-related skills. In general, he is highly motivated to develop his farm business, wishing to 
develop  it  and  pass  it  to  the  next  generation.  The  option  of  exiting  farming  is  perceived  as  highly  unlikely, 
although this decision could be reversed in the event of a better job opportunity, given that the profitability of 
agriculture (including aquaculture) is relatively low. 

The  farmer  uses  0.07 ha  for  agricultural  production  and  possesses  cooling  equipment  and  facilities  for 
processing fish (a kitchen). All three members of his family work on the farm. In addition, one paid worker is 
employed to work in primary production, whereas only family members are involved in tourism. Tourist agencies 
are the main buyers of the farm’s tourist services. The farmer has never used or applied for bank loans. He has 
financed investments from own resources. The last investment was for the cooling store. 

The farmer sells 100 % of his production and it is all sold through short value chains. The farmer does not 
collaborate  formally  or  informally  with  other  farmers  and  in  general  his  attitude  towards  collective  sales 
channels is very negative. The main constraints faced by the farmer include the lack of financing and labour, 
which  prevents  further  development  of  the  farm.  Furthermore,  government  support  is  not  accessible  or not 
available for the type of farm business he runs, and relatively low product prices result in a small margin for 
the  accumulation  of  money  for  investments  and  expansion  of  farm  activities.  The  competition  from  other 
producers is rather high, and meeting quality standards demanded by buyers is rather challenging. The farmer 

33 

 
needs to adapt the quality standards to be in line with consumers’ demands, which ultimately is expected to 
make it easier to find consumers. The farmer believes that he has good future prospects to successfully adapt 
to the market requirements. For this purpose, he intends to invest in the improvement of quality standards, 
processing and direct marketing, and possibly also in his own sales point/stand. He intends to use government 
support to finance these investments if it becomes available. In this context, the farmer believes that financial 
support (grants and credit with affordable interest rates), technical assistance (training, information, consulting, 
development projects) and improvement of physical infrastructure are crucial for further business development. 
Furthermore,  the  farmer  considers  that  better  law  enforcement  and  reduced  administrative  burdens  (e.g. 
reduced tax and insurance costs) would also help the development of his farming activity. On the other hand, 
support for farmers’ collaboration seems not to be important to this farmer. 

4.3.  Key barriers to making best use of short food supply and value chains 

Table 11 provides an overview of the interviewed farmers’ assessment of the relevance of 15 constraints on 
access to SFSCs. The table reports average scores indicating the level of agreement or disagreement with a 
particular  statement  (constraint),  from  1  (complete  disagreement)  to  7  (complete  agreement).  Overall,  the 
interviewed farmers agreed that it is not very difficult to market their products to local consumers. Similarly, 
the results suggest that farmers do not have difficulties with meeting standards demanded by buyers. These 
results are rather consistent across all countries/territories. Generally, competition from other producers was 
also not seen as problematic, with the exception of Albania and Kosovo*, and the local infrastructure is seen as 
only a minor issue in most countries/territories. 

The most common constraints on high scores reported in several countries/territories are a lack of financing, 
inaccessible or insufficient government support, low product prices, large price fluctuations, a lack of affordable 
hired labour and a lack of marketing skills (Table 11). 

Regarding specific  countries/territories, interviewed farmers in North Macedonia seem to  have assessed the 
most constraints as relevant (i.e. 10 out of 15 constraints received a score higher than 5). The most relevant 
constraints in this country are a lack of affordable hired labour, a lack of financing, low product prices, large 
price  fluctuations  and  a  lack  of  marketing  skills.  North  Macedonia  is  followed  by  Albania,  where  several 
constraints are ranked as important or severe. The key constraints in Albania, as assessed by the interviewed 
farmers,  are  a  lack  of  financing,  a  lack  of  affordable  hired  labour,  inaccessible  or  insufficient  government 
support, low product prices and large price fluctuations. In contrast to other countries/territories, the competition 
from other producers is assessed as a significant problem in Albania. 

Montenegro,  Serbia  and  Turkey  generally  report  the  lowest  scores  across the  15  constraints.  In  Turkey,  low 
product prices and large price fluctuations are seen as rather important problems. In Serbia, the main constraints 
are low product prices and the weak negotiating position of farmers. In Montenegro, a lack of financing, a lack 
of affordable hired labour and a lack of professional skills in both production and marketing were perceived as 
most severe. Finally, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo* report medium scores across the constraints. In these 
two countries/territories, the key constraints include a lack of financing, a lack of affordable hired labour and 
inaccessible or insufficient government support (Table 11). 

34 

 
 
Table 11. Possible constraints on increasing agricultural production and sales through short food supply chains 
(average scores) 

Constraints 

It is difficult to find local consumers for our 
products 
The competition from other producers is very high 
We cannot meet standards demanded by buyers 
We would need to change our specialisation to 
produce what is locally demanded 
Too low product prices are a severe problem for 
marketing our products 
Price fluctuation is a severe problem for marketing 
our products 
We lack information and advice on markets and 
prices 
Our negotiation position is weak, which makes the 
marketing of our products very hard 
We lack family labour to (further) develop 
commercial activities of our farm business 
It is difficult to find hired workers to support us for 
the wage we can afford 
In order to be competitive producers, we need 
improved agricultural production skills 
We lack marketing-related skills 
We lack financing to be able to develop and 
commercialise our farm 
The local infrastructure is a hindrance to marketing 
our products (e.g. bad roads, lack of sales points) 
Government support is not accessible or not 
sufficient for developing our farm business 

i

a
n
a
b
l
A
1.3 

6.0 
1.6 
2.5 

6.2 

6.4 

5.4 

1.4 

4.7 

6.7 

3.8 

3.8 
6.9 

4.6 

6.4 

i

d
n
a

a
n
i
v
o
g
a
e
n
z
s
r
e
o
H
B
2.3 

3.1 
1.4 
1.6 

3.9 

3.6 

3.6 

3.1 

4.9 

5.6 

4.5 

5.1 
6.5 

3.4 

5.4 

o
r
g
e
n
e
t
n
o
M
1.2 

2.3 
1.1 
1.2 

3.0 

2.8 

3.4 

2.3 

3.7 

5.1 

5.7 

5.7 
6.5 

3.8 

3.3 

i

a
n
o
d
h
e
t
c
r
a
o
M
N
4.5 

3.5 
1.3 
2.8 

6.3 

5.6 

5.1 

5.1 

5.3 

6.7 

5.1 

5.9 
6.3 

4.1 

5.7 

a
i
b
r
e
S
3.0 

3.3 
1.8 
2.2 

4.3 

3.8 

3.0 

4.5 

3.0 

2.6 

2.8 

2.9 
2.8 

2.9 

4.0 

*
o
v
o
s
o
K
2.5 

4.2 
1.3 
2.3 

4.5 

4.4 

4.9 

3.4 

3.3 

5.4 

4.3 

4.4 
6.4 

4.2 

5.8 

y
e
k
r
u
T

3.1 

3.5 
2.5 
3.0 

5.6 

5.4 

3.3 

4.6 

3.2 

3.0 

2.4 

3.5 
2.7 

2.7 

2.7 

NB: The statements were rated on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 = do not agree at all and 7 = fully agree. 

Table 12 underlines that farms may lack investments in important assets needed for processing and marketing 
through SFSC channels. Although the table gives only a rough overview of available assets, it can be concluded 
that farmers are, in many cases, not sufficiently equipped. A particular issue is low ownership (fewer than 20 % 
of surveyed farmers) of SFSC-related assets, include cooling, storing and processing facilities in Turkey; vehicles, 
selling and processing facilities in North Macedonia; vehicles, selling and cooling facilities in Montenegro; selling, 
processing  and  cooling  facilities  in  Albania;  selling  and  storing  facilities  in  Kosovo*;  vehicles  in  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina; and selling facilities in Serbia. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12. Processing and marketing equipment and facilities owned by surveyed farmers (% of respondents 
responding ‘yes’) 

Country/territory 

Cooling 
facilities for 
products (e.g. 
milk or 
vegetables) 

Storage 
facilities for 
products 
(e.g. for 
cereals) 

Facilities for 
processing 
(dairy, mill, 
kitchen, 
other) 

Albania 
Bosnia and Herzegovina 
Kosovo* 
Montenegro 
North Macedonia 
Serbia 
Turkey 

10.3 
38.2 
31.6 
11.5 
21.1 
29.4 
0.0 

79.4 
41.2 
10.5 
65.4 
63.2 
33.8 
0.0 

13.2 
22.1 
28.9 
61.5 
7.9 
40.4 
0.0 

Selling 
facility 
(stand on 
farm, 
farmers’ 
market, 
shop, other) 
7.4 
30.9 
5.3 
3.8 
5.3 
7.4 
21.7 

Vehicle(s) for 
transporting 
products (lorries 
with cooler, 
tracks, other) 

22.1 
0.0 
31.6 
15.4 
18.4 
23.5 
26.1 

As discussed in Section 4.1, collaboration and collective sales channels may be part of best-practice solutions 
for  providing  small  farmers  with  access  to  SFSCs.  Overall,  the  idea  of  collective  channels  was  positively 
assessed  by  the  interviewed  farmers.  The  collective  sales  channels  received  the  highest  average  rating,  as 
assessed by the interviewed farmers, in Albania and Kosovo* (5.9), whereas the lowest ratings were observed 
in Montenegro (4.1) and North Macedonia (4.3). The ratings were 5.5 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 5.1 in Serbia 
and 5.0 in Turkey. 

However, the survey revealed that knowledge of the existence of collective sales channels was rather limited 
and  heterogeneous  across  countries/territories.  Overall,  across  all  countries/territories,  63 %  of  surveyed 
farmers believed that collective sales channels do not exist or they were not well informed about them, whereas 
32 % thought they are easy to access. The rest of the surveyed farmers argued that collective sales channels 
exist, but that it is difficult or impossible to access them (4 % of surveyed farmers), or provided another reason 
(1 %) (Table 13). 

In Albania, Kosovo* and Turkey, the majority of farmers believed that collective sales channels do not exist, or 
they  were  not  well  informed  about  them.  Access  to  (and  information  about)  collective  sales  channels  was 
greater in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. In Serbia, despite the considerable number of cooperatives 
and associations present, more than 40 % of the farmers believed that collective sales channels do not exist in 
their area, in contrast to the 32 % of interviewed farmers who thought they were easy to access. This could be 
seen  as an  indication  that  existing  collective  chains  are  not  collective  enough  (i.e.  their outreach  is limited). 
Indeed,  the  majority  of  existing  ‘co-ops’  are  actually  trade  companies  privately  owned  by  one  or  a  few 
individuals (called ‘directors’ co-ops’ in Serbia). These companies might be an unwelcome reminder for farmers 
of  the  socialist  era  when  cooperatives  were  actually  trading  companies,  which  may –  alongside  lack  of 
knowledge – explain why farmers are reluctant to sell through them. Finally, in North Macedonia, the surveyed 
farmers’ knowledge of  collective sales channels is relatively homogeneously split among those  who believe 
that they are easy to access and those who have no knowledge of their existence (Table 13). 

36 

 
Table 13. Knowledge of collective sales channels (% of respondents) 

Accessibility of collective 
sales channels 
Collective sales channels are 
generally easy to access in my 
area 
Collective sales channels are 
existent, but it is difficult or 
impossible for me to access them 
To my knowledge such collectives 
are non-existent in my area 
Have no knowledge or information 
about collective sales channels in 
my area 
Other 
Total 

AL 

BA 

XK 

ME 

MK 

RS 

TR 

All 

0.0 

50.0 

31.6 

65.4 

31.6 

32.4 

34.8 

32.0 

1.5 

5.9 

2.6 

3.8 

10.5 

3.7 

3.0 

4.3 

57.4 

36.8 

60.5 

26.9 

31.6 

43.4 

60.9 

45.1 

39.7 

5.9 

5.3 

3.8 

26.3 

19.9 

0.0 

17.9 

1.5 
100 

1.5 
100 

0.0 
100 

0.0 
100 

0.0 
100 

0.7 
100 

0.0 
100 

0.8 
100 

4.4.  Policies supporting small farmers’ access to markets 

It  was  relatively  common  for  the  surveyed  farmers  to  rely  on  government  support  to  finance  on-farm 
investments. About one third of surveyed farmers had applied for rural development funds in the past, including 
IPARD  funds.  Grant  amounts  were  typically  between  EUR 5 000  and  EUR 10 000,  covering  various  types  of 
investments, such as equipment, livestock, beehives, construction works, tourism and greenhouses. 

One  of  the  key  concerns  raised  by  surveyed  farmers  is  delayed  payment  of  the  government  support.  Late 
payment of the government support is reported by two thirds of the surveyed farmers as the main cause of 
postponed on-farm investments. Another important limitation stressed by surveyed farmers is that support to 
access markets is generally not available, even though this type of assistance is fundamental to  developing 
SFSCs. In general, ad hoc support provided through development projects,  regional development agencies or 
local self-governments is considered useful but limited in the amount and continuity of support provided. 

In the final part of the questionnaire, surveyed farmers were asked to convey their message to politicians to 
explain  how  agricultural  policy  could  best  support  small  farmers  and  what  kind  of  actions  the  government 
should  undertake  in  order  to  promote  the  establishment  and  strengthening  of  short  value  chains.  These 
messages were grouped according to their content and are presented by country/territory in Table 14. The table 
lists actions that are most urgent in the view of the surveyed farmers. Overall, it can be observed that farmers 
in some countries/territories have provided very detailed messages (e.g. Serbian farmers), whereas others were 
very limited in their answers, focusing mainly on financial support (e.g. Albanian farmers). Farmers from other 
countries/territories preferred to express limited opinions of their governments’ actions (e.g. Kosovar farmers). 

37 

 
 
Table 14.  Support  required  for the  promotion  of  the  development  of  SFSCs,  as suggested  by  the  surveyed 
farmers 

Area in which 
farmers required 
support  
Financial support 

Capacity building 
through advisory 
services and 
technical assistance 

Partnerships and 
co-operation 

Type of government support / policy actions 

Provide subsidies for rural development and more support 
for agriculture (increased subsidies) 
Better focus on spending of budget, with stronger 
monitoring and evaluation of the spent resources 
Increase control over the utilisation of the funds 
Provide special support windows for small farms and 
processors or even dedicate support to small farmers 
Provide support for rural economy diversification 
Provide larger subsidies and faster payments 
Provide more favourable (low interest) loans and subsidies 
Provide support for innovative and more profitable 
production for small farmers 
Improve conditions for using financial support (pre-
financing) 
Introduce incentives for local producer investments equal 
to those provided to foreign investors 
Provide additional opportunities for self-employment in 
rural areas 
Provide compensation for damage caused by natural 
disasters in agriculture 
Shape education based on farmers’ demands 
Support farmers to increase absorption capacity for using 
financial support 
Increase availability of information about subsidies 
Motivate farmers to invest 
Diversify the advisory services to include legal support to 
farmers 
Diversify the advisory services to include support for 
marketing and promotion 
Diversify the advisory services to include environmental 
education 
Diversify the advisory services to include agritourism 
capacity building 
Involve more professionals and scientists in advisory work 
Improve communication between advisors and producers 
Build capacity for co-operatives, especially women’s 
initiatives 
Increase availability of agricultural services and training 
Support farmers through projects combining technical and 
financial assistance 
Support production of specific fruits or vegetables, 
branding of traditional products, standardisation of 
product quality 
Provide marketing support for small rural households 
Establish co-operatives and producer associations; 
guidance and training for organising effective co-operation 
Provide support for co-operation and networking, including 
support for operational costs 
Support the establishment of better co-operation between 
agricultural households, with a focus on tourism 
Strengthen the negotiating position of small producers 

L
A

x 

A
B

K
X

x 

x 

K
M

x 

E
M

x 

S
R

R
T

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Area in which 
farmers required 
support  
Institutions, legal 
and policy changes 

Market 
interventions 

Infrastructure 

Environmental 
concerns 

Social concerns 

Type of government support / policy actions 

Improve interactions between regulators, policymakers and 
producers 
Strengthen inspection services and quality and originality 
control / law enforcement 
Decentralise and activate local authorities 
Provide continuity and consistency of the policy support 
Regulate on-farm processing and sale to shops; relaxing 
requirements for small on-farm processing 
Change land regulations 
Simplify procedures for obtaining grants, providing easier 
access to sources of financing 
Improve access to support for small farmers and 
transparency of calls 
Improve the farm registry to better suit to small farmers’ 
needs 
Reduce taxes for small farmers 
Ensure contractual arrangements are in place 
Enable a free market, fair competition 
Regulate mass imports of agricultural products / protecting 
local market 
Set state minimum guaranteed prices 
Provide assured market for local products 
Protect local ‘healthy’ food producers from unfair imported 
products 
Invest in promotion for strategic products and facilitate 
marketing 
Ensure price parity between input materials and product 
prices 
Intervene from state reserves to provide stability of 
market prices 
Support direct marketing without intermediaries and local 
marketing 
Facilitate relationships between farmers and traders 
Provide guaranteed purchase of products 
General 
Roads and connectivity 
Communal infrastructure 
Communication 
Electricity 
Tourism 
Fruit processing lines and large collection centres; meat 
and milk centres 
Regulate sewerage 
Decrease pollution from agriculture 
Protect bees 
Youth entrepreneurship 
Women’s entrepreneurship and social incentives 
Community synergy 
Returnees to rural areas 

K
M

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

K
X

L
A

A
B

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

E
M

S
R

R
T

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

There is a high degree of consensus across the countries/territories in suggesting the need to enhance financial 
support  for  subsidies  for  rural  development  and  targeted  support  for  small  farmers.  The  availability  of 
affordable  loans  was  recognised  as  an  area  where  financial  support  might  be  needed  in  a  number  of 
countries/territories (in three countries/territories). Similarly, there was a relatively high degree of consensus on 
the  specific  type  of  support  across  countries/territories  (in  at  least  four  countries/territories)  in  the  area  of 
partnerships and cooperation, where surveyed farmers highlighted the need to introduce support for cooperation 
and networking, including support for operational costs. Other types of support that were relatively commonly 
identified as important in at least three countries/territories include the following: 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

in the area of institutional, legal and policy changes: improving interaction between policymakers and 
producers,  improving  access  to  support  for  small  farmers  and  higher  transparency  of  calls,  and 
reducing taxes for small farmers; 
in the area of market interventions: regulating mass imports of agricultural products / protecting local 
markets and providing certain markets for local products; 
in  the  area  of  infrastructure:  providing  support  for  roads,  connectivity,  fruit-processing  lines,  large 
collection centres, and meat and milk centres. 

In other areas, there is less consensus across countries/territories on the specific type of support required to be 
adopted. That is, for the capacity building through advisory services and technical assistance, environmental 
concerns and social concerns, fewer than three countries/territories suggested that particular types of support 
/ policy actions were necessary (Table 14). 

By looking at the surveyed farmers’ responses in more detail by country/territory, it emerges that respondents 
in  Albania  were  not  aware  of  the  importance  of  making  direct  support  independent  of  (decoupled  from) 
production to avoid market distortions, but would prefer to be supported with subsidies linked to production (i.e. 
coupled subsidies). They also point out that IPARD measures are of little use to them, since these are not very 
accessible to small farmers, particularly if they intend to diversify their products, invest on the farm or introduce 
new economic activities such as agritourism. 

Farmers in North Macedonia and Serbia sometimes have very specific requirements for government support. 
For instance, one North Macedonian farmer suggested that the government could increase (double) subsidies 
for  animals  (subsidies  to  be  EUR 150  per  cow  and  EUR 50  per  sheep)  and  milk.  In  Albania,  farmers  also 
suggested  higher  subsidies  for  livestock  and  milk,  but  did  not  provide  any  figures.  Furthermore,  Albanian 
producers of medicinal plants suggested adding mountain tea to the list of subsidised products. 

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, farmers require harmonisation of legislation between the Federation of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina and Republika Srpska owing to serious obstacles they face in marketing their products across the 
two entities. 

However, it must be mentioned that some responses provided by surveyed farmers indicate that they may not 
be fully informed about the available support in their country/territory. 

Some responses from the surveyed farmers provided ideas for solving problems in a specific country/territory, 
but they seem to be relevant to other countries/territories as well. Introducing quality and originality inspection 
of  agricultural  products  such  as  herbal  teas,  non-timber  forest  products  and  honey,  which  is  particularly 
demanded by surveyed farmers in Montenegro, could also be beneficial for other countries/territories. 

There were also some suggestions of solutions to address problems specific to products that are very important 
for some regions. An example is apples in North Macedonian. Because marketing of apples is becoming more 
difficult, farmers suggest including apples in the national strategic product list, for the purpose of getting more 
support to sell them. However, the efficiency of implementing such a measure is questionable, as it attempts 
to introduce market protectionism rather than make farmers more competitive in this sector. 

An obvious opportunity for small farmers to grow and to improve their potential participation in short supply 
chains  is  through  agritourism.  Surveyed  farmers  reported  several  problems  in  this  area.  In  particular,  more 
transparent and more efficient functioning of local tourist organisations is noted as something that is required 
in  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina.  Farmers  in  some  other  countries/territories  also  recognise  opportunities  within 
agritourism if local governments would be more involved in promoting tourism, which would most likely increase 
tourist activities and consequently promote growth of SFSCs. The COVID-19 pandemic provided the opportunity 
to develop SFSCs given that demand for rural tourism significantly increased during this period. However, small 
farmers were hit hard by the closure of local and farm markets during the pandemic (i.e. the growing season in 
the first half of 2020 was lost in the majority of the region). 

Surveyed farmers in Bosnia and Herzegovina suggested distinguishing small farmers from large farmers in the 
farm registry, with the purpose of better targeting support and regulations towards the needs of small farmers. 
In Serbia, the separation of two classes of farmer – commercial and non-commercial – from a regulatory point 
of view could provide a model for distinguishing small farms from larger farms in other countries/territories. 
However, this approach is not necessarily always used to target policy actions in favour of small farmers (2). 

(2) 

For example, the surveyed farmers suggested some inconsistencies present in the farm registries in Serbia, as they record farms 
according  to  the  permanent  residence  of  the  farm’s  owner  and  not  the  location  of  the  farm.  This  often  prevents  owners  from 
benefiting from some measures specifically allocated to rural inhabitants of certain rural areas (marginal areas). 

40 

 
                                           
Addressing these country-specific issues is a matter of individual country policy. However, the surveyed farmers 
suggested that experiences from other countries/territories in the region can serve as good practices or can 
help  with  avoiding  problems  encountered  elsewhere.  That  is,  surveyed  farmers  often  suggested  that 
governments should learn from each other and use bad or good experiences to avoid repeating mistakes or to 
introduce  suitable  solutions.  In  this  respect,  the  surveyed  farmers  suggested  that  enhancing  regional 
collaboration or cross-border cooperation is required to better address the needs of small farmers and more 
efficiently promote the development of SFSCs. 

41 

 
5.  Conclusions and policy recommendations 

This report has presented insights on a survey of commercial smallholder farmers engaged in short food supply 
and  value  chains  in  the  Western  Balkans  and  Turkey.  Although  the  sample  was  not  representative,  results 
pointed towards viable pathways for farm development through shortening sales channels and adding value to 
farmers’ production. 

The results show that short supply and value chains are potentially attractive ways of adding value to primary 
food production and could also be used for successful marketing by smallholders in the Western Balkans and 
Turkey. They are a promising way for smallholder farms to stay operational and competitive, while keeping the 
production environmentally friendly, with a focus on local, healthy and high-quality products that are valued by 
the consumers. Thus, these supply and value chains are promising  channels for improving the livelihoods of 
smallholders.  The  successful  use  of  short  supply  chains  is,  however,  linked  to  the  willingness  and  ability  of 
farmers to become actively engaged with marketing and often also in processing activities. Such engagement 
beyond primary production is not a desirable and attractive solution for all farmers. For this reason, traditional 
long  supply  chains  will  remain  important,  if  they  cannot  be  replaced  by,  among  other  things,  collaborative 
solutions through farmers’ cooperation. 

Overall, the surveyed farmers agreed that it is not very difficult to market their products through SFSCs or to 
meet quality standards demanded by buyers. The most common constraints on accessing and participating in 
SFSCs reported by the surveyed farmers in several countries/territories include a lack of financing, inaccessible 
or insufficient government support, low product prices, large price fluctuations, a lack of affordable hired labour 
and a lack of marketing skills. 

The results also suggest that, in general, livestock products tend to be more often sold through SFSCs than crop 
products among the surveyed smallholders in the Western Balkans and Turkey. The SFSCs used for marketing 
farm  products  include  a  variety  of  channels,  ranging  from  on-farm  direct  sales,  direct  delivery  to  final 
consumers, sales through local green and farmers’ markets and delivery to local small shops, to agritourism, 
gastronomy and catering. Overall, direct sales to the final consumer appear to be more common for processed 
products than for non-processed products in the region. 

The most profitable and best-suited products for sales through SFSCs appear to include milk and dairy products 
as well as fruits and vegetables in fresh and processed form. Meat and meat products, as well as cereal and 
bee products, were at the top of the list of products that are considered the most profitable for selling in local 
markets through SFSCs. The range of suitable products differs between countries. Some of the other products 
commonly marketed through SFSCs but with heterogeneous presence across the countries/territories include 
wine, fish, various types of beverages (e.g. syrups, juices, liqueurs) and medicinal plants. 

Owing to the nature and cost of production of the products that are offered, sales in short supply chains are 
most  competitive  in  higher-priced  market  segments  for exceptional  and  high-quality  products.  Furthermore, 
tapping short supply chains is closely linked to processing that serves the demand in profitable niche markets 
such as for regional specialities. Other important market segments relevant to the growth of short supply chains 
are urban consumers and agritourism (gastronomy). Boosting the participation of farmers in urban markets and 
agritourism  (gastronomy)  activities  and  tapping  the  demand  of  these  customers  represent  a  key  factor  for 
enhancing their participation in the SFSCs. 

Smallholders can enhance their benefit from SFSCs through a higher degree of collaboration among farmers. 
Through  collaboration,  small-scale  farmers  can  increase  their  market  power,  widen  the  variety  of  products 
offered and/or facilitate collective investment in joint assets. Overall, the idea of collective channels is positively 
assessed by the surveyed farmers. However, knowledge  of opportunities to collaborate and the existence of 
collective sales channels is rather limited and heterogeneous across countries/territories in the region. 

Small farmers in the region maintain highly valued traditional farming practices. However, knowledge of them 
is at risk of vanishing owing to an ageing farming population, while at the same time professional education is 
basically non-existent and farm advisory systems are relatively weak. This poses a challenge both for business 
development and for ensuring environmentally friendly and sustainable farming practices. 

Against this background, policy recommendations are given in six fields, spanning from the multisectoral and 
area-based  approach  to  capacity  building,  cooperation,  farming  practices,  investment  capacity  and  regional 
networking. These include both general recommendations valid for all countries/territories covered in the report 
and, whenever applicable, country-specific needs and recommendations. 

42 

 
5.1.  Multisectoral support and rural diversification 

 

 

 

 

 

Rather than individual income support through direct payments, the smallholder sector in the region 
would benefit to a greater extent from multisectoral support. Such multisectoral support could better 
address the need to diversify economic activities on and off the farm and could also cover short food 
supply and value chains in their various forms. A broad, multisectoral approach should therefore be a 
central part of rural development policies in the region. 
The  multisectoral  support  should  be  tailored  to  smallholder  farmers  in  terms  of  eligibility  and 
implementation rules in order to support this segment of the farming population and thus to stimulate 
growth of short supply and value chains. 
The  links  between  activities  for  the  development  of  the  rural  economy  (liaison  entre  actions  de 
développement de l'économie rurale (LEADER)) approach could be an important element within such 
an area-based development approach in promoting the development of short food supply and value 
chains. 
Specific attention should be given to the rural tourism sector, as it seems to have some potential for 
creating additional jobs. It also has cross-sector effects on SFSCs and the processing of high-quality 
foodstuffs, such as local specialities. 
To support broader rural development, the region needs investments in rural infrastructure to enable 
rural  communities  to  efficiently  diversify  their  economies,  including  into  processing  and  tourism. 
Further  shortening  and  strengthening  of  value  chains  depend  on  improved  road  and  communal 
infrastructure, including waste management. 

Albanian  farmers  require  assistance  mostly  for  diversifying  incomes,  whereas  in  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina 
farmers  stress  that  rural  infrastructure,  mainly  roads,  must  be  improved.  Booming  tourism  development  in 
Serbian  rural  areas  provoked  farmers  to  identify  the  following  fields  as  important  for  policy  intervention: 
improving electricity supply; building and improving sewerage systems and sewage water treatment plants; and 
travel and tourism infrastructure. These would allow this trend to be used to enable the shortening of value 
chains. The  development of rural tourism in both Albania  and Bosnia and  Herzegovina  is conditional on the 
availability of multisectoral support to rural areas, which  would provide the best opportunity for developing 
secondary and tertiary sectors. 

5.2.  Capacity building through advisory services and technical assistance 

 

Farmers in the region lack professional education and would greatly benefit from meaningful training 
in  sustainable  production  techniques,  quality  and  food  safety  measures  and  marketing,  which  are 
fundamental to the development of short food supply and value chains. 

 
 

  Modernised and improved advisory systems should therefore be a high priority. The outreach of the 
services should be improved, and advisors must receive training themselves and should have specialist 
expertise in business development, investment planning, environmental effects of various production 
systems and marketing. 
Information systems for agricultural market prices should be made available in all countries/territories. 
The support for information and communication systems (including new forms) and advisory services 
should be targeted towards projects that facilitate linking smallholder farmers with relevant partners, 
such  as  buyers  of  local  and  high-value  products  (local  shops,  households,  consumer  organisations, 
restaurants,  hotels,  catering  services,  schools,  consumers,  etc.),  input  and  technology  suppliers 
(production  technology,  packaging,  transport  and  other  services)  and  credit  providers  (e.g.  financial 
institutions and non-traditional forms of credit provision). 
Technical and technological support, such as support to improve the quality and safety of food products 
and to develop various sales channels, is a necessity for promoting SFSCs. 
In the longer term, rural areas as a whole could greatly benefit from an improved education system 
with  a  focus  on  professional  business  skills in  both  farming  and  non-farming  sectors.  Professional 
education with a focus on practical knowledge should be a priority. 

 

 

Capacity  building  through  advisory  services  and  technical  assistance  is  of  particular  importance  in  Albania, 
where farmers expressed the need for assistance with creating projects, the provision of advice to farmers on 
better marketing strategies and business growth, and guidance and training on organising effective cooperation. 
Kosovar farmers expressed a demand for projects in which coaching and financial assistance are offered to 
small farmers to support them to increase their production. Diversification of advisory support to also offer 

43 

 
 
legal advice, information on available financial support and advice for marketing, including provision of market 
information,  seems  to  be  of  particular  importance  for  Serbian  farmers.  Serbian  farmers  further  insist  on 
strengthening advisory services by engaging more scientists and professionals. 

5.3.  Promotion of partnerships and coordination of all stakeholders in the short 

food supply and value chains 

 

 

 

 

 

Farmers’  collaboration  and  other  forms  of  partnerships,  which  have  potential  benefits,  remain 
underused  in  the  Western  Balkans  and  Turkey.  Therefore,  knowledge  of  the  advantages  of 
collaboration, such as the possibility of outsourcing marketing activities, organising collective transport 
and improving negotiation positions, must be increased. One important step is to improve the visibility 
of existing groups and to promote awareness of the collective sales channels among smallholders. 
Legal  and  institutional  formworks  could  be  developed  to  accommodate  the  informal  form  of 
collaboration that is often used by smallholders in the region. The support granted for collaboration 
should accommodate the existing informal form of collaboration. 
Farmers’  collaboration  could  be  promoted  by  providing  assistance  and  support  to  contribute  to  a 
reduction  in  transaction  costs  for  marketing  and  in  accessing  equipment,  technology  and  financial 
capital, adding value to products and finding new consumers. 
The focus should be on bottom-up initiatives for various kinds of partnerships and especially those 
with  the  potential  for  transferring  good  practices  into  the  region  and  beyond.  Although  member 
ownership  is  important  for  creating  trust,  being  limited  to  strictly  cooperative  structures  could  be 
counterproductive. 
Rural development networks could play an important role in encouraging collaboration on all levels, 
between farmers, but also between public and private actors, creating trust and increasing the capacity 
of small farmers to use the measures and incentives provided. 

Kosovar farmers are looking for support to establish cooperation in all relevant aspects, whereas in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina farmers requested support for establishing cooperation in food supply chains for tourism and for 
establishing partnership between farms focused on tourism. Montenegrin and Serbian farmers consider support 
for networking between small farmers crucial for their success in marketing by obtaining a better negotiating 
position. Following critical depopulation  of rural regions  in Serbia, support is also required for  creative  rural 
women and youth and their organisations, as this is seen as crucial in improving the productivity of decreasing 
populations in rural areas. Improving cooperation between the public and private sectors is needed in the field 
of  environmental  regulations,  according  to  Serbian  farmers,  especially  for  protecting  pollinators  through 
coordinated action. Montenegrin farmers are looking for support to establish fairer competition through better 
control of quality and originality of products, especially those collected in nature (teas, herbs, fruits, etc.) and 
honey.  North Macedonian and Serbian farmers think that decision-makers need to increase  their interaction 
with  producers  and  their  associations  before  making  any  decisions  on  regulating  production  and  designing 
support policies. Farmers in Bosnia and Herzegovina desire more transparency in the public sector, to enable 
better collaboration. 

Collective  sales  channels  may  represent  a  best-practice  solution  in  providing  small  farmers  with  access  to 
SFSCs. However, their accessibility and knowledge of them are heterogeneous across countries/territories, and 
the  adoption  of  various  support  schemes  across  countries/territories  may  be  required  in  order  to  increase 
awareness among small farmers. There is particularly limited knowledge of collective sales channels in Albania, 
Kosovo* and Turkey. To a lesser extent, important knowledge gaps are also present in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia. 

5.4.  Organic agriculture and payments for environmental services 

  Organic production could be an important feature of successful sales in SFSCs. Instead of changing 
from environmentally adapted, low-input, traditional, small-farming  practices to modern, high-input 
agriculture, farmers could benefit more from offering organic products. 
Joint (group) certification could be an important pathway to handle the high cost of certification for 
single farms. The local governments could create a legal and institutional framework that supports the 
development of joint certification. 

 

  Agricultural and rural policies could support environmentally friendly production through payments for 
environmental services provided by smallholder farms. Such payments would support societal goals 
and are to be preferred to payments in the form of income support (direct payments). 

44 

 
Although low-input farming is still widespread, these recommendations are of great relevance to areas where 
environmental issues are considered very important, such as in Serbia. In Serbia, intensive agriculture can be 
found, but there are also areas seeking to protect fragile nature and water sources. Firm support for decreasing 
pollution from agriculture by introducing best agricultural practices in managing manure and chemical use, as 
much as increasing organic and other forms of ecological agriculture, is of high importance there. 

5.5.  Increasing the investment capacity of smallholder farms 

  Although  participation  in  short  food  supply  and  value  chains  offers  many  opportunities  to  develop 
small-scale  farm  businesses,  the  small  farmers  lack  the  capacity  to  invest  in  modern  processing 
equipment and storage, vehicles for transport, etc. Access to investment funds is therefore important. 
Such  access  was  considered  difficult  so  far  owing  to  the  scale  of  operations  and  size  of  farms. 
Partnerships, but also new and more flexible rules for eligibility, may help to solve this issue. 

  Access to finance is often the main factor constraining small farmers from investing in adding value 
to their products or developing short food supply and value chains. Both traditional and new forms of 
access to finance tailored to small farmers could be promoted (e.g. banks, crowdfunding, microfinance) 
to strengthen smallholder farms’ access to credit and thus stimulate their investments in these areas. 
Investment  support  should  not  be  limited  to  primary  agricultural  production,  but  should  allow  for 
diversification into processing, tourism and other relevant sectors. 

 

In  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  where  farmers  are  very  interested  in  introducing  new  technologies  in  order  to 
increase their competitiveness, but where investment capacity is low, support is much needed. Similarly, farmers 
in Kosovo*, who have expressed a need to invest in mechanisation and to establish milk and meat collection 
centres,  and  farmers  in  North  Macedonia,  who  are  in  need  of  more  distribution/retail  centres,  have  clearly 
indicated  areas  in  which  investment  support  could  be  used.  Diversification-related  support  was  greatly 
demanded by Montenegrin and Serbian farmers, who are seeking support for the certification and branding of 
specific products and for the introduction of innovative products. Albanian farmers have indicated the need for 
specific support for farm diversification, especially regarding the introduction of new economic activities such 
as agritourism. 

5.6.  Regional cooperation 

 

 

 

 

 

Regional cooperation, such as through the existing SWG,  has proven to be an important element in 
rural  development efforts in  the Western Balkans. With  a view to  promoting short food supply and 
value chains, a Balkan certification indicating that a product  has been produced using traditional or 
organic production methods and is marketed in the region could increase the visibility of such products 
and distinguish them from ‘industrial’ agricultural products. 
Regional cooperation could be used to effectively tap the possibilities offered through the new IPARD 
programme. All countries/territories with access to IPARD measures could establish a close high-level 
exchange  on  how  to  make  best  use  of  the  funds  for  rural  development  and  how  to  ensure  that 
smallholders get a fair chance to participate in the measures offered. The regional policy approaches 
should  avoid  simply  copying  agricultural  policies  from  EU  countries,  but  rather  should  learn  from 
mistakes  and  best  practices.  A  focus  on  public  goods,  broader  rural  development,  innovation, 
professional  advisory  services,  cooperation  and  sustainability  is  recommended,  whereas  direct 
payments could be less effective for the needs of smallholder farmers and for the development of 
short food supply and value chains in the region. 
Support  for  the  exchange  of  good  practices  within  and  across  regions  in  the  Western  Balkans  and 
Turkey could be strengthened in order to facilitate the identification and development of opportunities 
and projects in the area of short food supply and value chains. Such an initiative may also contribute 
to more effective advisory systems as the knowledge obtained elsewhere may help provide assistance 
to smallholders to develop more viable projects across the region. 
Initiatives could be developed to identify consumers’ potential demand for local products within and 
across regions in the Western Balkans and Turkey in order to facilitate the development of short food 
supply and value chains with the highest value added. 
Regional collaboration could be undertaken to promote joint food quality standards related to value 
chains  and  to  create  a  joint  certification  system (e.g.  organic  and  fair trade  certifications)  for  local 
production and high-value products from the region in order to promote its environmental, social and 
cultural contributions. 

45 

 
Regional cooperation is particularly recognised by farmers living in border areas of all countries/territories in 
the  region,  and  not  just  where  cross-border  cooperation  is  a  tradition,  but  also  in  regions  receiving  SWG 
assistance  and  where  the  results  of  a  number  of  cooperative  initiatives  have  enabled  farmers  to  see  the 
benefits  of  cooperation.  Being  in  the  hands  of  local  communities,  these  activities  will  benefit  from  true 
decentralisation.  In  such  regions  in  Serbia,  for  instance,  decentralisation  is  recognised  as  crucial  for  further 
development of the small-farming sector and short value chains because of the geography and shared natural 
and cultural heritage, which require, to be fully utilised, a high level of independence in decision-making. This 
favourable  climate  for  regional  cooperation  will,  to  a  large  extent,  help  the  EU  integration  of  these 
countries/territories, so instruments for supporting cross-border cooperation could be expanded. This might even 
mean  the  inclusion  of  cross-border  local  action  groups  and  expanding  and  strengthening  joint  initiatives  of 
regional ministries, such as the initiative under the umbrella of the SWG. 

46 

 
References 

Augère-Granier, M-L. (2016), Short food supply chains and local food systems in the EU – Briefing – September 
2016, 
Service 
Parliamentary 
(https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/586650/EPRS_BRI(2016)586650_EN.pdf). 

European 

Research 

Bedrač, M., Bele, S., Cunder, T. and Kožar, M. (2018), Land market development and small farms’ access to land 
in the pre-accession countries – Final report, SWG. 

Canfora,  I.  (2016),  ‘Is  the  short  food  supply  chain  an  efficient  solution  for  sustainability  in  food  market?’, 
Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, Vol. 8, pp. 402–407. 

Charatsari, C., Kitsios, F. and Lioutas, E. (2020), ‘Short food supply chains: The link between participation and 
farmers’ competencies’, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 35, No 6, pp. 643–652. 

Ciaian, P., Guri, F., Rajcaniova, M., Drabik, D. and Gomez y Paloma, S. (2018), ‘Land fragmentation and production 
diversification: A case study from rural Albania’, Land Use Policy, Vol. 76(C), pp. 589–599. 

EIP-AGRI  Focus  Group  (2015),  Innovative  Short  Food  Supply  Chain  Management –  Final  report,  EIP-AGRI 
(https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/default/files/eip-
agri_fg_innovative_food_supply_chain_management_final_report_2015_en.pdf). 

Fritzsch, J., Wegener, S., Buchenrieder, G., Curtiss, J. and Gomez y Paloma, S. (2011), ‘Is there a future for semi-
subsistence farm households in Central and Southeastern Europe?’, Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 33, No 1, 
pp. 70–91 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.10.005). 

Galli, F. and Brunori, G. (eds) (2013), Short food supply chains as drivers of sustainable development – Evidence 
document (document developed in the framework of the FP7 project Foodlinks (GA No 265287)), Laboratorio di 
studi rurali Sismondi, Pisa. 

Kazakova, Y. and Stefanova, V. (2010), High nature value farming in the Western Balkans: Current status and 
key  challenges –  A  scoping  document,  European  Forum  on  Nature  Conservation  and  Pastoralism 
(http://www.efncp.org/download/HNVF_SEE_v1.pdf). 

Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., Schmutz, U., Balázs, B., Trenchard, L., Eyden-Wood, T. and Blackett, M. (2013), Short food 
supply chains and local food systems in the EU. A state of play of their socio-economic characteristics, Joint 
Research 
Luxembourg 
Centre 
(https://doi.org/10.2791/88784). 

Publications 

European 

Report, 

Union, 

Office 

the 

of 

Latruffe, L., Davidova, S. and Desjeux, Y. (2008), ‘Perpetuation of subsistence farming in Western Balkans: The 
role  of  factor  market  imperfections’,  82nd  Annual  Conference  of  the  UK  Agricultural  Economics  Society, 
31 March to 2 April 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK. 

Rucabado-Palomar, T. and Cuéllar-Padilla, M. (2020), ‘Short food supply chains for local food: A difficult path’, 
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 35, No 2, pp. 182–191. 

Stein,  A. J.  and  Santini,  F.  (2021),  ‘The  sustainability  of  “local”  food:  A  review  for  policy-makers’,  Review  of 
Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, forthcoming. 

UNIDO  (2020),  Short  food  supply  chains  for  promoting  local  food  on  local  markets,  UNIDO,  Vienna 
(https://suster.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/SHORT-FOOD-SUPPLY-CHAINS.pdf). 

47 

 
 
Annexes 

Annex 1. The questionnaire used in the semi-structured interviews 

FARM HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, 2020 

This questionnaire will be implemented with laptops and digital data entry. This document therefore does not reflect the final design of the questionnaire. The numbering and section 
headers are not final. Green text is information for the person who will transform the questionnaire into a digital application. 
Good morning/afternoon/evening, I am ___________________________________ and I am conducting a survey on behalf of SWG. The purpose of the project is ‘Study of best practices and 
potential of participation of the smallholders in the short-value chains in the Western Balkans region and Turkey’. Your input will help to identify problems that hinder a better use of short 
supply chains for successfully entering agricultural markets commercialisation efforts of small and family farmers. 
To  have a  common understanding, we  define short food  supply chains as sales where farmers sell their produce  directly to consumers or  with a  minimum of intermediaries between 
producers and consumers (e.g. local/farmers’ markets, farm/local shops, on-farm sales, ‘pick-your-own’ systems, roadside sales, sales to local shops). 
The information you give us will be recorded anonymously and you and your household members will not be identified in any of the reports we plan to write. We will only present a summary 
of results for groups of households and their farms. 
Information for the interviewer: 
The person to be interviewed will be the one who leads the farm business. If it is not possible to interview this person, another knowledgeable household member involved in decision-making 
about farming can be interviewed instead. 

Date of interview: Will be automatically saved when the questionnaire is opened for the first time 

0.1 (Interviewer) Please confirm that this person leads the farm business or is another knowledgeable household member involved in decision-making about farming can be interviewed 
instead: 
0.2 Name of interviewer: _______________ 

 Yes 

0.3 Country: __________________________ 0.4 Municipality: ______________________ 0.5 Village name: ________________________ 
0.6 What is your age? ______ years 

0.7 What is your sex?  Male  Female 

0.8 What is the highest level of formal schooling / university completed by you? Code: ____________ 

CODE: 0, no schooling; 1, primary up to 5 years; 2, primary 6 to 9 years; 3, high school; 4, college/vocational; 5, BSc degree; 6, MSc degree or higher 
0.9 Which agricultural education / qualification have you achieved? _____________ Code (multiple) 

None / only practical experience .................... (1) 
Only short courses .................................................. (2) 
Agricultural vocational school.......................... (3) 

Agricultural secondary school .................................................................. (4) 
Agricultural graduate studies (college, university) ..................... (6) 
Postgraduate studies .................................................................................... (8) Code 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
1. Farming objectives 

1.1 What are your household’s aims in farming? Please rate each aim according to its relevance on a scale (1–7). 

 Not important at all 1 – 2 – 3 – 4  – 5 – 6  – 7 Very important 

a)  To engage household members with work on the farm 
b)  To not leave the land unused 
c)  To increase production by using new technologies 
d)  To specialise in profitable crops that can be sold on the market 
e)  To maintain land and farm assets to keep the farm in a good condition for the next generation of my family 
f)  To exit farming, as it is not a profitable business 
g)  To enter the market with processed products with added value (including gastronomy) 
h)  To sell the farm products in bulk and to deal with marketing as little as possible 
i) 
j) 
k)  To use farming as an income source only until we find better jobs in the region 

To sell farm products directly to local customers/market 
To improve marketing strategies including establishing partnerships for this purpose 

2. Facilitators of commercialisation – advisory service 

2.1 Did you (or your household) make use of any agricultural advisory service in the last 2 years?  Yes  No 

2.2 If no, why not? 

 No need. 

 I believe advisors are not competent. 

 There is no advisor available at all. 

 There is no advisor available in the field in which I would need advice.  Other: __________________________ 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
3. Facilitators of commercialisation – collaboration 

Do 

3.1 
No 
(By ‘formal’ we mean any collaboration between farmers that is based on contracts. It often has a legal form of organisation. The rights and duties of all stakeholders are clearly defined. 
Informal collaboration is characterised by the lack of legal/formal agreements.) 

collaborate 

formally? 

currently 

farmers 

other 

with 

you 

Yes 

 

 

If yes, 3.1.1 …for what activities (multiple answers)? 
 joint input supply (1),  labour exchange (2),  joint use of advisory services (3),  machinery exchange (4),  joint marketing (5),  other (6) ___ 

3.1.2 …in which organisational form (multiple answers)? 

 cooperative (1),  producer organisation (2),  inter-branch organisation (3),  farmers’ union/association (4),  other (5) ___ 

3.2 Do you currently collaborate with other farmers informally (without contract)   

Yes 

 

No 

If yes, 3.2.1 for what activities (multiple answers)? 
 joint input supply (1),  labour exchange (2),  joint use of advisory services (3),  machinery exchange (4),  joint marketing (5),  other (6) ___ 

3.3 Please indicate your general attitude toward collective sale channels Very negative 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Very positive /____/ 

3.4 Please indicate the accessibility of collective sale channels for your farm (tick the most appropriate option) 
 Collective sales channels are generally easy to access in my area 
 Collective sales channels are existent, but it is difficult or impossible for me to access them 
 To my knowledge such collectives are non-existent in my area 
 I have no knowledge or information about collective sales channels in my area 
 Other: __________________________ 
3.5  Please 
 Absolutely not agree 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7  Absolutely agree 
 Collective sales channels are not suitable for me because there is not enough demand for my products 
 Fitting with food safety standards of potential collective sales channels is very difficult for me 
 Providing the required quality by potential collective sales channels is very difficult for me 
 Providing continuous supply as required by potential collective sales channels is very difficult for me 
 Providing the quantity of products required by potential collective sales channels is very difficult for me 
 Some potential collective sales channels I can’t use, because my farm is not registered as a business entity (e.g. delivering to restaurants) 

indicate  for  each  statement  whether  you  agree  or  not  with  a  view  to  the  possibility  of  your  entering  collective  sales  channels. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Marketing barriers: 

Now we will be asking you about sales, consumption and waste of your agricultural products. 

4.1. Overall, how much of your farm production was sold, consumed and wasted in 2019? Please give a rough estimate of percentage. 

Total production in 2019 = 100 %, thereof 

Sold (or in stock for selling*) (%) /_____/ 
*incl. for commercial processing/tourism etc. 
Consumed (or in stock for own consumption) (%) /____/ 

Wasted/lost (including losses for production still in stock) (%) /____/ (check 100 %) 
If unclear, please comment: _____________________________________________________________________________________ 

4.2 How would you describe the marketing of your farm and farm-related activities? 

Percentage share of farm production that is sold through short food supply chains: 

/____/ % 

Percentage share of farm production that is sold through long food supply chains / in bulk: 

/____/ % (check 100 %) 

4.3 In your opinion, which products are most profitable to be sold in local markets and through short food supply chains in this area? Please list up to three products 
which you think are most profitable and have the largest consumer base. 

a)  _____________________ b) _____________________ c) _____________________ 

4.4  The  following  question  deals  with  possible  constraints  to  increase  agricultural  production  and  sales  through  short  supply  food  chains.  Consider  the  following 
statements and indicate whether you agree or disagree with them regarding your own household’s agricultural activities. Use the scale below. 

a) 
It is difficult to find local consumers for our products .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................../____/ 
b)  The competition from other producers is very high ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................./____/ 
c) 
 We cannot meet standards demanded by buyers............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................./____/ 
d)  Too low product prices are a severe problem for marketing our products......................................................................................................................................................................................../____/ 
e)  Price fluctuation is severe problem for marketing our products ............................................................................................................................................................................................................../____/ 
f) 
 We lack information and advice on markets and prices .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................../____/ 
g)  We would need to change our specialisation to produce what is locally demanded ................................................................................................................................................................../____/ 
h)  Our negotiating position is weak, which makes the marketing of our products very hard ...................................................................................................................................................../____/ 
i)  We lack family labour to (further) develop commercial activities of our farm business ........................................................................................................................................................./____/ 
j) 
It is difficult to find hired workers to support us for the wage we can afford................................................................................................................................................................................/____/ 
k) 
In order to be competitive producers, we need improved agricultural production skills .........................................................................................................................................................../____/ 
l)  We lack marketing-related skills ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................../____/ 
m)  We lack financing to be able to develop and commercialise our farm ................................................................................................................................................................................................/____/ 
n)  The local infrastructure is a hindrance to marketing our products (e.g. bad roads, missing sales points etc.) ........................................................................................................../____/ 
o)  Government support is not accessible or not sufficient for developing our farm business .................................................................................................................................................../____/ 

Strongly disagree 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Strongly agree  

51 

 
 
 
 
5. Production factors – land 
5.1 Please indicate the type of your farm (3) 

 Crop specialists 
 Horticulture 
 Various permanent crops combined 
 Vineyard 
 Fruit and citrus fruit 
 Olives 
 Cereals, oilseed and protein crops 
 General field cropping 

 Livestock specialists 

 Cattle dairying, rearing and fattening combined 
 Pigs 
 Various granivores combined 
 Cattle rearing and fattening 
 Poultry 
 Dairying 
 Sheep, goats and other grazing livestock 
 Beekeeping 

 Mixed farming 

 Mixed livestock, mainly granivores 
 Mixed livestock, mainly grazing livestock 
 Field crops grazing livestock combined 
 Mixed cropping 
 Various crops and livestock combined 

 Agroforestry farms 

 None of the above (please describe): 
__________________________________________ 

_ 

5.2  Please  indicate  in  this  table  the  land  that  you  used  for  agricultural  production  in  2019. 
If land was left fallow in this season as a result of crop rotation, please mention this land here 
under the respective category (usually crop production).  Land that is in  your  ownership but not 
used by you (rented out or permanently abandoned) is not part of this table. Please make sure that 
the total UAA always reflects the sum of different categories of land. 

a)  Crop production UAA in ha /______/ 
b)  Pastures/ Meadows UAA in ha 
c)  Orchards UAA in ha 
d)  Vineyards UAA in ha 
e)  Vegetable gardens 
f)  _____________________________________ 
g)  Total UAA in areas 

/______/ 
/______/ 
/______/ 

/______/ 

/______/ [Sum check] 

Interviewer – If the respondents use another measure for the land area transfer into ha! 
1 kvadratni hvat (hv) = 3.59665 = 3.6 m2 
1 katastarsko jutro (kj) ral = 5754.64 m2 = 1 600 kvadratnih hvati 
1 hektar = 2 780 četvornih hvati = 1.7377 rali 
1 lanac = 7 193.3 m2 
1 dulum (dunum, dylym) = 1000 m2 
1 dan oranja = 4 000 m2 
1 motika zemlje = 800 m2 
1 ralo = 1 600 m2 

5. Production factors – farm assets, storing, processing and selling equipment, and labour 

(3)  Eurostat (2018). 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
5.3. Do you have any of the following special assets? 

Cooling facilities for your products (e.g. milk or vegetables) 

 Yes  No 

Storing facilities for your products (e.g. for cereals) 

 Yes  No If yes, specify: _________ _________ _________ _________ 

Facilities for processing (dairy, mill, kitchen, other): 

 Yes  No If yes, specify: _________ _________ _________ _________ 

Selling facility (stand on farm, farmers’ market, shop, other):   

 Yes  No If yes, specify: _________ _________ _________ _________ 

Vehicle(s) for transporting products (refrigerated lorries, trucks’, other) 

 Yes  No If yes, specify: _________ _________ _________ _________ 

5.4 How many adult household members of working age (16–64) does this household have? /________/ 

5.5 How many children under 16 live in this household? /________/ 

5.6 How many persons over 64 live in this household? /________/ 

5.7 Do you farm your land with household labour only?  Yes  No 

For yes/no  

5.7.1 … how many family members worked on farm work (primary production) in 2019? /________/ 

If no,   5.7.2… how many casual unpaid workers (e.g. relatives or neighbours) helped you with farm work in 2019? /________/ 

5.7.3 …how many paid workers helped you with farm work in 2019? /________/ 

5.8 For work related to processing or marketing of your agricultural products, do you employ family labour only?  Yes  No  Not applicable 

For yes/no  

5.8.1 …how many family members were engaged with processing/marketing in 2019? /________/ 

5.8.2 …how many full days did your family members work in 2019 (total number of employees × total number of days)? /____/ 

If no,   5.8.3 … how many casual unpaid workers (e.g. relatives or neighbours) helped you with processing/marketing in 2019? /________/ 

5.8.4.. how many full working days of all casual workers in 2019? /________/ 

5.8.5 … how many hired persons did you use for processing/marketing in 2019? /________/ 

5.8.6 how many full days did the hired persons work in 2019 (total number of employees × total number of days)? /________/ 

53 

 
 
 
 
    
 
 
    
 
 
    
 
    
 
  
 
 
 
6. Farm production, farm-related business activities and short value chains 

6.1 Did you have plant production (2019 season)?  Yes  No 

6.2 If yes, please indicate your three most important crops (including vegetables and fruits) in the 2019 season. 

1. _______________________ Interviewer, please tick to which category this item belongs  crop  vegetable  fruit 

2. ______________________ Interviewer, please tick to which category this item belongs  crop  vegetable  fruit 

3. ______________________ Interviewer, please tick to which category this item belongs  crop  vegetable  fruit 

6.3 For crops 1–3, please answer the following questions. The questions refer to the raw product only. 

a) Which percentage of your farm income is derived from this raw crop? ____ % 

b) Who was the main buyer of (raw) product? 

Final consumer 

On the farm 

 On-farm direct sale to final consumers  ‘Pick your own’ systems  Own agritourism (gastronomy) 

Delivery 

Markets 

 Direct delivery to homes of final consumers  Box schemes / internet selling  Solidarity purchasing groups 

 Street market  Local farmers’ markets  Urban farmers’ market 

Small businesses: 

 Local small shops  Local processors or gastro businesses  Urban gastro businesses 

Farmers’ organisations   

 Cooperative  Producer organisations  Other farmers’ groups/associations/unions etc. 

Long supply chain buyers 

 Processors/agrifood industry  Supermarkets/retailers chains  Traders/wholesalers and exporters 

Own processing 

Other 

 The crop was processed on the farm before selling (go to next crop) 

 please describe: __________________________ 

c) Which kind of contractual arrangements did you use for selling the product (if any)? 

h)  Price setting: 

 I am setting prices high, since products are of exceptional quality / organic / protected origin etc. 

 I am setting prices high, but providing ‘pay one, get two’ or similar promotions 

 I am setting low price, but sell only in bulk (large quantities of sell all product at once) 

 I am setting price first high when I am entering market, and then decreasing it during the season 

 I am following daily prices on the farmers’ market 

 I am selling products for high price as traditional / deriving from autochthonic or old breeds of animals or plants 

 I am setting moderate price for selling moderate prices for customers ordering more products at once 

 other, please describe________________________________________ 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i)  Quality setting:  considering traditional low-input farming as a sufficient quality set-up  following minimum food-safety standards, quality is not an issue   introducing 

certifications of different kinds  using old breeds/kinds  other, please describe: ____________ 
j)  Type:  formal (written)  non-formal (oral)  no fixed arrangement at all (go to next question) 
k)  Duration:  one delivery  one season  longer-term 
l)  Price negotiation:  negotiated for each delivery  set/fixed each season  set/fixed each year  set/fixed based on market price development 
m)  Responsibility for transport logistics:  we were responsible  co-op or group was responsible  customer was responsible 
n)  Additional services:  sales contract with no provision of inputs or technical advice  sales contract with contractor providing inputs or technical advice 

d) How difficult is the sales and marketing situation for this product?  Very difficult 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Not difficult at all /____/ 

Repeat for crops 2 and 3 

6.4 Did your household have any livestock production in 2019?  Yes  No 

6.5 Please indicate your three most important products from the livestock sector in 2019. 

1. ____________ 

2. ___________ 

3. ___________ 

Answer could be supported through drop-down list with the following items (tbd) 

 Dairy heifers/bull/semen;  Cow milk;  Beef heifers/bull/semen;  Beef cattle;  Pigs/piglets;  Hogs/piglets for breeding;  Dairy goat milk;  Goat kids for meat;  Nannies for 
reproduction;  Dairy sheep milk;  Ewes for reproduction;  Mutton;  Lambs for meat;  Poultry;  Poultry for reproduction;  Laying hens  Eggs;  Bee swarms;  Honey;  Bee 
wax;  Bee poison;  Bee pollen;  Royal jelly;  Fish;  Rabbit;  Slurry;  Manure;  Other, please specify ____________ 

6.6 For products 1-3, please answer the following questions 

a) Which percentage of your farm income is derived from this raw product? ____ % 

b) Who was the main buyer of (raw) product? 

Final consumer 

On the farm 

 On-farm direct sale to final consumers  ‘Pick-your-own’ systems  Own agritourism (gastronomy) 

Delivery 

Markets 

 Direct delivery to homes of final consumers  Box schemes/internet selling  Solidarity purchasing groups 

 Street market  Local farmers’ markets  Urban farmers’ market 

Small businesses: 

 Local small shops  Local processors or gastro businesses  Urban gastro businesses 

Farmers’ organisations   

 Cooperative  Producer organisations  Other farmers’ groups/associations/unions etc 

Long supply chain buyers 

 Processors/agrifood industry  Supermarkets/retailers chains  Traders/wholesalers and exporters 

Own processing 

Other 

 The crop was processed on the farm before selling (go to next product) 

 please describe: __________________________ 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
c) Which kind of contractual arrangements did you use for selling the product (if any)? 

o)  Price setting: 

 I am setting prices high, since products are of exceptional quality / organic / protected origin etc. 

 I am setting prices high, but providing ‘pay one, get two’ or similar promotions 

 I am setting low price, but sell only in bulk (large quantities of sell all product at once) 

 I am setting price first high when I am entering market, and then decreasing it during the season 

 I am following daily prices on the farmers’ market 

 I am selling products for high price as traditional / deriving from autochthonic or old breeds of animals or plants 

 I am setting moderate price for selling moderate prices for customers ordering more products at once 

 other, please describe________________________________________ 

p)  Quality setting:  considering traditional low-input farming as a sufficient quality set-up  following minimum food-safety standards, quality is not an issue   introducing 

certifications of different kinds2  using old breeds/kinds  other, please describe: ____________ 
q)  Type:  formal (written)  non-formal (oral)  no fixed arrangement at all (go to next question) 
r)  Duration:  one delivery  one season  longer-term 
s)  Price negotiation:  negotiated for each delivery  set/fixed each season  set/fixed each year  set/fixed based on market price development 
t)  Responsibility for transport logistics:  we were responsible  co-op or group was responsible  customer was responsible 
u)  Additional services:  sales contract with no provision of inputs or technical advice  sales contract with contractor providing inputs or technical advice 

d) How difficult is the sales and marketing situation for this product?  Very difficult 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 Not difficult at all /____/ 

Repeat for livestock products 2 and 3 

6.7 Did your household process any of agricultural products intended for marketing in 2019?  Yes  No 

6.8 Which processed product did you offer on the market in 2019? Please tick the relevant categories and specify the product(s). 

 Meat products, namely: /__________________//__________________//___________________//___________________//___________________/ 

 Dairy products, namely: /__________________//__________________//___________________//___________________//___________________/ 

 Fruit preserves, namely: /__________________//__________________//___________________//___________________//___________________/ 

 Vegetable preserves, namely: /__________________//__________________//___________________//___________________//___________________/ 

 Flour and other mill products, namely: /__________________//__________________//___________________//___________________//___________________/ 

 Alcohol drinks, namely: /__________________//__________________//___________________//___________________//___________________/ 

 Non-alcoholic beverages, namely: /__________________//__________________//___________________//___________________//___________________/ 

 Dry plant or mushroom products, namely: /__________________//__________________//___________________//___________________//___________________/ 

56 

 
 Bee products, namely: /__________________//__________________//___________________//___________________//___________________/ 

 Dishes (gastronomy), namely: /__________________//__________________//___________________//___________________//___________________/ 

 Other, namely: /__________________//__________________//___________________//___________________//___________________/ 

6.9 For each ticked category, please answer the following questions (2019 season): 

a) Who was the main buyer of the processed product? 

Final consumer 

On the farm 

 On-farm direct sale to final consumers  ‘Pick your own’ systems  Own agritourism (gastronomy) 

Delivery 

Markets 

 Direct delivery to homes of final consumers  Box schemes / internet selling  Solidarity purchasing groups 

 Street market  Local farmers’ markets  Urban farmers’ market 

Small businesses: 

 Local small shops  Local processors or gastro businesses  Urban gastro businesses 

Farmers’ organisations   

 Cooperative  Producer organisations  Other farmers’ groups/associations/unions etc. 

Long supply chain buyers 

 Processors/agrifood industry  Supermarkets/retailers chains  Traders/wholesalers and exporters 

Other 

 please describe: __________________________ 

b) Which kind of contractual arrangements did you use (if any)? 

v)  Price setting: 

 Setting prices high, since products are of exceptional quality / organic / protected origin etc. 

 Setting prices high, but providing ‘pay one, get two’ or similar promotions 

 Setting low price, but sell only in bulk (selling large quantities of of product at once) 

 Setting a high initial price when entering the market, and then decreasing it during the season 

 Following daily prices on the farmers’ market 

 Selling traditional / old variety products for a high price  

 Setting moderate prices for customers ordering more products at once 

 other, please describe________________________________________ 

w)  Quality setting:  considering traditional low-input farming as a sufficient quality set-up  following minimum food-safety standards, quality is not an issue   introducing 

certifications of different kinds2  using old breeds/kinds  other, please describe: ____________ 
x)  Type:  formal (written)  non-formal (oral)  no fixed arrangement at all (go to next question) 
y)  Duration:  one delivery  one season  longer-term 
z)  Price negotiation:  negotiated for each delivery  set/fixed each season  set/fixed each year  set/fixed based on market price development 
aa)  Responsibility for transport logistics:  we were responsible  co-op or group was responsible  customer was responsible 
bb)  Additional services:  sales contract with no provision of inputs or technical advice  sales contract with contractor providing inputs or technical advice 
cc)  Labour input: number of family members /____/ number of casual unpaid workers /____/ number of hired people /____/ 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
c) How difficult is the sales and marketing situation for this product?  Very  difficult  1  –  2  –  3  –  4  –  5  –  6  –  7  Not  difficult  at  all  /____/  Repeat  for  all  processed  product 
categories indicated above 

58 

 
6.10  Beside  primary 

farm  production/processing,  does 

your 

farm  business 

include  any  of 

the 

following 

farm-related  business  activities? 

Farm-related business 

 Sale of hay, straw etc. to other farmers 

 Commercial collection of wild fruits 

 Commercial use of forestry products 

 Tourism 

 Providing a service to other farmers, e.g. ploughing or planting 

 Providing a service to villagers, e.g. using your machinery in building houses 

 Providing agricultural tools and machineries to other farmers 

 Other services related to the use of agricultural assets, e.g. providing storage for other farmers 

6.11 Please assess the impact of processing and farm-related activities on your income. 

How  was 
 Much lower  Lower than today  As today  Higher than today  Much higher  not applicable 

household’s 

started 

income 

before 

you 

net 

the 

to  market 

6.10b  Number 
family 
involved 

of 
members 

6.10c  Do  you  have 
additional  paid  labour 
engaged? 

is 
this 

6.10c  Who 
buying 
product/service 
(local customers 
or  remote,  e.g. 
urban, 
or 
wholesalers  and 
exporters etc.)? 

 No  Yes 

 No  Yes 

 No  Yes 

 No  Yes 

 No  Yes 

 No  Yes 

 No  Yes 

 No  Yes 

processed 

products / 

introduced 

farm-related 

businesses? 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. Policy support (rural development grants) and credit market 

8.1 Have you ever applied for a rural development grant? 

   No   Yes 

If yes, please indicate for each application 

8.2 Application purpose 

8.3 
Year of application  

1:  

2: 

3: 

application 

8.4 
Was 
the 
successful?  

 No  Yes 

 No  Yes 

 No  Yes 

yes 

If 
8.4.1  
What was the total amount approved? 

for  

8.4.2 
What  was  the  percentage  of  your 
own contribution? 

€_____  

€_____  

€_____  

___ % 

___ % 

___ % 

8.5 Have you applied for a bank loan for farm investment purposes since 2015? By ‘farm investment’ we mean all investments in crop and animal production, but 
also beekeeping, processing of farm products or wild fruits, development of craftsmanship or rural tourism, marketing. 

   No   Yes If yes, please indicate for each application 

8.6 Application purpose 

8.7 
Year of application  

1: ___________ 

2: ___________ 

3: ___________ 

8.8 
Was 
the 
successful?  

 No  Yes 

 No  Yes 

 No  Yes 

application 

8.8.1  
If  yes,  what  was 
amount approved? 

the 

€_____  

€_____  

€_____  

8.9. Has there been any investment plan over the last 2 years that you could not realise or had to postpone owing to lack of financing?  Yes  No 

8.10 If yes, what kind of investment and why was it not realised? _________ _____________________________________________________________ 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9. Incomes 

We  now  would  like  to  get  an  overview  of  your  income.  Could  you  please  estimate  the  total  net  incomes  and  revenues  of  your  hou sehold? 
(Net income means all income you can use for consumption/savings, it does not include operating expenses and fixed cost; revenues minus cost!) 

9.1 Please estimate what was the net household income in 2019 from all activities for all members of the household /€______/ 

9.2. Please give an estimate of the share of each category in your household income: 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

__________ % 
income from primary farm production: 
income from processed farm products 
__________ % 
income from other farm-related businesses such as farm tourism/gastronomy/forestry __________ % 
salaries from employment 
income from off-farm business (not farm-related)  __________ % 
pensions and social payments 
__________ % 
other 

check for 100 % 

__________ % 

__________ % 

10. Infrastructure 

10.1 How far from the farmhouse is the nearest …. (Indicate for relevant items. Use increments of 0.5 km) 

Interviewer: if the respondent does not know the answer use this code: -333 

_____km 

a)   Milk collection site 
b)   Collection point for vegetable and other relevant products _____km 
c)   Slaughter facilities 
_____km 
d)   Other processing facilities that are relevant for your production 
e)   Farmers’ market 
_____km 
f)   Wholesale market 
_____km 
g)   Town _____km 

_____km 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11. Future farm and livelihood strategies 

11.1  In  the  future,  how  do  you  evaluate  the  economic  prospects  of  your  farm  and  related  farm  business(es)  within  a  timeframe  of  2 years? 
In 2 years our farm business will …. 

 be not competitive at all .................................................................. (1) 
 have difficulties in adapting .......................................................... (2) 
 have good prospects of successfully adapting .................. (3) 
 have excellent prospects of successfully adapting ......... (4) 

 Don’t know ....................................................................................... (-333) 

11.2 We will now ask you a few questions about the future farm and employment strategies of your farm. We ask you to assess the likelihood of certain 
actions that the household might or might not decide to take in next 5 years. Please answer the questions by a rating of the probability from 0 % to 
100 %. 

11.2.a How likely is it that your household or members of your household will (further) diversify production on your household with some processing to 
add value to your primary products income? Please indicate the probability on this scale. The scale starts with zero and ends with 100 % 

Probability of adding value through own processing 

11.2.b How likely is it that your household will (further) engage in rural/agro tourism or catering? Please indicate the probability on this scale. The scale 
starts with zero and ends with 100 % 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Probability of adding value through own tourism/catering 

11.2.c How likely is it that your household will introduce/increase direct marketing (selling directly to consumers)? 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Probability of introducing/increasing direct marketing etc. 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11.2.d How likely is it that your household will start/increase selling on the local green farmers’ market or open your own shop or a shop in cooperation 
with other producers (cooperative shop)? 

Probability of adding value through own/co-op sales point 

11.2.e How likely is it that your household will use box schemes or any other kind of online marketing in their farm business model? 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Probability of using box/online schemes 

11.2.f How likely is it that your household will apply for grants or subsidies that help you to finance farm and farm diversification activities? 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

Probability of applying for financial assistance  

30 
11.2.g How likely is it that your household will invest in introducing new quality and safety standards to increase the chance of meeting markets/customer 
requirements? 

100 

70 

40 

10 

50 

60 

20 

80 

90 

0 

Probability of investing in standards  

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11.3. When you think about the possibility of starting/increasing adding value to your products through processing or through a farm-related business, 
would any of the following measures significantly increase the likelihood of your investing? Please use the scale below to answer the question. 

/___/ 

a)  Provision of information on business opportunities 
b)  Access to consulting service specialised in rural non-farm businesses  /___/ 
c)  Access to low-cost finance (credit with affordable interest rate) 
/___/ 
d) 
Improved physical infrastructure, such as roads, electricity 
e)  Special development projects that support rural non-farm businesses  /___/ 
f)  Reduced insurance and tax burden for rural non-farm businesses 
/___/ 
g)  Better law enforcement 
h)  Targeted business training 
i)  Grants for investments 
j) 
k)  Support for farmers’ collaboration, e.g. in producer groups 
l)  Other, please specify 

Favourable loans for investments  /___/ 

/___/ 

/___/ 

/___/ 

/___/ 

/___/ 

/___/ 

Absolutely not 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – Absolutely yes 

11.4 Finally, if you had the chance to tell politicians what to do to support small farms, what kind of action should the go vernment in your opinion take 
in  order  to  make  diversification  targeting  adding  value and  efficient  marketing  strategies  (establishing  and  strengthening  short  value  chains)  more 
attractive 
3. 
you 
______________________________________ 

____________________________________ 

______________________________ 

farms? 

small 

other 

and 

to 

2. 

1. 

11.5. It is possible that this study will need to be followed up by a short repeat visit or a phone call. If there will be a future follow up on this study, would you give your 
consent to us contacting you again? 

Yes   No  

If yes please give us your contact details and telephone number (to be noted down separately) 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Abbreviations 

IAMO 

IPARD 

MIDAS 

SFSC 

SWG 

UAA 

UNIDO 

VC 

Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies 

instrument for pre-accession assistance for rural development 

Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems 

short food supply chain 

Regional Rural Development Standing Working Group in South-Eastern Europe 

utilised agricultural area 

United Nations Industrial Development Organization 

Value chain 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of boxes 

BOX 1. BEST-PRACTICE CASE STUDY FOR HONEY ............................................................................................................. 29 
BOX 2. BEST-PRACTICE CASE STUDY FOR LAMB AND CHEESE ............................................................................................. 29 
BOX 3. BEST-PRACTICE CASE STUDY FOR CHEESE ............................................................................................................ 30 
BOX 4. BEST-PRACTICE CASE STUDY FOR APPLES AND CHERRIES ........................................................................................ 31 
BOX 5. BEST-PRACTICE CASE STUDY FOR RASPBERRIES .................................................................................................... 32 
BOX 6. BEST-PRACTICE CASE STUDY FOR VEGETABLES ..................................................................................................... 32 
BOX 7. BEST-PRACTICE CASE STUDY FOR FISH ................................................................................................................ 33 

66 

 
List of figures 

FIGURE 1. PRODUCTION DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTRY/TERRITORY ......................................................................................... 15 
FIGURE 2. LONG VERSUS SHORT FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS (% OF RESPONDENTS) ..................................................................... 16 
FIGURE 3. PRICE SETTING FOR PLANT PRODUCTS (% OF ANSWERS IN THE CATEGORY) ............................................................ 19 
FIGURE 4. SALES WITH AND WITHOUT CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS (% OF RESPONDENTS) ................................................. 19 
FIGURE 5. CONTRACT DURATION (% OF RESPONDENTS)................................................................................................... 20 
FIGURE 6. TOTAL HOUSEHOLD NET INCOMES OF SURVEYED FARMERS IN 2019 (EUR PER HOUSEHOLD) ................................... 22 
FIGURE 7. SOURCES OF NET HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY COUNTRY/TERRITORY (% OF TOTAL INCOME OF SURVEYED FARMERS) .......... 23 
FIGURE 8. SHORT FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN MAP OF NON-WOOD FOREST PRODUCTS (EXAMPLE FROM THE SWG STUDY SHOWING THE 

SITUATION IN THE PROKLETIJE / BJESHKET E NAMUNA REGION) .................................................................................. 26 

FIGURE 9. SHORT FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN MAP OF TOURISM IN RURAL AREAS (EXAMPLE FROM THE SWG STUDY IN THE DRINA–SAVA 

AREA-BASED DEVELOPMENT REGION) ..................................................................................................................... 27 

67 

 
List of tables 

TABLE 1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS PER COUNTRY/TERRITORY ......................................................................................... 10 
TABLE 2. AVERAGE LAND USED PER FARM FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN 2019 (HA) .................................................... 11 
TABLE 3. FARMING OBJECTIVES OF RESPONDENTS IN ALL STUDY COUNTRIES/TERRITORIES (NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS, % OF 

RESPONDENTS) .................................................................................................................................................. 13 

TABLE 4. PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO PROCESSING ACTIVITY (NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS ENGAGED IN PROCESSING 

EACH PRODUCT) ................................................................................................................................................. 14 
TABLE 5. DIFFICULTY REACHING LOCAL CONSUMERS (AVERAGE SCORE) ............................................................................... 16 
TABLE 6. SALES CHANNELS FOR PRIMARY PRODUCTS (NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS, % OF RESPONDENTS) .................................. 17 
TABLE 7. SALES CHANNELS FOR PROCESSED PRODUCTS (NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS, % OF RESPONDENTS) .............................. 18 
TABLE 8. FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY STANDARDS APPLIED BY SURVEYED FARMERS, BY COUNTRY/TERRITORY AND TYPE OF 

PRODUCTION (% OF RESPONDENTS) ...................................................................................................................... 21 
TABLE 9. SELF-ASSESSMENT OF INCOME CHANGES DUE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF PROCESSING AND FARM-RELATED ACTIVITIES ... 23 
TABLE 10. ASSESSMENT OF PROSPECTS OF THE FARM BUSINESS WITHIN 2 YEARS (% OF RESPONDENTS) ................................. 24 
TABLE 11. POSSIBLE CONSTRAINTS ON INCREASING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND SALES THROUGH SHORT FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS 
(AVERAGE SCORES) ............................................................................................................................................. 35 

TABLE 12. PROCESSING AND MARKETING EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES OWNED BY SURVEYED FARMERS (% OF RESPONDENTS 

RESPONDING ‘YES’) ............................................................................................................................................. 36 
TABLE 13. KNOWLEDGE OF COLLECTIVE SALES CHANNELS (% OF RESPONDENTS) ................................................................ 37 
TABLE 14. SUPPORT REQUIRED FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SFSCS, AS SUGGESTED BY THE SURVEYED FARMERS

 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38 

68 

 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre 
nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

69 

 
 
K
J
-
N
A
-
3
0
7
8
5
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/921512 

ISBN 978-92-76-36185-5 
70