ALTERN ATIVE GRI-FOOD NETWORKS: CONVERGENCES AND

AGROALIMENTARIA

Vol. 19, Nº 37; julio-diciembre 2013 17

Carvalho de Rezende, Daniel1

Recibido: 16-04-2012 Revisado: 20-07-2012 Aceptado: 25-07-2012

ABSTRACT

Over the last decades, we have witnessing a huge growth in the search for alternative ways of buying foodin several countries. The Alternative Agri-Food Networks (AAFN), or Alternative food markets, arebuilt on a turn by consumers away from industrial food provisioning towards quality. This article aims tocompare three of the most important alternative food markets (organic food, local food and fair trade),stressing the convergences and divergences among these markets, especially the role exerted by diverseactors, the agency mechanisms, market devices and different modes of exchange and qualification processes.The analysis was based on secondary data from British markets, especially on websites, and fieldworkobservation of products, packaging and advertising material on several food points of sale (supermarkets,small shops, farmers markets, etc.) on Lancaster, Northwest England. The analysis of alternative foodmarkets focusing on their evolution shows that the complex process of development involves a multiplicityof actors, making use of a set of market devices to format transactions and qualify the goods. Two specialset of actors stand out as the most powerful ones, at least for fair trade and organic markets: certificationbodies and retailers. Through two fundamental market devices, standardization and discourse, they aim toqualify food products mainly because of their credence attributes, especially the ethical trade and sustainableproduction dimensions. Local food markets, on the other hand, constitute a much unstable marketconstruction, locally variable and with no clear leading actor, even though the power of retailers is growingin the last years. Despite convergences on the discourse, a unified strategic approach for the severalalternative food chains does not seem feasible due to the multiplicity of actors and interests involved.Key words: alternative agri-food networks, fair trade, local food, organic agriculture, actor-network theory,market devices, food marketing

1 Production engineer (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, PUC–RJ, Brasil); PhD inDevelopment, agriculture and society (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro- UFRRJ, Brasil).Assistant professor (Universidade Federal de Lavras – UFLA, Brazil). Address: Campus UniversitárioUFLA – Caixa Postal 3037 – Lavras – Minas Gerais – Brazil. CEP: 37200-000. Telephone: +55-35-38291441; e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

RESUMENEn las últimas décadas se ha evidenciado un enorme crecimiento en la búsqueda de formas alternativas decompra de alimentos en varios países. Las Redes Agroalimentarias Alternativas, o mercados alternativosde alimentos, se construyeron a partir de los cambios de los hábitos alimenticios industrializados haciaalimentos de calidad. El presente estudio tiene por objetivo elaborar un análisis comparativo de tres mercadosalternativos de alimentos más importantes (alimentos orgánicos, alimentos locales y comercio justo),destacando las convergencias y divergencias entre estos mercados; y, de modo particular, el papeldesempeñado por los diversos actores, los mecanismos de mercado, las modalidades de intercambio y elestablecimiento de procesos de calificación. El análisis se basó en datos secundarios de los mercadosbritánicos, especialmente en páginas web, así como en la observación sobre productos locales, los envasesy el material publicitario en diversos puntos de venta (supermercados, pequeñas tiendas, mercados deagricultores, entre otros) en Lancaster, al noroeste de Inglaterra. El análisis de los mercados de alimentos

ALTERNATIVE AGRI-FOOD NETWORKS:CONVERGENCES AND DIFFERENCES

IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE MARKETS

Carvalho de Rezende, Daniel Alternative agro-food networks: Convergences and differences in the evolution of the ... (17-37)18

RÉSUMÉ

alternativos focalizado en su evolución muestra un complejo proceso de desarrollo que involucra unamultiplicidad de actores, utilizando un conjunto de dispositivos de mercado para organizar las transaccionesy calificar sus productos. Dos grupos especiales de actores se destacaron como los más influyentes para elcomercio justo y los productos orgánicos: los organismos de certificación y los minoristas. Por otro lado,los productos alimenticios se califican principalmente a través de dos dispositivos fundamentales delmercado, la estandarización y el discurso, debido a sus atributos de credibilidad, especialmente en lasdimensiones éticas del comercio y de la producción sostenible. Sin embargo, los mercados locales dealimentos constituyen una estructura inestable de mercado, muy variables al nivel local, sin un liderazgoevidente, si bien el poder de los minoristas está creciendo en los últimos años. No obstante la convergenciaen el discurso, un enfoque estratégico unificado para las diversas redes agroalimentarias alternativas noparece factible, debido a la multiplicidad de actores y de los intereses involucrados.Palabras clave: redes agroalimentarias alternativas, comercio justo, comida local, agricultura orgánica,teoría actor-red, dispositivos del mercado, comercialización de alimentos

Au cours des dernières décennies, nous sommes témoins d’une grande croissance dans la recherche defaçons alternatives d’acheter la nourriture dans plusieurs pays. Les Réseaux agro-alimentaires alternatifsou des Marchés alimentaires alternatifs sont construits sur un changement d’intérêts des consommateursde la nourriture industrielle vers la qualité. L’article a le but de tracer une analyse comparative de trois desmarchés alimentaires alternatifs les plus importants (les aliments biologiques, la nourriture locale et lecommerce équitable), soulignant les convergences et les divergences parmi ces marchés, particulièrementle rôle exercé par des acteurs divers, les mécanismes de l’agence, des dispositifs du marché et les différentsmodes d’échange et de processus de qualification établis. L’analyse a été basée sur des données secondairesdes marchés britanniques, particulièrement sur des sites Web et l’observation des produits, emballage etmatériel publicitaire sur plusieurs points de vente alimentaires (supermarchés, petits magasins, marchés defermiers, etc.) à Lancaster, au Nord-Ouest en Angleterre. L’analyse des marchés alimentaires alternatifs seconcentre sur leur évolution montre que le processus complexe de développement qui implique unemultiplicité d’acteurs se servant d’un ensemble de dispositifs du marché pour configurer les transactionset qualifier les marchandises. Deux acteurs en spécial se distinguent comme étant les plus importants, aumoins pour le commerce équitable et des marchés organiques: les organismes de certification et lesdétaillants. Grâce à deux dispositifs fondamentaux du marché, la standardisation et le discours, ils aspirentà qualifier des produits alimentaires principalement à cause de leurs attributs de confiance, particulièrementles dimensions éthiques et soutenables de production. Les marchés d’alimentation locaux, d’autre part,constituent un marché de construction beaucoup plus instable, localement variable et sans aucun acteurprincipal clair, bien que la puissance des détaillants est de plus en plus présente dans les dernières années.Malgré des convergences sur le discours, cela ne semble pas réalisable une approche stratégique unifiéepour plusieurs chaînes d’alimentation alternative, en raison de la multiplicité d’acteurs et d’intérêts enimpliqués.Mots-clé: réseaux agro-alimentaires alternatifs, le commerce équitable, la nourriture locale, l’agriculturebiologique, théorie acteur-réseau, dispositifs de marché

RESUMONas últimas décadas, houve um considerável crescimento no que tange à busca de formas alternativas decompra de alimentos em vários países, emergindo Redes agroalimentares alternativas, em consonânciacom as mudanças nos hábitos alimentares. O estudo tem como objetivo desenvolver uma análise comparativadas três modalidades mais importantes de mercados alternativos de alimento (orgânicos, locais e do comérciojusto), destacando as suas semelhanças e diferenças, à luz da contribuição de diversos autores. A ênfaseesteve posta nos mecanismos de mercado, nas modalidades do comércio e no estabelecimento de processosde rating. A análise foi baseada em dados secundários dos mercados britânicos, especialmente em páginasweb, na observação de produtos locais, de embalagens e materiais de propaganda obtidos em váriosestabelecimentos (supermercados, lojas, mercados de agricultores, etc.) de Lancaster, no noroeste daInglaterra. A análise dos mercados de alimentos alternativos, com foco na sua evolução mostra um

AGROALIMENTARIA


1. INTRODUCTIONOver the last decades, we are witnessing a hugegrowth in the search for alternative ways ofbuying food in several countries. This trend re-lates directly to a reaction to the dominant fooddistribution model established after World WarII, in which the control, calculability andpredictability, orchestrated across longdistances by a few large-scale economic actors,usually transnational corporations, have beenestablished as the most important dimensionson food markets (Ritzer, 2008; Murdoch,Marsden & Banks, 2000).

The dominant (also called conventional)model is being challenged, as it presents somestrong vulnerabilities: food safety issues,obesity epidemic, erasure of long craftedknowledge, practices and livelihoodsassociated with traditional farming systems,difficult to serve smaller, more differentiatedmarkets, difficult to develop a trustingrelationship with consumers (consumers oftendistrust the large global firms, thinking theyare primarily motivated by profits), social andenvironmental problems they create (forexample, food shipped from the far corners ofthe world, requiring refrigeration and hugelogistics costs and pollution of soil, water andatmosphere caused by industrial farmingmethods) (Kneafsey, 2010; Hendrickson &Heffernan, 2002). Some episodic food «scares»,as the BSE, leaded to increased concerns aboutfood safety and nutrition, making manyconsumers, especially in advanced capitalistcountries, to exercise more caution in theirfood consumption habits (Goodman, 2004;Murdoch et al., 2000; Ponte & Gibbon, 2005;Sonnino & Marsden, 2006).

Simon (2011) suggests that consumers overthe last decade are practicing an alternative andnot necessarily narrower model of politics,

processo de desenvolvimento complexo que envolve uma multiplicidade de atores, usando um conjuntode dispositivos para formatar as transações de mercado e qualificar produtos. Dois grupos especiais deatores foram destacados como os mais influentes para o comércio justo e produtos orgânicos: agências decertificação e varejistas. Mercados locais de alimentos, apresentam uma estrutura do mercado instável,com e sem um líder claro, embora o poder de retalhistas é crescente nos últimos anos. Apesar da convergênciano discurso, parece improvável uma abordagem estratégica unificada para as várias redes agro-alimentaresalternativas, em face da multiplicidade de atores e de interesses envolvidos.Palavras-chave: redes alternativas agroalimentares, comércio justo, comida local, a agricultura biológica, ateoria ator-rede, dispositivos de mercado, marketing de alimentos

when they make their consumption choicestaking into account civic concerns. By buying,or not buying, something in the marketplace,consumers make themselves heard, and thusshow their continued engagement in the public.In the food sector, this «politic model» hasbeen influential, and leaded to a proliferationof case studies on the development of«alternative» food markets or networks.Variously and loosely defined in terms of«quality», «transparency», «fairness» and«locality», such newly emerging networks aresignalling a shift away from the industrializedand conventional food sector, towards a re-localized food and farming regime (Sonnino&Marsden, 2006).

The Alternative Agro-Food Networks(AAFN), or Alternative food markets, arebuilt on a turn by consumers away from in-dustrial food provisioning towards quality. Apartial list of the production and institutionalinnovations associated with the so-calledquality «turn» would include fair trade,conversion to organic and low external inputfarming practices, new premium quality foodproduction, place-based production and mar-keting initiatives, and new modes of foodprovision (short food supply chains andfarmers markets) (Goodman,2004). Alterna-tive trade is claimed to operate under a differentset of values and objectives than traditionaltrade, putting people and their well-being andpreservation of the natural environment beforethe chase for profit (Renard, 2003). However,with the proliferation on sustainabilitystandards operated by third-party certificationto allow the growth of organic and fair trademarkets, there are claims that this alternativemodel is being distorted by market actorsprobably leading to more inequality in foodmarkets (Daviron & Vagneron, 2011).


proliferation on sustainability standardsoperated by third-party certification to allowthe growth of organic and fair trade markets,there are claims that this alternative model isbeing distorted by market actors probablyleading to more inequality in food markets(Daviron & Vagneron, 2011).

The creation –or re-creation– of thisalternative markets is being made throughseveral actors, in a heterogeneous and diverse«modus operandi», loosely defined andstructured. The understanding of themechanisms that influence the evolution of thealternative food markets is yet to be explored.

Some specialists on marketing theory areproposing a new way to analyse markets(Araujo, Finch & Kejellberg, 2010), influencedmainly by economic sociology. They conceivemarkets are plastic phenomena, that are always«in the making» rather than «ready-made»(Latour, 1987), and that therefore emerge andevolve from several strategies and agencymechanisms on a continuum process. So, tounderstand how marketing produces marketsone should take into account a wide range ofpractices including regulatory efforts, scientificwork, strategic action, and ordinary acts ofdaily market activities that make transactionshappen, such as the production anddistribution circuits (Araujo, 2007).

These specialists remember that marketingas a practice is deeply rooted in specific marketcontexts, spatially distributed, and dependenton complex forms of coordination amongstdifferent actors, and involving heterogeneousbodies of expertise. Thus, a market is not justa locus where pre-defined supply and demandfunctions intersect within static institutionalframeworks, but a setting where entanglementsbetween demand and supply are continuouslyreshaped and, as a consequence, institutionalframeworks redefined (Araujo, 2007).

This paper aims to bring the discussion ofalternative food chains to a marketingperspective, as it is being studied mainly bysociology, economy, rural studies, geography,and other sciences. In order to achieve thisobjective, a comparative analysis of three of themost important alternative food markets –organic food, local food and fair trade– is made.In this analysis, we stress the convergences and

divergences among these markets, thecriticisms and challenges for their growth, andthe features related to their development,especially the role exerted by diverse actors,the agency mechanisms, market devices and thedifferent modes of exchange and qualificationprocesses established. The main theoreticalframework for the analysis is the Actor-Network Theory (ANT).

The analysis was based on secondary datafrom British markets, especially on websites,and fieldwork observation of products,packaging and advertising material on severalfood points of sale (supermarkets, small shops,farmers markets, etc.) on Lancaster,Northwest England.

2. UNDERSTANDING THE CREATIONAND EVOLUTION OF MARKETSSome specialists on marketing theory areproposing a new way to analyse markets(Araujo et al., 2010), influenced mainly byeconomic sociology. They conceive marketsare plastic phenomena that emerge fromorganizing and political actions of severalactors, through a dense network ofmechanisms and operations that allow marketactors to coordinate their actions (Callon,1998a).

Thus, «markets are produced and diffusedthrough the interactions of many actors,shaped, negotiated, and contested rather thandesigned and implemented, providing bothsurprises and opportunities» (Araujo et al.,2010: 8). The several actors who participate inproducing markets engage in «diverse practicesand calculative mechanisms, which are oftenobscure to others, opaque even upon reflection,and never wholly determining of particularorganizing initiatives» (Araujo et al., 2010: 8).

Caliskan & Callon (2010) define marketsas socio-technical arrangements orassemblages (agencements) which have 3characteristics:

1. Markets organize the conception,production, and circulation of goods, as wellas the voluntary transfer of some sorts ofproperty rights attached to them. Thesetransfers involve a monetary compensationwhich seals the goods’ attachment to their newowners;

AGROALIMENTARIA


2. A market is an arrangement ofheterogeneous constituents: rules andconventions; technical devices; metrologicalsystems; logistical infrastructures; texts,discourses and narratives; technical andscientific knowledge; as well as thecompetencies and skills embodied in livingbeings;

3. Markets are a space of confrontation andpower struggles. Multiple, and sometimescontradictory, definitions and valuations ofgoods as well as agents oppose one another inmarkets until the terms of the transaction areeventually determined by pricing mechanisms.

Different types of markets will differ in thespecific configurations of calculative agenciesmobilized and the distribution of poweramongst these agencies. Calculative agenciesare present on mechanisms and operationsincluding trademarks, labels and prices, as wellas advertising, merchandising, product design,retail spaces, purchasing and consumption(Callon, Meadel & Rabeharisoa, 2002;Dubuisson-Quellier & Lamine, 2008; Callon& Muniesa, 2005).

One of the theoretical frameworks thathelps in the study of markets is the Actor-Network Theory (ANT). For ANT networksare built from relations or associations, inwhich these are the links or ties between thecomponent parts that confer agency ratherthan any essential (natural, social)characteristics held by a particular subject orobject. ANT authors (Callon, Latour and Law)say that network activities or networkoutcomes can only be fully comprehended bytaking into account the full range ofinterrelationships found therein (Murdoch etal., 2000).

The «framings», in ANT, are the tacitstocks of knowledge that actors draw upon intheir everyday interaction (Christensen &Skaerbaek, 2006). A frame of calculation isusually required, and these framing processesrequire considerable investment in both socialand material arrangements. The frameestablishes a boundary within whichinteractions take place more or lessindependently of their surrounding context(Callon, 1998b).

For Callon (1998b) actors’ processes offraming rely on a variety of practices that

construct spaces of calculability, but themaking of spaces of calculability is neverimmune to external interferences and one formof framing is always liable to be contested andoverturned by another. The framing processdoes not just depend on the actors themselves,but also that it is rooted in various physical andorganizational devices. Markets arecharacterized by multiplicity and the outcomeof any one framing effort is always fragile,partial and temporary (Kjellberg & Helgesson,2007), as it leads to externalities, or«overflows», in ANT theory.

Overflow is Callon’s sociological revisionof the concept of externality to economists,where overflows comprise both the positive ornegative externalities that are produced duringthe framing attempts. Overflows point topolitical disagreements with the frame that maygenerate various contradictive behaviours.When calculative agents are making theirframing attempts, a variety of overflows areproduced. On situations in which manyoverflows are produced, they threat theframing attempts and may lead to a newframing process (Callon, 1998b).

The evolution of markets is shaped by theinteractions among different actors,knowledge, discourses and technical devicesthat influence the mechanisms of thetransactions and leads to new arrangements ona continuous flow of information andinteraction rather than on a centralized co-ordinated process of formation and evolution.To understand the process one most establishwhat makes economic exchanges viable, howeconomic agencies are configured, howdominant relationships emerge, and how na-tural and social elements come to be combinedto qualify the goods (Murdoch et al., 2000;Araujo et al., 2010; Caliskan & Callon, 2010).

The concept of market device (material anddiscursive assemblages that intervene in theconstruction of markets) is central to theanalysis of market evolutions (Muniesa, Millo& Callon, 2007), including a large diversity ofobjects, from purchase settings to merchandi-sing tools, from analytical techniques tocertification rules.


3. ALTERNATIVE AGRO-FOODNETWORKSAlternative Agro-Food Networks (AAFN)comprise a diverse set of new markets thatoperate differently from the traditional (glo-bal) dominant food market. These markets arethe results of initiatives that began with non-governmental organizations, sometimesreligious ones, seeking to help underdeveloped,developing or economically dependentcountries of the Third World (Renard, 2003)and also small farmers of the developed world(Bingen, Sage & Siriex., 2011) and consumerclaims for a new value for eating, as in the slowfood movement (Pitrykowski, 2004).

Against the logic of bulk commodityproduction, AAFN redistribute value throughthe food chain, reconvene trust betweenproducers and consumers, and articulate newforms of political association and marketgovernance (Sonnino & Marsden, 2006).AAFN can be described as a kind of politicalconsumerism, relying on the idea thatconsumption is not only a «purpose of theeconomy», but also equally a political issue(Micheletti, 2003; Dubuisson-Quellier & La-mine, 2008).

AAFNs are considered innovativeprecursors of a paradigm change, of a moreendogenous, territorialised and ecologically-embedded successor model to the exhaustedmodel of conventional industrial foodproduction and distribution (Marsden,Murdoch & Morgan; 1999). Some researchersare more cautious about positing a connectionbetween alternative food networks and theemergence of a new rural developmentparadigm (Niles & Roff, 2008). Winter (2003)states that whether the turn to localismrepresents the first step towards an alternativefood and agricultural economy, is an issue opento question.

Even though AAFN comprises a diverseand heterogeneous set of practices, networksand markets, the main common aim is toreconnect food and people spatially andtemporally (Harvey, 1990). Local foodprovides direct contact between consumersand producers. Fair trade labels makesconsumers aware of the origin of a product andthe conditions of the production, assuring (orensuring) that some specific fair practices

where used. Organic production, which veryoften closely relates to local food of fair trade,is directly related to the production process inagriculture, guaranteeing a more naturalgrowing process, with no use of fertilizers andconcerns about animal welfare.

A key characteristic of the new supplynetworks is their capacity to re-socialize or re-spatialize food, which comes to be defined byits locale. The image of the farm or the regionis intrinsically a source of quality (Sonnino &Marsden, 2006). In the fair trade model, there-spatialization is achieved by the definitionof which countries are able to source fair tradeproducts, because of the general bad conditionsfound there, so it rests on the adhesion of aseries of actors to a body of collectiveprinciples, a coordination by civic opinion,where values arise from «notoriety» (Renard,2003), ensuring that they were produced anddistributed fairly.

By emphasizing different notions anddimensions of quality, AAFN represent anextremely differentiated phenomenon(Goodman, 2003). Quality is amultidimensional concept, involving place oforigin, traceability, fairness, freshness,aesthetic attributes, nutritious content, amongothers. Quality is constructed and negotiated,having meaning exclusively in its specificproduction-consumption context, and alwaysin a process of co-creation with the consumer(Sonnino & Marsden, 2006; Shove & Araujo,2010). The quality turn is operated by differentmechanisms and agencies, as we will see in thenext sections.

3.1. FAIR TRADE–WHEN FAIRNESSCOUNTSFair trade is a form of alternative trade thatseeks to improve the position of disempoweredproducers by ensuring that they are paid fairprices for their goods and that financial benefitsare used to promote sustainable developmentin their communities (Fair Trade LabelingOrganizations International, 2011). The fairtrade movement can, in one sense, trace itsorigin back to the development of the co-operative movement in the nineteenthCentury. In the form which it is recognizabletoday it began with the Mennonite CentralCommittee trading with poor communities in

AGROALIMENTARIA


the south of the globe in the 1940’s (Moore,2004).

Like other forms of ethical andenvironmental consumption, fair tradeconsumption reflects the trends ofglobalization and individualisation, whichprompt citizens to «create new arenas forresponsibility-taking» (Micheletti, 2003: 5). Byemphasizing the idea of «trade but not aid», fairtrade is assessed as a system based on thesolidarity from the North towards producersfrom the South. The notion of fairness orequity is the main reference for this directrelationship between producers and consumers(Dubuisson-Quellier & Lamine, 2008).

In the beginning, trading practices betweenorganisations defined fair trade, which wasguaranteed by self-declaration and reputation,rather than by certification (Daviron &Vagneron, 2011). When fair trade marketstarted to grow, labels have become the mostcommon mechanism to create fair trademarkets. In 1988, Netherlands was the firstcountry to launch a fair trade consumer label,Max Havelaar, through the partnershipbetween the Mexican coffee co-operativeUCIRI and a Dutch development organization(Lyon, 2006).

In 1997, the umbrella certification groupFair Trade Labelling Organizations (FLO) wasformed, and its certification standards wereestablished. The term Fairtrade is protected byFLO and refers exclusively to FLO-certifiedgoods. Therefore, Fairtrade is distinct fromother goods labelled fair trade (Neyland &Simakova, 2010). Producers, traders andmanufacturers must pay for FLO certificationsand renewals. FLO is owned jointly by 21national labelling initiatives covering 22countries and producer networks representingcertified producer organisations across Asia,Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean (FairTrade Labeling Organizations International,2011).

Fair trade contains a set of calculationmechanisms that rules the price to be paid forcertified products in farmer/buyertransactions. For each product, a specificreference price is established (for example, forrobusta coffee, London «Euronext Liffe»contracts plus premium quality), and price paidto the producer cannot be below Fair Trade

Minimum Prices (Trade Labeling Organiza-tions International, 2011). The GenericFairtrade standards provide general rules to befollowed by all the operators who trade incertified products.

Sales of Fairtrade certified products havebeen growing at an average of 40% per yearover the last five years. Fairtrade has achievedvery strong market share in certain markets,including 53% of bananas in Switzerland and22% of ground coffee in the UK. There are nowover 10.000 Fairtrade products sold in over 70countries. In the U.K., the FairtradeFoundation, U.K. –representative of FLO–reported that sales of bananas, chocolate,coffee and other products under its brand inthis country had raised from £836m in 2009 to£1.17bn in 2010 (Milmo, 2011).

However, there are other Fair Tradeorganizations with their own aims, processes,labels, and outcomes. For example, the FairTrade Organization (FTO) mark (run by theInternational Federation of Alternative Trade–IFAT–, created in 1989) relies more on self-reporting and is designed to cover anorganization, not a product. Fair Trade/Fairtrade is hence more complex than a singleprocess with a single certifier. Thus Fair tradeis not comprised by a single entity (Neyland& Simakova, 2010). Nevertheless, FLOcertified sales represent 88% of all fair tradesales, and others only 12%. With thecertification model, supermarkets represent96.6% of the point of sale for fair tradeproducts (Raynolds Murray & Wilkinson,2007; Krier, 2008).

The main food products with Fair Tradelabels are: bananas, cocoa, coffee, dried fruit,fresh fruit and vegetables, honey, juices, nuts/oil seeds and purees, soybeans and pulses, riceherbs and spices, sugar, tea and wine. Despiteits huge market growth and support bygovernment authorities, fair trade has beencriticized by several authors and institutions.Starr & Adams (2003) state that thedisjuncture between consumer life politics andproducer livelihoods reflects the questionsraised by critics of fair trade who maintain thatfair trade normalises global inequalities, re-enacts colonial trade relationships and relegateSouthern participants to mono-crop exportproduction. In this sense, fair trade would help


enhance the distinguish consumers from theNorth from the rest.

Other problem is related to the consumers.While fair trade is frequently characterized asa consumer driven movement, market growthalso depends upon the willingness of retailersto offer fair trade products. Attitude-behaviourgap is another problem that put limits toconsumption of fair trade products. Fair tradelabelled products are reasonably available, butthe relative importance of fair trade label in thepurchase decision of consumers is not clear(De Pelsmacker, Driesen & Rayp, 2005). Thereare also concerns that the proliferation ofprivate voluntary ethical certification schemesis confusing to consumers, and ultimatelyweakens the entire field. While privatecertification schemes, no matter how stringent,are only valuable if they are understood andtrusted by consumers. Today’s ethical coffeesconsumers, for example, are challenged todistinguish between organic, shade grown,mountain farmed, Rainforest Alliance or UTZCertified, fair-traded or Fair Trade coffee, inaddition to companies private schemes (Pay,2009). In light of the influence of advocacygroups and producers, fair trade is perhapsbetter understood as a «consumer-dependant»movement for change rather than a consumer-led movement (Goodman, 2004: 901).

Some critics argue that consumers lookingto make ethical choices may well be mistakenover how much of the additional price paid forFairtrade goods at the checkout actuallyreaches Fairtrade farmers (Bowers, 2011).

In the beginning, the distribution of FairTrade products was possible through thecreation of a circuit parallel to a largemainstream distribution through networks ofspecialty stores (world stores) managed ascooperatives and staffed by volunteers andmilitants (Renard, 2003). But gradually, somebig corporations are making decisions to goFairtrade. In 2009, Cadbury Dairy Milk –oneof the largests chocolate producers in Europe–, decided to going Fairtrade. Fairtrade sales inBritain have been boosted by the backing ofbig retailers. Sainsbury’s, the world’s largestFairtrade retailer, hopes to reach £500m in sa-les by 2015 while the Co-operative Group isincreasing the number of Fairtrade productlines as part of a three-year ethical strategy(Milmo, 2011). A lot of fair trade products can

be also found on large retailers in France andother developed countries (Dubuisson-Quellier & Lamine, 2008).

Some are concerned about the dilution offair trade ideology by the market when thereis an alignment with large distribution. The factis that Fair trade operates simultaneously«inside and outside» or «in and against» themarket (Renard, 2003), and one of thechallenges for its growth is that becomingmainstream could eliminate the need forcertification, or that its embracing by bigcorporations (creating their own labels) coulddeviate the movement of its principles.

The efforts of labelling authorities to createa frame for Fair Trade transactions areconstantly being challenged by the overheadcreated by actors, such big corporations, thattry to adapt the system to their own interests,or by producers that try to negotiate directwith large retailers for a bonus price withoutthe participation of Fair Trade certifiers, orconsumers that don’t know exactly what labelsstand for and make decisions based on othervariables, such as price or convenience.

3.2. LOCAL FOOD–RE-LOCALIZATIONTHROUGH SHORT DISTRIBUTION CIRCUITSLocal and regional food systems areincreasingly discussed as a solution to theissues in the globalized food system (Kremer& DeLiberty, 2011). According to 2007Census in the USA, direct-to-consumer salesis still less than 1.0% of all agricultural sales(Martinez et al., 2010), but despite this, thenumber of farmers’ markets has grownconsistently in the U.S. from 1994 to 2009, andlocal food is increasingly being promoted onsmall shops and also on large retailers.

Local food is claimed to offer an alternativeto the globalised system and a number ofpotential benefits such a reduction in «foodmiles», market opportunities for producerswho are struggling to remain competitive inglobal market place, income multiplier effects,social justice and food security, landpreservation, rural development and betterinformation flow to consumers about foodorigin and special production features, keepingtraditional foods and food knowledge alive, andre-establishing trust between producers andconsumers (Morris & Buller, 2003; Kremer &DeLiberty, 2011).

AGROALIMENTARIA


Alternative local food systems take theform of re-localized, re-embedded, re-connected or re-spatialized relationships offood production and consumption such asfarmer markets, community-supportedagriculture and public procurement initiatives(Kirwan & Foster, 2007; Feagan & Henderson,2009). It is also supported in some countriesby government programs, with U.S. maybestanding out as the major example (Martinezet al., 2010).

Local food is preferred for several reasons,according to its advocates: because of its taste,freshness and quality, or because it is healthy,or because is considered more authentic(Anderson, 2008). It also involves notions ofthe contribution to environment andcommunity building, food security, animalwelfare and human rights, ethics and altruisticbehaviour (Bingen, Sage & Siriex, 2011).

One of the features of local food is the so-called «flexible localism», as the definition oflocal changes depends on the ability to sourcesupplies within a short distance or furtheraway, such as within a State, or to the interestsof actors, with retailers for example using ‘lo-cal’ in very vague terms, determined by theneed to source by local suppliers (Ilbery andMaye, 2006; Morris and Buller, 2003).

The most common definition of local foodderives from the distance between the pointof production and the point of consumption.In the U.S. is common the idea of a 100 milediet (Bingen et al., 2011). The NationalAssociation of Farmers’ Markets, in the UnitedKingdom, defines local food in terms of theradius of the market, with 30 miles the ideal,but 50 miles is also acceptable. The same grouprecognises that local food can also be definedusing a county boundary or another geographicboundary such as a National Park (Jones,Comfort & Hillier, 2004). The USDA 2008Farm Act presents a broader perspective,defining the total distance that a product canbe transported and still be eligible for marke-ting as a «locally or regionally producedagricultural food product» as less than 400 mi-les from its origin, or the state in which it isproduced (Martinez et al., 2010; Kremer &DeLiberty, 2011).

There is also little consistency in the waysin which the concept of the region is used inrelation to food. For example, the word regio-

nal is often linked to, or used interchangeably,with the concept of the local. The concept ofthe region, therefore, is used differentlyaccording to each context, and this can beconceptualized as an «outcome of the social,political and bio-physical issues» (Kneafsey,2010: 179).

DuPuis & Goodman (2005) criticize the«unreflexive» and «normative» localism thatimpute the local scale with a particular set ofnorms or imaginaries about place. Oneargument is that even if major elements of afood system were confined to a particularregion (for example, production, processing,retailing, consumption) the likelihood ofcreating some kind of self-sustaining,«enclosed» food system would be minimalgiven the complex nature of farming and foodprocessing operations nowadays (Kneafsey,2010). In other words, is difficult to establishgeneral properties, as local-scale food systemscan be either just or unjust, sustainable orunsustainable, secure or insecure, because theyare socially constructed (Kneafsey, 2010).

Unlike the fair trade, the market for localfood is not restricted to developed countries.But the characteristics of the local foodmovement in developed countries appear to bevery different, as they claim for abstract factors,such as patriotic issues, ethical behaviour,environmental benefits, animal welfare andother altruistic dimensions in spite of theproduct characteristics (price, quality,freshness, health), which are still morecommon in the developed countries(Weatherell, C., Tregear, A. & Allinson, J.,2003); Siriex, Kledal & Sulitang, 2011).

Some market studies of locally producedfoods suggest that although most of the UKconsumers are interested in local foods, thereis a much smaller proportion of people whoactively seek to purchase them, with estimatesranging from 6.0% to 10.0%. Actual demandis weaker because these benefits are traded-offagainst more prosaic everyday life factors suchas price, accessibility and convenience, whichare still very important to many people, evenin affluent societies (Weatherell et al., 2003).

Some consumers who choose local foodsare seeking to engage in a wholly different typeof relationship with farmers and foodproducers, based on reciprocity, trust, and


shared values (Weatherell et al., 2003). But the«turn to local» usually requires importantadaptations in food purchasing, preparationand eating. It also requires shifts in familybudgeting and usually a greater allocation ofincome to food purchases (Bingen et al., 2011).The consumer has also to deal with theuncertainty and seasonality (if you decideshopping on farmers markets, you will have toadapt to their working days, usually 2 days aweek) (Bingen et al., 2011).

Local food supply is made by distinctdistribution mechanisms, as where transactionsare conducted directly between farmers andconsumers (direct-to-consumer) –farmersmarkets, farm stands/on farm sales, farmshops, box distribution schemes, communitysupported agriculture– or through retailers,government entities, hospitals and schools(Martinez et al., 2010; Morris & Buller, 2003).

Large retailers are showing increasinginterest in local food (Morris & Buller, 2003).A recent inspection of the top U.S. foodretailers’ websites provides some insight intomainstream retailer ventures into local foodmarketing and prominence attained by the lo-cal food movement (Martinez et al., 2010).Major retailers in the UK now report a growingenthusiasm for sourcing local/regional food(Ilbery & Maye, 2006).

Local food systems cannot be conceivedmerely as a delineated geography or a flow ofconsumer goods from production toconsumption; they are natural and socialnetworks formed through common knowledgeand understanding of particular places,embedded in their localities (Kremer &DeLiberty, 2011), and its operation is thereforeextremely dependent on the arrangementsestablished locally. The construction of localis both socially and culturally specific (Seyfang,2006).

Thus, it does not make sense to define asingle model of market development for localfood as the processes are variable. We will tryto define some basic features to betterunderstand the basic mechanisms on thecreation of these markets, identifying some ofthe multiple and local ways of accomplishingthe «quality» of products and the nature oftrade (Callon et al., 2002).

3.3 ORGANIC FOOD–A WAY TORECONCILIATE FOOD PRODUCTION ANDENVIRONMENTOrganic agriculture is defined as «a productionsystem that sustains the health of soils,ecosystems and people. It relies on ecologicalprocesses, biodiversity and cycles adapted tolocal conditions, rather than the use of inputswith adverse effects. Organic agriculture com-bines tradition, innovation and science tobenefit the shared environment and promotefair relationships and a good quality of life forall involved» (IFOAM, 2011: 2).

Organic production refers to agriculturewhich does not use artificial chemical fertilisersand pesticides, and animals reared in more na-tural conditions, without the routine use ofdrugs, antibiotics and wormers that are usuallycommon in intensive livestock farming(Seyfang, 2006). In this sense, «organic» ismerely a production technique, but inserted ona ideological frame of sustainable consumptionrationale, for which organic food is the resultof a production method more in harmony withthe environment and local ecosystems.

Organic food has until the 1990s been aniche environmental interest, expressing adesire to bypass intensive agriculture andreturn to small-scale production (Seyfang,2006). At the early stages, organic agriculturerelied on a set of shared values and informalnorms rather than on official criteria (Daviron& Vagneron, 2011). Product differentiation,trust and transparency were organised throughspecific marketing channels: peasant markets,specific brands, contract farming, local-producer-consumer associations andspecialised health stores (Daviron & Vagneron,2011).

But the organic system is now practiced ina significant portion of countries around theworld, with a rapid expansion, especially inEurope, USA, Japan, Australia and SouthAmerica. This expansion is associated in largepart to the increased costs of conventionalagriculture, environmental degradation andgrowing consumer demand for «clean»products free of chemicals and / or geneticallymodified. Thus, several farmers diversified toorganic production as a means of securing moresustainable livelihoods in the face of decliningincomes within the conventional sector.

AGROALIMENTARIA


Consumer demand for organic products isconcentrated in North America and Europe,and these two regions constitute 97% of glo-bal revenue (Willer & Kilcher, 2009).

However, there are some challenges fororganic growth. The amount of land beingconverted to organic cultivation across the UKhas dropped by two-thirds since 2007,according to statistics released by theDepartment for Environment, Food and Ru-ral Affairs, as falling sales of organic productsmean fewer farmers are seeing a reason tochange. The fact is that when price ofconventional agriculture products arecompetitive, farmers tend to allow more landfor conventional than to organic production.Sales of organic products fell by 5.9% in theUK in 2010 (Harvey, 2011).

Consumers purchase organic food forhealth reasons, better taste, food safety, ethicaland moral reasons (Makatoumi, 2002; Seyfang,2006). Organic products are usually sold witha price premium, and that is why most ofconsumers belong to higher classes on thedeveloped world. Organic products aredistributed in short local circuits but also onlong circuits from South to North on the globe.

Supermarkets adopted organic food, andsupermarket-driven supply chain usually buysorganic food overseas (65% of organic produ-ce eaten in the U.K. is imported and 82% issold through supermarkets) (Seyfang, 2006).The creation of large scale retailing specializedon organic food, as Whole Foods, with morethan 310 stores in North America and theUnited Kingdom, is another important marketfeature.

In the 1990s producers were attracted toorganic farming as en economic propositionrather than an ideal form of farming, whichaccording to some in the organic movementsignalled a process of conventionalisation inwhich ideals were given up in favour of profits,thereby circumscribing the potential of theorganic movement to radically change howfarming is done (Van der Kamp, 2011).Increasing demand for organic produce andhealthy food is matched by industry and largeretailing attempts to meet this demand, butthrough a productive logic that seemsantagonistic to the historical agro-ecologicalideals of organic production (Niles & Roff,2008).

A crucial question when it comes to mar-keting of organic products is certification. InUK, The Soil Association –founded in 1946–introduced the first voluntary productstandards for organic produce in the 1960s,with the aim of promoting more sustainableforms of production and consumption (Vander Kamp, 2011). In 1972, Nature & Progres,British Soil Association, the DanishBiodynamic Association and the U.S. RoadalePress set up the International Federation ofOrganic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM),an influential organ for promoting organicstandards. The creation of national standardsof organic regulations introduced themandatory use of third-party certification(Daviron & Vagneron, 2011). IFOAM is stillactive, and set up the IFOAM accreditationprogramme in 1992 to provide an internationalservice that would allow «one inspection, onecertification, one accreditation».

The EU was the first to work with thestandards for organic agriculture. In 1991 wascreated and approved the Council Regulation(EEC) 2092/91, a uniform standard for organicfarming, labelling and certification (version834/2007), with a new revised version in 2009.

4. ALTERNATIVE FOOD MARKETS,THEIR EVOLUTION, INTERRELATIONSAND MARKET DEVICES: THREEDISTINCT MARKETS, OR VERSIONS OFTHE SAME?On this section we will discuss how alternativefood markets are being created and modifiedby the actions of several actors, and how theseagency mechanisms lead to convergences anddivergences that can strengthen or weakenthese alternative chains, as well as theirperspectives for growth or stabilization.

One common feature regarding theevolution of alternative markets for food is thelast few years, come from the introducing ofnew product qualities which are not related tothe product features (such as taste,convenience, composition or price) but fromthe features of its mode of production: anenvironmentally friendly farming process (asin the case of organic food), a re-connectionwith local farming by short supply chains (lo-cal food) or a fair trade relationship in thesupply chain (fair trade products). Another


way of viewing this is considering that «insteadof launching a product in the world, fair tradersattempt to launch a world into their products»(Neyland & Simakova, 2010). The same canbe said of local food claims: the ideal local food,made of small organic producers, respectingthe environment and selling high qualityproducts, is incorporated to local foodmeanings.

These features are now valuable on market,and may be identified as quality in exchangeprocesses. Social movement organizations havebeen acting as real market actors, andsucceeded in introducing and stabilizing newconsumers’ preferences that firms decided totake into consideration in order to capture newmarket shares. Several market devices wereintroduced, such as independent stores,standards and brands, advertising andeducational devices. These markets are politicalfields where value is constituted by the effortsof both market actors and non-market actors,as NGO’s and the State to define practices andnorms of valuation (Dubuisson-Quellier, La-mine & Le Velly, 2011).

The government is an important player inthis market. There is a whole set of politicalinitiatives from Lancaster City Council andLancashire County Council aiming to promotefair trade and local food. On 2004 Lancasterdistrict was awarded the title of ‘FairtradeDistrict’ by the Fairtrade Foundation. Thiscertification acknowledges the number ofoutlets supplying Fairtrade products in thedistrict as well as the many organisations whichsupport Fairtrade. There are groups supportedby the city council working together tochampion Fairtrade in the community, with adirectory of places where Fairtrade productscan be found and claims for action trying toconvince schools and workplaces to goFairtrade.

How to influence consumers is one majorchallenge for actors involved with AAFN.Using ANT framework, Dubuisson-Quellier& Lamine (2008) assess the way different fairtrade organizations try to enrol consumers inwhat they define as a fair relationship withproducers. Two processes of consumerinvolvement were identified: delegation, basedon market mechanisms such as trademarks andlabels, which allow consumers to make their

choice in the market. The other mechanism isempowerment, and it is based on contractualmechanisms between consumers andproducers and on the construction of collectivechoices. The main fair trade organizations relyon delegation, where as several new entrantson this markets as well as local food networksemphasize the notion of empowerment. On aconvention theory analogy, delegation regimeis similar to the civic world, while empower-ment regime would correspond to domesticworld.

The delegation regime, in which consumersdelegate to the standard-making organizationor the labelling scheme the operations ofselection and control, is in the core of organicand fair trade labels, while in the empowermentmodel, as in some specific cases in CSAschemes, consumers are actively involved in theconstruction of the production and marketingsystem (Dubuisson-Quellier & Lamine, 2008).

The delegation model depends on thepresence of credence attributes (Nelson,1970), which cannot be discovered even afterproduction consumption, which means that astrong information asymmetry betweenconsumer and producer is present.

Both models depend on two main marketdevices that operate on alternative foodmarkets: communication tools and standarddevices.

4.1. COMMUNICATION TOOLS AS MARKETDEVICESIn this section, we will focus oncommunication discourses as market devicesthat have an important role in shaping AAFNtransactions, especially because most of thequalification techniques on these markets arebased on non-material features, such as ethicaland environmental characteristics onproduction and distribution that are not visi-ble to consumers.

One important characteristic ofcommunication devices in AAFN is that thearguments used by local food, fair trade andorganic discourses are quite similar, and thatcommon terms are used. For example, localfood is advertised as fair (Booths, a Lancashirelocal retail chain slogan for vegetable locallysourced is: «We believe that food should tastegood, be sustainably produced, with growers

AGROALIMENTARIA


fairly treated and compensated»). Booths hasalso a special program to preserve «Britishforgotten foods», one example being theshrimps from local Morecambe bay. Mixedclaims of fairness, sustainability and locality canbe found.

Abel and Cole, one of the largestdistributors of box schemes in U.K. promotelocal food, organic food and fair trade productssimultaneously. Trying to create a relationshipconsumer-producer, they present photos andstories of some of their producers in U.K.«Good food, the right way. Welcome to Abel& Cole-Organic vegetable boxes, fruit, meat& more. The best organic food delivered toyour door». They match health and ethicalclaim with an attribute that is usually absentfrom alternative food markets: convenience.Consumers are stimulated to delegate what willbe on the boxes to producers, and theseasonality, that on conventional modelsappear as problem, is used as a marketing claim.In Booths, the «products of the season» claimis also used.

Moreover, fairness is one of the 4 organicprinciples (IFOAM, 2011): «Principle offairness: organic agriculture should build onrelationships that ensure fairness with regardto the common environment and lifeopportunities». Soil Association created anEthical Trade Standard, justifying that «Whilewe believe many organic businesses are alreadytrading ethically, until now the Soil Associationorganic standards haven’t directly assessedthis». In the website they make clear thedifference between ethical trade and fair tradelabels: «Initially we worked closely with theFairtrade Foundation to try and develop a jointstandard. However, whilst we sharedimportant similarities in our aims andobjectives, there were a number of keydifferences: a) All Ethical Trade products mustbe organic; b) Ethical Trade isn’t limited tospecific products, like sugar or bananas. Itapplies to anything that can also be certifiedorganic; c) Products from both developed anddeveloping countries can be certified to EthicalTrade» (Soil Association, 2011). They statethat trade injustice does not affect onlydeveloping countries, and that in UK farmersare not being paid a fair price for their produ-ce, clearly trying to encompass local as an

quality attribute.The mixed claims are also used by large

producers: Cadbury, for instance, use this ontheir «Cadbury Dairy Milk» chocolate packa-ge: «We love Ghana and we love farmers.Which is why we love farmers from Ghana. Infact, we’ve been working with them for 100years. So we’re very excited this chocolate isFairtrade certified. Whoopee! Now you get thesame delicious-tasting Cadbury Dairy milkwith not just a glass and a half of fresh milkfrom the British Isles, but with FairtradeGhanaian cocoa beans too...» Thiscommunication device clearly tries to take thebest of fair trade and local food (following flexi-ble localism, here the local is «British») appealson the same product.

Some organisations claim a broaderdefinition of fair trade that would include lo-cal exchange, which they present as North-North fair trade (Dubuisson-Quellier & La-mine, 2008). However, linking fair trade to lo-cal foods may disadvantage the Southernproducers for whom the model was originallydeveloped. The conflation of local with fairthreatens to reproduce a defensive localismthat will reinforce problematic North/Southand internal cleavages (Niles & Roff, 2008).The truth is that most of fair trade productsare not produced, for several reasons, oncountries from the North, so Fair tradeproducts do not compete with local productson these markets. And the Ethical Tradecreated by Soil Association is doing exactly theopposite, bringing fairness to organiccertification, and allowing North-Northtransactions to benefit from fairnesscertification.

This similarity of discourses arises onequestion: Is it possible to create one singlemodel of alternative food chain, encompassinglocal, fair and organic attributes? A unifieddiscourse that would encompass organic, fairtrade and local food qualifications could beadopted, as they share similar arguments forquality construction, as local development,environmental friendly production, fairrelationships and prices, etc. Nevertheless, itseems unlikely to happen at a global level asthere are too many actors involved, withdifferent interests.

The arena in which actors operate and tryto politically influence markets seems to be


narrower for local food in comparison to fairtrade or organic food. The links to local foodsare more uncertain, as «local food» is not sucha precisely defined term as «organic» or «fairtrade», nor does a comparable system ofregulation and certification exist affectingconsumers’ decisions (Weatherell et al., 2003).

Other important actor is the consumer.Consumers are articulated as an evasive butpowerful constituent performing fair trade inan unpredictable manner against attempts toshape markets according to particulartemplates, leading to a deep uncertainty overthe prospects for alternative markets (Neyland& Symankova, 2010). Consumers may not beaware that they are buying fair trade, organicor local food. They may choose farmer marketsbecause of freshness or price, and not becauseproducts are local, or by a civic motive. Forsome products, like bananas or coffee in U.K.,fair trade has become the mainstream, and ifyou don’t want to buy a fair trade product youwill have to engage on searching for thisproduct. The dependence of alternativemarkets discourses on notions of the consumercan thus be seen as practical means to managethe tension between more or lessstraightforward normative ways of achievingfairness and the contingencies of assessing andrepresenting the efforts to accomplish fairness,through audit and certification or incommunication strategies (Neyland &Symankova, 2010).

4.2. STANDARDS AS MARKET DEVICESStandards are the values against which people,practices and things are measured, whilestandardization is the process of making thingsstandard. Standardize are highly politicalattempts to remove politics from the exchangeprocess, to make it a market economy ratherthan a moral economy (Loconto & Busch,2010).

The growth of alternative food markets willprobably depend on large-scale formatting ofexchange (Araujo et al., 2010), transporting anaction into a formal, calculative space, whichon these markets is being attempted by theestablishment of normalize practices (Kjellberg& Helgesson, 2007). The intervention of thirdparts, as certifiers or retailers, to format marketagencies, seems to be the only alternative to

allow this growth, and it is becomingincreasingly prominent throughout the world,particularly in global agro-food value chains(Gibbon, Bair & Ponte, 2008; Loconto &Busch, 2010).

In its current form, the sustainability ofstandards for fair trade or organic is madethrough multi-stakeholders interest toguarantee substitutability at the world levelbetween suppliers (Daviron & Vagneron,2011) using a multiple tiers of audits andoversights. At the same time standardizationleads to differentiation, that involves usingstandardized practices or products todifferentiate between products, and similarity,because within the standard product they musthave the same standardized «qualities»(Loconto & Busch, 2010). In other words, thisqualified markets (within fair trade or organiclabels) become compatible –and they cancirculate in common space defined by thestandards– (Van der Kamp, 2011).

But the overflows generated by those whodo not agree with the certification model canlead this to a whole different direction, asremoving politics from exchanges on «moraleconomy» markets is unacceptable for someactors. Daviron & Vagneron (2011) say thatthe process of sustainability standardization isstill both incomplete and fragile and isthreatened by the space for contestationopened up by the watering down of the origi-nal principles supported by fair trade andorganic initiatives.

The conflict between certification bodiesand representative association for organic andfair trade production seems to be the mostimportant barrier to a unified certificationmodel for sustainable food production,encompassing ethical and sustainable norms.

Other dilemma involving certification oforganic and fair trade products is the fact thatthe more restrictive the rules, the more difficultto find farmers who can accomplish it, and themarket is self-limited by the norms. On theother hand, loose and more inclusive rulescould lead to overproduction and discredit onthe part of consumers. The standards can beconsidered a process of singularisation (Vander Kamp, 2011), making somethingrecognizable for other actors. This guaranteesthat conventional products are excluded from

AGROALIMENTARIA


the «qualified market», but also can excludepotential actors.

Another fundamental conflict relates to thejustification for long circuit food distribution.Ecological citizenship which calls for cuttingmaterial consumption and hence a reductionin globally transported foodstuffs, is in conflictwith a particular type of global citizenship (onthe core of fair trade principles) that holds thatparticipation in international trade is the mosteffective route to sustainable development forpoor countries (Seyfang, 2006). Furthermore,much transportation of food around the globeis only economically rational due toenvironmental and social externalities beingexcluded from fuel pricing.

To better understand the sustainablestandards, we opted to analyse two importantethical standards on the U.K. market. In gene-ral, the Specifications for Fairtrade (FLO) labeland Ethical Trade (Soil Association) labels aresimilar. Both impose conditions on hiredlabour, based on International LabourOrganization rules, as the incentive to unions,no prejudice, and salaries above minimum orregional average. Information is another majorissue, as specified on the need for clearcontracts to run the transactions, and also onthe full knowledge of fair trade principles bythe farmers.

However, Fairtrade label carries importantelements for framing transactions instead ofonly production. One of this refers ontraceability of products, which must be clearlyvisible by means of documents, trying to avoidthat secondary products labelled fair tradecould use non-Fairtrade sourced inputs.

Other important mechanisms regardingpricing are established but they apply directlyonly in transactions between farmers andbuyers of primary production. Pre-finance ofproduction is compulsory for Fairtraderelationships, and price is based on calculationmechanisms established by FLO and specificfor each product, as we can see on Table 1.

Fairtrade minimum price is the lowestpossible price that may be paid by buyers toproducers for a product to become certifiedagainst the Fairtrade standards. Fairtradepremium is an amount paid to producers inaddition to the payment for their products. TheFairtrade premium is intended for investmentin the producers’ business and community (fora small farmers’ organization or contractproduction set-up) or for the socioeconomicdevelopment of the workers and theircommunity (for a hired labour situation).Fairtrade price means the total price paid toproducers and includes the Fairtrade minimumprice (or relevant market price where

Table 1

Fairtrade premium

Source: FLO (2011)

470

Coffee Robusta

Cocoa

Product variety

Conventional powder

Organic washed

see conventional coffee

Organic, powder USD / 1 MT FOB

refer to formula in product standards

Cocoa

worldwide (SPO)

worldwide (SPO)

worldwide (SPO)

worldwide (SPO)

Calculation devices established for prices on some Fairtrade labelled products

USD / 1 MT FOBrefer to formula in product

470 Jan. 1st 2013

0.20 (of which at least 0.05 for productivity and/or quality)

Apr. 1st 2011

USD / 1 pound

Valid from

Jan. 1st 2012

FOBOrganic differential: +0.30

Apr. 1st 2011

Product

Conventional washed

USD / 1 pound FOB 1,05

Currency/ quantity x

unit

Price level

Fairtrade minimum

price

Price applies to

Coffee Robusta


applicable) and the Fairtrade premium (FLO,2011).

It’s interesting that Fairtrade labelestablishes an additional minimum price fororganic products, trying to encompass anotherdimension on their framing device. Thissophisticated mechanism for pricing Fairtradeproducts is one of the most important marketdevices1º operating in agro-food chains. Whenfairtrade price is lower than current marketprices, then the fairtrade price must be at leastthe market price. This is a cause of problemswhen market prices are high, and fairtradedoesn’t seem to be so attractive for producers.

This well-defined mechanism of calculationin Fairtrade transactions between farmers andbuyers differs from the fairtrade transactionsdownstream, and also the organic and localchain transactions that rely more on a free andopen mechanism.

5. CONCLUSIONSThe analysis of alternative food marketsfocusing on their evolution shows that thecomplex process of development involve amultiplicity of actors, making use of a set ofmarket devices to format transactions andqualify the goods.

Two special set of actors stands out as themost powerful ones, at least for fair trade andorganic markets: certification bodies andretailers. Through two fundamental marketdevices, standardization and discourse, theyaim to qualify food products mainly becauseof their credence attributes, especially theethical trade and sustainable production(green) dimensions.

Local food markets, on the other hand,constitute a much unstable marketconstruction, locally variable and with no clearleading actor, even though the power ofretailers is growing in the last years.

Two main questions were raised in thispaper: The first one regarding the possibilityof convergence between this multiplealternative markets, leading to one singlealternative market encompassing fairness,environmental and local dimensions. Theconvergence in the discourse seems to be asupporting factor, but the dispute betweenseveral actors not to lose their hegemonicposition certainly points out to a very difficult

reconciliation. The other is the clear oppositionof local short distribution and the longdistribution circuits South-North. Moreover,it seems to be a clear division inside thesustainable markets, between those whodefend social constructed product valuationand those that support standardization.

The interdependence of different players,as well as a range of possible interactionbetween conventional and alternative pathways(Whatmore & Thorne, 1997) with the presenceof actors that are engaged in both (as forexample farmers and retailers), also makes itdifficult to establish clear market boundaries.

There is a multiplicity of actors trying topolitically influence AAFN: i) consumers,mainly through individualized collective action(Micheletti, 2003) where citizens can expressindividual goals within collective and politicalperspectives, but without committingthemselves to collective action (Dubuisson-Quellier et al., 2011); ii) certifiers, specially onorganic and fair trade, try to establish standardsand control the size of the markets; iii)government, either on local or national levels,support alternative markets trying to influenceschool food supply and even a guide to wherethis type of food can be found; iv) farmers,which adapt their production processes toachieve organic of fair trade standards, engageon direct relationships with consumersthrough CSAs, farm sales or farmers markets;and, v) large retailers, which adopt productsfrom alternative chains, create their own policyand try to associate their brands to this.

The actors are somehow involved in whatCallon (1998b) calls the hybrid forum, ornetworks of socio-material actants, whereseveral discursive practices materialized onlabels, packaging, goods and advertising offersparticular versions, and a multiplicity of waysof calculating and strategizing on a constantframing and overflowing that constitute themarket making (Neyland & Simakova, 2010).In this process market evolves on a fairlyunpredictable manner. And in this sense, itdoesn’t seem feasible a unified strategicapproach for the several alternative foodchains, even though it might happen eventuallyif strong convergences emerges on the hybridforum.

AGROALIMENTARIA


The second question involves the efficiencyof standard mechanisms for the growth. Itseems clear that the adoption of certificationallowed the growth of fair trade and organic inthe last 20 years, and even though we do nothave an unified exchange format neither inorganic nor in fair trade, basic dimensions wereestablished, clearly reducing the diversity ofcalculation mechanisms on the transactions.But a crucial question involves the social resultsof this large scale formatting, with claims thatinequality levels on alternative food chainscould be at least similar to traditional chains(Daviron & Vagneron, 2011), especially withthe growing retailer power, non-monitoring ofthe downstream actors margins’ (e.g., there areno Fairtrade Minimum Prices defined forsecondary products and their derivatives) andexclusion of small producers by means of highdemanding technical requirements establishedin the certification rules.

In this sense, local food appears to be theone single alternative model still looselyformatted that allows multiple negotiation andcalculation mechanisms. IFOAM (2011)recognizes this on its website: «However,besides third party certification and formalstandards, there are other methods of organicquality assurance for certain situations andmarkets. These can be in the form of self-declaration, or participatory guarantee systems,which are seen by IFOAM as suitable for localmarkets that are not so anonymous as the stan-dard trade». This alternative presents strengths,as a fairer market structure, that allowsconsumers and producers to be activelyengaged on the quality construction, andweaknesses, as the lack of recognizabledimensions for qualifying goods which imposelimits for the growth, as the pursuit of multiple,non-aligned, or radically different values in amarket renders the upscaling of techniques toformat exchange both difficult and contesta-ble (Araujo et al., 2010). Furthermore, theemergent dominance of large retailers on thedistribution of local products may lead to a«conventional-like» model being established,and eventually differences betweenconventional and alternative model can beminimum.

The evolution of alternative food marketsas an alternative paradigm seems to be restric-

ted to the marginal empowerment initiativesin which social/domestic mechanisms ofqualification can be implemented. Dubuisson-Quellier et al. (2011) made an important studyon how this alternative is operated in Francethrough case studies on food activist groups.On the other hand, the re-commoditization offood chains through the incorporation ofsustainability standards allows the growth ofalternative valuation mechanisms, butincorporating the same logic used by theconventional model. The asymmetricalrelationship established with the consumer onthis situation, as customer’s calculabilitycapacity is limited on information provided bystandards, is another important feature of thismarket.

As a research agenda, we propose that amore detailed study on the relationships on thedistribution chains could highlight the agencymechanisms that are established downstreamon the chain. Other important research projectcould focus on the «old fashion» small stores,as the world shops, that still carry fair,sustainable and sometimes local dimensions ona more socially negotiated basis, and also onthe highly empowered relationships found onCommodity Supported Agriculture modelsand similar arrangements.

The use of ANT concepts to understandmarket mechanisms allows new ways forinvestigation of market practices that can helpmarketing academy on dealing with issueslargely neglected on the field.


Callon, M., Meadel, C. & Rabeharisoa, V.(2002). The economy of qualities.Economy and Society, 31(2), 194-217.doi: 10.1080/03085140220123126

Christensen, M. & Skaerbaek, P. (2006).Framing and overflowing of public sectorccountability innovations. Accounting,Auditing and Accountability Journal,20(1), 101-132. doi: 10.1108/09513570710731227

Daviron, B. & Vagneron, I. (2011). Fromcommoditisation to de-commoditisation... and back again:Discussing the role of sustainabilitystandards for agricultural products.Development Policy Review, 29(1),

91-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7679.2011.00515.x

De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L. & Rayp, G.(2005). Do consumers care about ethics?Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee.The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2),363-385. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00019.x

Dubuisson-Quellier, S. & Lamine, C. (2008).Consumer involvement in Fair Trade andLocal Food Systems: delegation andempowerment regimes.GeoJournal,73(1),55-65. doi: 10.1007/s10708-008-9178-0

Dubuisson-Quellier, S., Lamine, C. & LeVelly, R. (2011). Citizenships andconsumption: Mobilisation in alternativefood systems in France. SociologiaRuralis, 51(3), 1-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00540.x

Dupuis, E. & Goodman, D. (2005). Shall wego «home» to eat? Towards a reflexivepolitics of localism. Journal of RuralStudies, 21(3), 359-371. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.05.011

Fair Trade Labeling OrganizationsInternational, FLO (2011). Fair tradestandard for coffee for small producerorganizations. Bonn: FLO.

Fair Trade Labeling OrganizationsInternational (FLO) (2009). Generic Fairtrade standards for small farmersorganizations. Retrieved from http://www.fairtrade.net

Anderson, M. M. (2008). Rights-based foodsystems and the goals of food systemsreform. Agriculture & Human Values,25(4), 593-608. doi: 10.1007/s10460-008-9151-z

Araujo, L., Finch, J. & Kejellberg, H. (2010).Reconnecting marketing to markets: anintroduction. In Araujo, L., Finch, J. &Kjellberg, H. (Ed.), Reconnectingmarketing to markets (pp. 1-12). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Araujo, L. (2007). Markets, market-makingand marketing. Marketing Theory, 7(3),211-226. doi: 10.1177/1470593107080342

Bingen, J., Sage, J. & Siriex, L. (2011).Consumer coping strategies: A study ofconsumers committed to eating local.International Journal of ConsumerStudies, 35(4), 410-419. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00949.x

Bowers, S. (2011). Fairtrade is accused ofdoing less for coffee farmers thanStarbucks. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk

Caliskan, K. & Callon, M. (2010).Economization, part 2: A researchprogramme for the study of markets.Economy and Society, 39(1), 1-32.doi:10.1080/03085140903424519

Callon, M. (1998a). Introduction: Theembeddedness of economic markets inEconomics. In Callon, M. (Ed.), The lawsof markets (pp. 1-57). Oxford: Blackwell.

Callon, M. (1998b). An essay on framing andoverflowing: Economic externalitiesrevisited by sociology. In Callon, M.(Ed.), The laws of markets (pp. 244-269).Oxford: Blackwell.

Callon, M. & Muniesa, F. (2005). Economicmarkets as calculative collective devices.Organization Studies, 26(8), 1229-1250.doi: 10.1177/0170840605056393

REFERENCES

________________________________

AGROALIMENTARIA


Feagan, R. & Henderson, A. (2009). DevonAcres CSA: local struggles in a globalfood system. Agriculture and HumanValues, 26(3), 203-217. doi: 10.1007/s10460-008-9154-9

Gibbon, P., Bair, J. & Ponte, S. (2008).Governing global value chains: Anintroduction. Economy and Society,37(3), 315-338. doi: 10.1080/03085140802172656

Goodman, D. (2004). Rural Europe redux?Reflections on alternative agro-foodnetworks and paradigm change.Sociologia Ruralis, 44(1), 3-16.doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00258.x

Goodman, D. (2003). The quality «turn» andalternative food practices: reflections andagenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 1-7.

Harvey, D. (1990). The condition ofpostmodernity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Harvey, F. (2011). Farmers turn away fromorganic sales as sales drop. Retrievedfrom: http://www.guardian.co.uk

Hendrickson, M. K. & Heffernan, W. D.(2002). Opening spaces throughrelocalization: Locating potentialresistance in the weaknesses of the globalfood system. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(4),347-369. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00221

International Federation of OrganicAgriculture, IFOAM (2011). Principlesof organic agriculture. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/principles/index.html

Ilbery, B. & Maye, D. (2006). Retailing localfood in the Scottish-English borders: Asupply chain perspective. GeoForum,37(3), 352-367.

Jones, P., Comfort, D. & Hillier, D. (2004).A case study of local food and its route tomarket in the UK. British Food Journal,106(4), 328–335. doi: 10.1108/00070700410529582

Kirwan, J. & Foster, C. (2007). Public sectorfood procurement in the UnitedKingdom: Examining the creation of an«alternative» and localized network. InMaye, D., Holloway, L. & Kneafsey, M.(Eds.), Alternative food networks:Representation and practice (pp. 185-202). Oxford: Elsevier.

Kjellberg, H. & Helgesson, C. F. (2007). Onthe nature of markets and their practices.Marketing Theory, 7(2), 137-162.doi: 10.1177/1470593107076862

Kneafsey, M. (2010). The region in food –important or irrelevant? CambridgeJournal of Regions, Economy andSociety, 3(2), 177-190. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsq012

Kremer, P. & DeLiberty, T. L. (2011). Localfood practices and growing potential:Mapping the case of California. AppliedGeography, 31(4), 1252-1261.

Krier, J. M. (2008). Fair trade 2007: Newfacts and figures from an ongoing successstory. Culemborg: Dutch Association ofWorld Shops.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how tofollow scientists and engineers throughsociety. Cambridge, Ma: HarvardUniversity Press.

Loconto, A. & Busch, L. (2010). Standards,techno-economic networks, and playingfields: Performing the global marketeconomy. Review of InternationalPolitical Economy, 17(3), 507-536. doi:10.1080/09692290903319870

Lyon, S. (2006). Evaluating fair tradeconsumption: Politics, defetishizationand producer participation. InternationalJournal of Consumer Studies, 30(5), 452-464. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00530.x

Marsden, T., Murdoch, J. & Morgan, K.(1999). Sustainable agriculture, foodsupply chains and regional development:Editorial introduction. InternationalPlanning Studies, 4(3), 295-301. doi:10.1080/13563479908721743

Martinez, S. et al. (2010). Local foodsystems: C oncepts, impacts and issues.


New York: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service, PublicationERR 97.

Makatouni, A. (2002). What motivatesconsumers to buy organic food in theUK? Results from a quantitative study.British Food Journal, 104(3-5), 345-352.doi: 10.1108/00070700210425769

Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue andshopping: individuals, consumerism andcollective action. New York, PalgraveMacmillan.

Milmo, D. (2011, February 28th). Fairtrade’sannual sales defy recession to pass £1bn.The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/feb/28/fairtrade-sales-rise-despite-recession

Moore, G. (2004). The fair trade movement:parameters, issues and future research.Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1-2), 73-86. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039400.57827.c3

Morris, C. & Buller, H. (2003). The localfood sector: a preliminary assessment ofits form and impact in Gloucestershire.British Food Journal, 105(8), 559-566.doi: 10.1108/00070700310497318

Muniesa, F., Millo, Y. & Callon, M. (2007).An introduction to market devices.Oxford: Blackwell.

Murdoch, J., Marsden, T. & Banks, J. (2000).Quality, nature, and embeddedness: Sometheoretical considerations in the contextof the food sector. Economic Geography,76(2), 107-125. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2000.tb00136.x

Nelson, P. (1970). Information andconsumer behaviour. Journal of PoliticalEconomy, 78 (2), 311-329.

Neyland, D. & Simakova, E. (2010). Tradingbads and goods: Market practices in fairtrade retailing. In Araujo, L., Finch, J. &Kjellberg, H. (Eds.), Reconnectingmarketing to markets (pp. 204-223). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Niles, D. & Roff, R. J. (2008). Shiftingagrifood systems: The contemporarygeography of food and agriculture; anintroduction. GeoJournal, 73(1), 1-10.doi: 10.1007/s10708-008-9174-4

Pay, E. (2009). The market for organic andfair trade coffee. Rome: FAO.

Pietrykowski, B. (2004). You are what youeat: The social economy of the Slow FoodMovement. Review of social Economy,62(3), 307-321. doi: 10.1080/0034676042000253927

Ponte, S. & Gibbon, P. (2005). Qualitystandards, conventions and thegovernance of global value chains.Economy and Society, 34(1), 1-31. doi:10.1080/0308514042000329315

Raynolds, L. T., Murray, D. & Wilkinson, J.(Eds.) (2007). Fair trade: The challengesof transforming globalization. New York:Routledge.

Renard, M. C. (2003). Fair trade: quality,market and conventions. Journal of RuralStudies, 19(1), 87-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00051-7

Ritzer, G. (2008). The Mcdonaldization ofsociety. Los Angeles: Pine Forge.

Seyfang, G. (2006). Ecological citizenshipand sustainable consumption: Examininglocal organic food networks. Journal ofRural Studies, 22(4), 383-395. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.01.003

Siriex, L., Kledal, P. R. & Sulitang, T. (2011).Organic food consumers’ trade-offsbetween local or imported, conventionalor organic products: A qualitative studyin Shangai. International Journal ofConsumer Studies, 35(6), 670-678.doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00960.x

Shove, E., Araujo, L. (2010). Consumption,materiality and markets. In Araujo, L.,Finch, J. & Kjellberg, H. (Eds.),Reconnecting marketing to markets (pp.13-29). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

AGROALIMENTARIA


Simon, B. (2011). Not going to Starbucks:boycotts and the out-scouring of politicsin the branded world. Journal ofConsumer Culture, 11(2), 145-167. doi:10.1177/1469540511402448

Soil Association (2011). What is ethicaltrade? Retrieved from: http://www.soilassociation.org/ethicaltrade

Sonnino, R. & Marsden, T. (2006). Beyondthe divide: Rethinking relationshipsbetween alternative and conventionalfood networks in Europe. Journal ofEconomic Geography, 6(2), 181-199. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbi006

Starr, A. & Adams, J. (2003). Anti-globalization: The global fight for localautonomy. New Political Science, 25(1),19-42. doi: 10.1080/0739314032000071217

Van der Kamp, M. (2011). Enactingstandards in organic agriculture.(Unpublished PhD thesis). Lancaster(UK): Lancaster University.

Weatherell, C., Tregear, A. & Allinson, J.(2003). In search of the concernedconsumer: UK public perceptions offood, farming and buying local. Journal ofRural Studies, 19(2), 233-244. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00083-9

Willer, H. & Kilcher, L. (Eds.) (2009). Theworld of organic agriculture: Statisticsand emerging trends. Bonn: IFOAM.

Whatmore, S. & Thorne, L. (1997).Nourishing networks: Alternativegeographies of food. In Goodman, D. &Watts, M. (Eds.), Globalising food:Agrarian questions and globalrestructuring. New York: Routledge.

Winter, M. (2003). Embeddedness, the newfood economy and defensive localism.Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 23-32.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00053-0

Documents

ALTERN ATIVE GRI-FOOD NETWORKS: CONVERGENCES AND