In the heart of the University of Exeter’s European Centre for Environment and Human Health, Emily Haynes has been digging into the dirt of local food systems, uncovering insights that could reshape how we think about sustainable agriculture and its commercial impacts. Her latest work, a scoping review published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, maps out interventions designed to boost the consumption of locally produced foods, shedding light on the differences between Global North and Global South approaches.
Haynes and her team systematically scoured 15 databases to identify 147 studies that fit their criteria. They found that while there’s a wealth of research on local food interventions, there’s a notable lack of standardization in how these interventions are evaluated. “We identified a lack of a standard framework for assessing the impact of changing food source practice,” Haynes notes, highlighting a significant gap in the current research landscape.
The review reveals that most studies focus on dietary outcomes, particularly fruit and vegetable intake. However, there’s a dearth of metrics for dietary diversity, especially in the Global North. This could indicate a missed opportunity for promoting more varied and nutritious diets. Moreover, only a small proportion of studies (5%) reported ecosystem-related outcomes, suggesting that the environmental benefits of local food systems are often overlooked.
One of the most striking findings is the disparity in where certain types of interventions are conducted. All home-growing interventions were found in the Global South, while most school-based growing interventions were in the Global North. This could be due to cultural differences, resource availability, or other contextual factors. However, it also presents an opportunity for cross-learning and adaptation.
The application of agroecological principles also varied between regions. While both Global North and Global South interventions incorporated these principles, a greater proportion of Global South studies applied agroecological practices. This could be due to the unique challenges and opportunities presented by different environments and socio-economic contexts.
So, what does this all mean for the future of local food systems and the energy sector? For one, it highlights the need for greater coherence in the development, evaluation, and reporting of local food interventions. This could help strengthen the evidence base for local food approaches, making them more appealing to investors and policymakers.
Moreover, the findings suggest that there’s significant potential for cross-learning between Global North and Global South. For instance, the Global North could learn from the Global South’s use of agroecological practices, while the Global South could benefit from the Global North’s school-based growing interventions.
As Haynes puts it, “This map of experimental research on local food interventions identifies key differences in intervention types and agroecological principles and practices applied in Global South and Global North countries, potential learnings between settings, and gaps in the evidence.”
The energy sector, in particular, could benefit from these insights. Local food systems often rely on renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind power. By promoting these systems, the energy sector could not only support sustainable agriculture but also drive demand for clean energy.
Furthermore, the findings could inform the development of new technologies and business models. For instance, there’s a clear need for tools that can help standardize the evaluation of local food interventions. This could open up new avenues for innovation and entrepreneurship.
In the end, Haynes’ work is a call to action. It’s a reminder that while there’s a wealth of research on local food systems, there’s still much to learn and much to do. By bridging the gaps in our knowledge and fostering cross-learning between regions, we can pave the way for a more sustainable and resilient food future.