A decade ago I was carrying out my #PhD fieldwork on 2 allotment sites in Somerset. I was a single parent with many challenges but with the privilege of a good education and a background in education, food and health pic.twitter.com/okonmtMONf
I learnt so much alongside UK #foodmovement especially @FoodPlacesUK@FoodExeter From rising impacts of food insecurity to need for new markets & potential of public procurement. Community food orgs provide a lens into systemic failures of the food system & potential for change pic.twitter.com/W7EOTxhYfh
So from editing my PhD sat in the car park of a skatepark whilst my sons skate, to @UniofExeterESI Photovoice #foodforchange exhibition in 2019, to this year recording 1st Year lectures on Just Sustainabilities, it’s been quite a journey #ECRchat
This article is based on research undertaken in 2017 at Cardiff University with colleagues in The School of Geography and Planning, notably Dr. Gareth Enticott and was funded by the ESRC. It provides an overview of initial findings on the knowledge production challenges Brexit is posing for agricultural/rural economy membership bodies. This is in terms of the volume of work they are undertaking to keep their members informed on current thinking and scenario planning regarding Brexit, Agriculture and the rural economy. These membership bodies include those working with agricultural businesses, the rural economy and wildlife focused organisations.
Brexit was a publically endorsed decision based on contested knowledge claims. In terms of Brexit and agriculture, many organisations are addressing the current policy vacuum and uncertainty by working to forecast future scenarios and communicate limited knowledge on the future for farming and rural economies in the UK. Both the UK and Welsh Government have established listening and knowledge sharing processes by working with organisations that represent key agricultural and rural sectors. Although Brexit can be seen as one of the most significant controversies of our time, there are voices in the agricultural and environmental sectors that view it as a significant opportunity for change. However, whilst media reports view farmers as being largely in favour of Brexit this research brings to the fore, more nuanced positions that foreground the challenges the sector faces as the UK leaves the European Union.
This research is based on 46 interviews with mostly food, farming and environment-focused membership organisations, industry bodies and welsh government officials. Half of interviewees were in Welsh based organisations and the project had links to the Welsh Government’s department for Environment and Rural Affairs. These organisations are playing a central role in knowledge sharing and listening processes as they work towards a way forward for agriculture post-Brexit.
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.” Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
This quote from ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ appears an apt reflection on perspectives surrounding Brexit. As a highly contested referendum that is now generating a number of disputed laws, Brexit is controversial. From the pub to the Cabinet table, Brexit invokes a range of deeply held views. From its legal basis, to the UK border and future trading relations, it seems that there is more that ‘divides than unites’ those considering its far-reaching effects[1]. Controversies can be seen as issues around which knowledge forming processes gather and that generate ‘shared uncertainties’. The Actor Network Theorist Venturini (2010)[2] argues that:
“…controversies begin when actors discover that they cannot ignore each other and controversies end when actors manage to work out a solid compromise to live together. Anything between these two extremes (the cold consensus of reciprocal unawareness and the warm consensus of agreement and alliance) can be called a controversy.”
With Brexit, the potential impacts of which are being debated, the effects of empty promises and impact of numerous contingencies has helped to create a problem with few “undisputable facts”. Rather to quote Latour (2004)[3]:
“To provide complete undisputable proof has become a rather messy, pesky, risky business. And to offer a public proof, big enough and certain enough to convince the whole world of the presence of a phenomenon or of a looming danger, seems now almost beyond reach – and always was.” Latour 2004
Whilst most people can agree that Brexit is currently comprised of many unknown potential scenarios, organisations have been coalescing around specific issues in order to attempt to chart a way ahead. Through the generation of reports, briefings, scenario planning and discussion on Twitter, Brexit debate is being publically aired.
Venturini’s common descriptors of controversies fit well with the issue under view.
Controversies involve all kind of actors
Controversies display the social in its most dynamic form
Controversies are reduction resistant
Controversies are debated
Controversies are conflicts
Brexit and Agriculture is generating the association of a range of strategic actors, working to shape the future of agriculture and the rural economy post-Brexit. Many of these actors are membership organisations whose Brexit work engages with their grassroots, as well as governmental bodies. This work is responsive, adapting to dynamic circumstances such as changing scenarios, new governmental announcements and the ongoing Brexit negotiations, plus extramural work. To date, the overlapping scope and themes of reports on Brexit and Agriculture by these bodies, suggests that reductions, or solutions are not easily generated. Conflict and debate could be said to be at the heart of exploring future scenarios.
Whilst the complexity of Brexit and Agriculture work is undisputed, the work of membership organisation has been conducted via simple practices that can be summed up as: Dialogue –Fact finding –Analysing Data & Communicating findings.
The organisations interviewed for this project largely approached the uncertainty of Brexit for the agricultural sector/rural economy by attempting to form knowledge via engagement with members and government departments as well as undertaking data analysis. These knowledge formation practices involved joined-up programmes of dialogue and knowledge exchange to address some of the questions that the challenge and opportunity of Brexit raises. The Welsh Government Dept. for The Environment and Rural Affairs established a cross sectoral stakeholder group, joining up voices from policy-makers, industry bodies, farming, fisheries and environment-focused membership bodies, civil society organisations, businesses, charities and more. Many of these organisations were interviewees for this project and it was clear that there was much common ground in their perspectives, particularly in regard to identifying the impacts that Brexit will, or perhaps already is, having on food and farming. Plus there were commonly identified potential solutions for certain challenges. However thorny issues were also raised such as, contrasting and competing visions for the future of the rural economy along with differing perspectives on how new trade framework scenarios will impact food and farming sectors.
Dialogue, engagement, collaboration and participation are all practices that stakeholders, the UK government and Welsh Government have been undertaking. However most participants reflected that the UK government is ‘in listening mode’ and that knowledge traffic has been a one way process. Whilst many participants appreciated the reasons for this, it does not help address the uncertainty that Brexit has created. Many participants are membership bodies and are therefore, the point of contact and information regarding Brexit impacts. Most Welsh focused participants praised the Welsh Government for running their stakeholder groups. These were seen as being effective and an important forum for dialogue and knowledge exchange. However whilst information shared about Brexit has been enabling the formation of ideas amongst industry stakeholders, it has not been circulating more widely to public domains. Mainstream media has been more focused on day by day developments concerning the negotiations between the UK government and the EU.
A lack of information directly from Westminster has placed the onus on membership organisations to create information for members in the form of new policies, strategies and scenario analysis. Under Brexit, these stakeholders have become important knowledge exchange actors creating evidenced information that enables knowledge to circulate. The range of work exploring the future for agriculture and the rural economy has produced a wealth of new reports, new strategies, scenario plans, workshop outputs, evidence gathered, blogs, Tweets and more. As this interviewee quote highlights, all this has created significant labour for the organisations as they work to listen to policymakers, analyse evidence and inform members:
‘Brexit has become our biggest piece of work, and we’re forming positions, producing various reports…so as you can imagine, virtually everything we do in our role as an organisation has had to change…we’ve taken on extra staff to enable us to make sure members’ views are fully represented through this process.’ Membership body Interviewee
Whilst Brexit becomes the locus of activity for these bodies, what other important issues may have been sidelined?
Our research questions asked participants to explore what challenges and opportunities Brexit may bring. Across all interviewees (from Wales and the UK), the most commonly identified challenges were: Trade and Tariff Changes, Vulnerable Agricultural Sectors, and impacts to Labour of new migration policies. Closely following on from these were issues raised relating to changes to agricultural funding support and impacts on the rural economy. Across all interviewees, the most commonly identified opportunities were: import substitution, new trading markets and changing regulatory frameworks. The complex nature of determining a new funding framework was also commonly agreed as both a challenge and an opportunity along with the importance of developing a ‘working domestic agricultural policy’. Creating a domestic agricultural funding framework does raise a number of complex questions, particularly that of preserving the integrity of devolved matters. Westminster was seen to be listening but not offering information, which created commonly held frustrations and concerns regarding the future of UK agriculture and potential impacts on Welsh governance of agriculture. The uncertainty that was commonly referred to also created unease concerning future funding and regulatory structures relating to governance, farm payments, trade, labour and more. This raises questions of whether Westminster is taking sufficient notice of the remit of devolved administrations when considering new funding frameworks?
Brexit has created a huge work programme for Westminster, devolved administrations, industry bodies, food, farming and environmental membership groups and more. This work is ongoing and generating a significant amount of materials examining the future for post-Brexit UK agriculture and food. Membership organisations are stretched and will require resources to manage this demand and to continue knowledge dissemination practices. Information sharing practices are important mechanisms for navigating the complexities of Brexit, and are creating inter-sectoral dialogue. However materials produced are not of obvious interest to the general public and the work of these organisations could be said to be generating ‘knowledge silos’. The slippery nature of knowledge materials shared, which are largely speculative, has had little traction with the public more widely. Generating interest from the public will be an important step but will require greater certainty in terms of strategies and policy that envision change for the years to come. Digestible strategy and policy communication is essential. Media discourse has focused on the lack of progress, the lack of information and lack of certainty regarding Brexit. There is some need to translate the Brexit work created by industry stakeholders and others into public focused media in order to create a more diverse Brexit discourse.
Food has become an organising principle through which we measure disruption in our lives in a time of multiple emergencies. From the supermarkets’ empty shelves to questions around access to free school meals, issues of food supply chains and food access have come to the fore during the UK pandemic lockdown[1]. The covid-19 pandemic crisis has created disruptions across the food economy, resulting in an upsurge of interest of consumers in buying local food, along with an increased reliance on alternative food networks and local food stores (Food Foundation 2020[2]). In the early days of lockdown, as the supermarket chains struggled to stock pasta, flour, rice, eggs and other essential food stuffs, many people turned to local food stores, food box schemes and local food distributors whose greater diversity of supply chains proved more reliable in sourcing produce. Research by the Farm Retail Association found that 92% of farm retailers reported a significant rise in new customers since lockdown rules began in March. Sales of veg boxes have soared by more than 100%2,3. Neighbourhood organising has been witnessed across the country, with legions of volunteers, working in collaboration with local shops and charities to deliver food boxes to those who are vulnerable and shielding.
As the economy begins to reopen, how can we use a covid-19 reset so that the consumer shift to sourcing more local food and neighbourhood networks of care can be supported to continue and become more systematised? The local food economy has, for many years relied on a narrow customer base of those already switched on to the value of supporting local agriculture and with an interest in healthy eating (Kneafsey, Cox et al 2008, Lobley et. al. 2009). As my recent paper Participatory Food Cities: Scholar Activism and the Co-Production of Food Knowledgeexplores, building interest in the local food economy has been supported by the work of nationwide bodies including The Sustainable Places Network(SFP), The Food and Farming Commission, The Soil Association, Sustain, The NFU, The Landworkers Alliance and more. In different ways these organisations help to build capacity and develop networks of knowledge around best practices for supporting local food businesses. The SFP UK-wide network of 57 place-based food policy organisations works to support access to good food for all. My paper explores processes of place-based collaborations to co-produce knowledge, in order to take forward action for food policy and programme change. With the present food policy vacuum in England and in a time of social, environmental and economic crises, the need for place-based food policy organisations to collaborate and work towards change in food policies and programmes, has never been more important. Food policy organisations, I argue:
‘…intersect at a place-based scale where locally acting self-organising communities take forward programmes of work to enact local food change…[by] linking place-based, national and translocal scales, [they] are able to harness community-based knowledge and work to effect policy change within a nested scale by linking actors across these scales’ (Sandover 2020:2).
By supporting the upsurge of the local food economy during the covid-19 crisis and working to build more resilient place-based UK food supply chains, can food policy organisations and the local food movement work to enact a ‘politics of possibility’ (Gibson-Graham 2006)? Gibson-Graham 2006 called for this social-economic shift in order to create:
‘…a new political and economic imaginary formed by place-based community self-organising. Describing this as a “globally emergent form of localized politics”, Gibson-Graham sees creative, locally embedded movements as exemplars of “alternative economic activism”’ (Gibson-Graham 2006 in Sandover 2020:5)
My paper also focused on how academics use scholar-activist approaches to work with food policy organisations and networks within the food movement.
Pinhoe Volunteers Good Food Exeter Market
Approaches that support this relocalised economic activity include examples of local food innovation and creativity that have emerged during the covid-19 UK lockdown. By exploring two examples, plus the networks and structures that have enabled them to operate during this time, we can begin to identify how to support local food innovation and an ongoing uplift in the local food economy. The examples explored here include my long term research collaborator Food Exeter and also draw on knowledge of place-based food initiatives in Devon and South Somerset. The pandemic related upsurge in the local food economy has been based on the availability and quality of local food produce sold in a variety of ways that include those described as ‘Alternative Food Networks’ (see other CCRI blogs for more in depth discussions of the different local food production/retail models). In particular consumers have turned to veg boxes, farm shops, local shops, wholefood stores, local food distributors, farmers’ markets, CSAs etc. as a means to source a regular supply of produce, the majority of which is local produce. Early on in the lockdown local food distributor Somerset Local Food Direct had to restrict the signing up of new customers as they were overwhelmed with demand. At a similar time, Riverford Organics, the nationwide organic veg box producer and distributor announced that they would prioritise orders from existing customers only. In the South West, from Shillingford Organics near Exeter to Pitney Farm shop in South Somerset, local food producers have been reporting a huge rise in orders and consumer interest. For other businesses the pandemic created a need to adopt new ways of working. During shop opening hours, Jane Rodger who runs Cobbs Wholefoodsin South Somerset, served socially distanced customers local cheeses, bread, cakes, flour, vegetables, eggs, plus dried goods and supplements. Then after hours, she and her team packed up boxes to deliver to vulnerable and shielding customers in the locality who had earlier made phone orders. Whilst supermarket shelves lacked flour, Cobbs had 4 different flours in 16kg sacks, which Jane had sourced from her bakery supplier. Each month she drove across Somerset to pick up 20 sacks of flour, which she and her team then weighed and packed for customers based on their needs.
Cobbs Facebook PostCobbs Shop
Meanwhile Food Exeter, supported the establishment of a new community benefit enterprise, Good Food Exeter that could take on the trading function of setting up of neighbourhood farmers’ markets in communities where good quality fresh produce was less available. With the uncertainties of lockdown and with the support of ‘Veg Cities’ funding from The Sustainable Places Network, Food Exeter decided to turn this into an online farmers’ market where customers made online orders based on what produce was available and then collected from a designated collection point on a set day. With 23 (and growing) Greater Exeter local and micro producers supplying them with affordable, high quality produce, the market has won a lot of support and good will from across Pinhoe, the neighbourhood where the main collection point is based. In the summer it brokered sales of cosmetically damaged produce to community groups, who then distribute them to disadvantaged and vulnerable residents. Good Food Exeter is exploring ways of making the market financially viable and the market is currently taking a break.
Good Food Exeter Facebook Post
Whilst local food producers, distributors and shops have proved to be ‘small and nimble and people-powered’ (Tom Steele of the Kentish Town Box Scheme[3]), their ability to fill their shelves or produce boxes is based both on their adaptability and their community embeddedness. Taking Cobbs in Somerton as an example, a local shop that sources its produce from a diverse range of suppliers including wholesalers, local producers and micro producers. Their community embeddedness creates strong relationships both with their suppliers and with their customers. Whilst the Good Food Exeter online market is a new initiative, it stems from their sister organisation Food Exeter having enduring relationships with the UK-wide Sustainable Places network who host a range of channels for sharing best practices and learning from other place-based food policy organisations. Enduring relationships with local food producers, shops, charities and community centres in Exeter also created the local knowledge networks needed for the start up. The networks underpinning the responsiveness and adaptability of the local food economy may be place-based and contingent, however sustainable food networks, producer membership organisations and associated charities enable the building of capacity within the local food economy, which has the potential to support food security at regional and local scales. Local food initiatives have proved themselves to be innovative, adaptable and creative in a time of crisis. However a longer term flourishing of the local food economy will require more than the dedication and ingenuity of local food leaders. In her new book, Sitopia, Carolyn Steelcalls for a redesigning of the local food market in collaboration with local authorities, who have the ability to support the local food economy via policy and planning. Multi-purpose covered markets, rate reductions for local food shops, supporting pop up micro local food businesses, exploring access to land for new entrants and more, would enable the visibility of local food producers within our high streets. By providing access to popular shopping spaces, policies that support local food producers would also have the potential to boost the vibrancy of these spaces, in line with emergent thinking on the experience economy. A decentralised approach to food policy and redesigning local food retail spaces, needs to go hand in hand with national policies that support this sector[4]. The covid-19 crisis shows that an over reliance on the supermarket for the nations’ food needs has created fragile agri-food supply chains that are not only vulnerable to disruption but also hampers the placing of local and regional fresh produce at the heart of our communities.
Lobley, M., et. al. 2009. Analysis of socio-economic aspects of local and national organic farming markets,CRPR, University of Exeter
Sandover, R. 2020. Participatory Food Cities: Scholar Activism and the Co-Production of Food Knowledge, Sustainability, 12, 3548; doi:10.3390/su12093548
Steel, C. 2020. Sitopia: How Food Can Save the World. Vintage Publishing
All images courtesy of organisations mentioned.
[1] I’m talking here about everyday disruptions, their impacts and potential planning for change. I would like to acknowledge the devastating health impacts of CV-19 including the widespread loss of life.
[2] Food Foundation 2020 – COVID-19 UK Veg Box Report, available at:
[4] This article is focused on local food retail and place-based food policy organisations. There is much more to do in order to transform the local food economy, such as addressing subsidies for maize production, supporting small abattoirs, integrate ‘Good’ food for local people into ELMS, support the growing of grains and pulses for human consumption, regional structures with food-planning responsibilities, and more. See Tim Lang’s book ‘Feeding Britain’ for excellent discussion on these matters. Thanks to Martyn Bragg for discussion on these matters.
This written submission is based on research carried out by Dr. Rebecca Sandover and Food Exeter in 2018-2019 on Food Poverty in Exeter. This included interviews with customers of Exeter Food Bank. Click here to see Food Exeter’s report from this research process.
This submission should be read in conjunction with Laura McIvor’s evidence from Exeter Food Bank (FPO0059) that has more detailed analysis of recent trends in Food Bank activity in Exeter.
The term ‘Food Poverty’ is used here as it is the recognised term by research partners Food Exeter and Food Power.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
In 2018-2019 Food Exeter carried out research to understand what food poverty and household food insecurity[1]looks like in Exeter. Food Exeter is a registered charity, working on strategic solutions to reduce food poverty and food insecurity. It became clear that evidence on the realities of food poverty in Exeter was almost non-existent. Food Exeter’s working group ‘Fair Access to Food’ undertook a year of research to establish some base line evidence and build understandings of the causes of food poverty and potential steps to address these issues in Exeter. The Food Power Network funded the project, with additional funding from The University of Exeter.
[1]Challenges in accessing nutritious food affect those in poverty, crisis and those experiences general hardship. Food Poverty and Food Insecurity are terms used to cover all these circumstances.
Food Poverty has been on the rise in Exeter.The number of emergency food parcels provided by Exeter Food Bank has risen continually each year, and has increased by 138% since 2012/13.
Food poverty creates detrimental impacts on health, mental health and ability to function within mainstream socio-economic systems. Both benefit issues and precarious employment can switch someone experiencing low income to become a vulnerable adult who requires additional services. These issues can trigger mental and general ill health, precarious accommodation, homelessness and food poverty. Switching back towards positive health and employment is a difficult road that requires the intervention of a variety of services and professionals. Access to food and nutritious eating is at the core of establishing positive health and the ability for Exeter residents to work, volunteer and engage positively within communities. Therefore the rise of these challenging issues within Exeter, such as Food Poverty is detrimental to creating positive communities that contribute to overall Exeter economic and community life.
Thanks to The Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience at Coventry University, and in particular Dr. Luke Owen, for inviting me to present a seminar on initial findings on working with Food Exeter. The presentation investigates how Sustainable Food Cities are comprised of ‘networks within networks’ which at times creates tensions and contested agendas. However commitment to working group activity and campaigns can bring divergent groups together to take unified action.
Please click on the image below to watch the live recorded presentation:
In April 2017 Myself, colleagues from The University of Exeter and from organicArts ran a collaborative workshop at West Town Farm to discuss the process of creating a strategy for Food Exeter. Follow the link to Feeding Exeter‘s blog site for more information including reflections, photo gallery and results of discussions.
rebecca sandover 