This section aims at placing the Aarstiderne model within the context of alternative food chains. As explained in the theory section on social impacts, AFCs are more or less spatially and socially integrated. Within the various models considered as AFCs, Aarstiderne are compared to CSAs, farmers’ markets, farm shops, and other Danish box schemes.
Figure 10: Characterisation of five types of AFCs according to spatial and social integration and risk sharing, Modified after Kjeldsen, 2005
62
A short description of each of these AFCs is found in the “Literature context and evaluation criteria” section. The comparison between these AFCs is made in figure 10 according to three main criteria:
• The spatial integration of the food chain
• The social integration of the food chain
• The distribution of risk, responsibilities and privileges among the actors of the food chain
Spatial integration
The spatial integration of a food chain has important implications for its environmental impact. The levels of spatial integration, illustrated on the vertical axis, are varied across AFC types. CSAs, as described in the theory section “An overview of alternative food chains”, are considered the most spatially integrated because all the production sold is grown on the farm and distributed in the surrounding area. Danish box schemes are less spatially integrated than farm shops. This is due to the fact that, in farm shops most of the products sold are grown on the farm and other products are brought in to complete the product range. Imported vegetables will not be sold in most farm shops. On the other hand, imported fruits and vegetables constitute the majority of the products in the Danish box scheme assortments during the winter time. Consumers are usually located relatively close to the farm both in the Danish box schemes and the farm shop models. The farmers’ markets would be less spatially integrated than the three AFCs above because some products are imported and because the producers and the consumers often travel further to reach those weekly events. Finally, Aarstiderne would be the least spatially integrated of the described models. This company has very centralized activities; their products travel all around the country to be packed at one place and are distributed in most parts of Denmark. There is also a large part of their fresh food products that come from outside Denmark (35 % of the vegetables and more than 90% of the fruits) (A17_Aarstiderne, 2006).
Social integration
Social integration within a food chain can lead the actors to a better understanding of the importance of sustainability (Stagl, 2002). Social integration level in the CSA model is very high. This is due to the high frequency of face-to-face contacts between various actors along the food chain; people meet at the planning meetings, at the weekly distribution and in some cases during special events organized on the farm. As relationships are based on “facework commitments”, a high level of trust can be experienced between consumers and producers (Stagl, 2002). The farm shops and farmers’ markets also create opportunities for social, face-to-face interactions. Some farmers even “enjoy the market experience as a social event” (Hinrichs, 2000). Creating meeting places between consumers and producers can lead to “re- establishing trust between producers and consumers” and “developing a sense of community integration” (Morris and Buller, 2003). Aarstiderne and other Danish box schemes, because people often order by internet or by mail and because the boxes are home-delivered, offer less opportunity for customers to interact with the producers or with other customers. On the other hand, they do offer on-farm activities for people to meet the company or the producers and each other. These activities, being
voluntary and sporadic, may not lead to the same levels of social integration as more regular activities.
Risk sharing
Sharing acceptable uncertainties in a food chain contributes to the creation of a better situation for all actors. It reduces the economic uncertainties for the farmers and answers consumers’ concerns about food safety, health and the environment (Lamine, 2005). Risk sharing varies according to the respective level of engagement of food chain actors involved in each model. CSAs have a very high level of risk sharing because a share of the harvest is completely paid before the growing season. In this model, the consumers do not pay for a known amount or quality of product but engage to accept what the farm can produce. The level of risk sharing involved with Danish box schemes is somewhat lower because the consumers usually pay only one month in advance and do not have to take a full season engagement. In this case, planning can be more difficult for the farmers and the financial situation less secure. In the case of Aarstiderne, pre-payment is not required from the consumers and they pay for a known product of a guaranteed quality. The risk is, to some extent, shared between the farmers and the company. Even if the farmers receive no pre- payments, Danish growers have agreements and Aarstiderne does its best to fulfil them. In the cases of farm shop and farmers’ markets there is no risk sharing as the consumers have no duty towards the farmers directly marketing their produce. Overall, Aarstiderne is the least spatially and socially integrated of the five presented alternative food chains. On the other hand, its level of risk sharing along the chain is higher than in the cases of farm shops and farmers’ markets, but lower than within the CSA and other Danish box schemes.