"We produce under this sky": making organic wine in a material world

This thesis explores the role of living and non-living materials as active agents in the processes of making and marketising organic wines in Northern Italy. It is concerned with the ways in which the tension between human intentionality and material agency is managed and worked with in this high-risk and ethically charged context. By applying theoretical insights of actor-network and post-humanist theories to the field of agri-food production, this thesis proposes novel ways of understanding markets, ethics, and skill in the context of organic wine, and of agri-food more generally. The thesis traces and analyses the effects of materials key to the production and marketisation of organic wines: vines, yeast, and sulphur dioxide. A multi-sited, participant observation ethnography approach is used to follow these materials, and the practices in which they are implicated, at a number of wineries in Northern Italy. Two dominant modes of ordering (Law 1994) of organic winemaking practices and discourses are identified: pacification, and making spaces for nature. It is shown that the constant tension between these two modes of ordering expresses the ongoing negotiation of acceptable levels of indeterminacy (and so the acceptable limits of ‘naturalness’) in organic wine production and sales. This thesis makes a significant contribution to current debates in post-humanist and agri-food literature. It extends the existing empirical focus of post-humanist research to spaces of high-risk human-nonhuman interactions. It proposes a move beyond conceptualising agri-food ‘natures’ as economically or ethically passive, and towards relational understandings of both markets and ethics of agri-foods. It demonstrates that the times and spaces of agri-food production, and those of agri-food markets and ethics, are linked through the materialities of practice and product. This thesis thus calls for a materialist politics approach to agri-food production

A force for good: A vision, models, and pathways for a local food sector which transforms lives, livelihoods and landscapes

This report communicates the ambition of the local food system to be a driver of transformation of lives, livelihoods, and landscapes in the UK. The Covid-19 pandemic was a test of the UK food system’s capacity to deal with emergencies and crises, events which are likely to become more frequent and more intense as climate change further disrupts ecological and social resources and structures. This report grows out of the ESRC-funded project “COVID-19: the local as a site of food security resilience in the times of pandemic”, which specifically addressed the role that local food systems did play and can play in such moments of crisis. It aims to strengthen the public and policy understanding of the local food sector by describing its ambition. It was developed through a collaborative visioning process with key stakeholders in the UK’s local food sector. This report is future-oriented. It is not a description of what the UK’s local food systems are today, but of where they want to get to, and how they can get there. The Vision, Models, Definitions, and Narrative section illustrate how local food systems can become an engine of societal, economic, and ecological transformation. The Strategies section indicates three main arenas for action to make this transformation a reality

Resilience and transformation. Resilience of the UK's local food sector to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

The start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 had a profound and diverse impact on the local food sector in the UK. In this report, we draw on original qualitative data (interviews and document analysis) to better understand the resilience of local food actors (LFAs) to this event. Across the case studies, we find that LFAs were able to be resilient due specific characteristics: flexibility and rapidity, adaptability, diversity, and redundancy. We further find that these resilience characteristics were enabled by the LFAs social capital. LFAs which were lacking those characteristics and which had weak social capital were found to be more vulnerable. On the positive side, some local food system actors were able to exploit gaps in the dominant food system to expand their reach or otherwise strengthen their businesses. Many also benefited from an influx of new volunteers. Other actors experienced serious disruptions to their livelihoods due to pandemic-related regulations (e.g. closure of food markets). There was a pronounced shift to the online sphere across the sector. There was also a shared sense of lack of support from, or indeed experiences of being hindered by central authorities. Across the board, the 2020 pandemic was experienced as a ‘baptism of fire’ and a source of intense stress for LFAs. We also investigated the extent to which the local food sector could be a source of transformation of the UKs food system following the pandemic disruption. We found that there is little structural support for such a shift, with little recognition of the transformative potential of the local food sector in mainstream policy. Further, we find that the sector appears to be suffering from a ‘middle class image problem’. This is an obstacle in building a broader political recognition of the many benefits which the local food sector could bring to the UK food systems in the future

Resilience and transformation. Resilience of the UK's local food sector to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

The start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 had a profound and diverse impact on the local food sector in the UK. In this report, we draw on original qualitative data (interviews and document analysis) to better understand the resilience of local food actors (LFAs) to this event. Across the case studies, we find that LFAs were able to be resilient due specific characteristics: flexibility and rapidity, adaptability, diversity, and redundancy. We further find that these resilience characteristics were enabled by the LFAs social capital. LFAs which were lacking those characteristics and which had weak social capital were found to be more vulnerable. On the positive side, some local food system actors were able to exploit gaps in the dominant food system to expand their reach or otherwise strengthen their businesses. Many also benefited from an influx of new volunteers. Other actors experienced serious disruptions to their livelihoods due to pandemic-related regulations (e.g. closure of food markets). There was a pronounced shift to the online sphere across the sector. There was also a shared sense of lack of support from, or indeed experiences of being hindered by central authorities. Across the board, the 2020 pandemic was experienced as a ‘baptism of fire’ and a source of intense stress for LFAs. We also investigated the extent to which the local food sector could be a source of transformation of the UKs food system following the pandemic disruption. We found that there is little structural support for such a shift, with little recognition of the transformative potential of the local food sector in mainstream policy. Further, we find that the sector appears to be suffering from a ‘middle class image problem’. This is an obstacle in building a broader political recognition of the many benefits which the local food sector could bring to the UK food systems in the future

Riding the waves. The long perspective on the COVID-19 pandemic from UK's local food system actors in 2020-21

This report explores the experience of the Covid-19 pandemic as an ongoing event from the perspective of local food businesses and organisations in the UK. It builds a rich narrative using qualitative data collected from 12 case studies over a period of ten months (November 2020 - July 2021) as part of the project “COVID-19: the local as a site of food security resilience in the times of pandemic”. The report explores how local food system actors dealt with the pandemic period, contributing to the UK’s food security at a time when many people faced challenges of food access. However, as the case studies demonstrate, this was achieved at a cost of self-exploitation, weakened mental health, and, for some, burnout. The first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic and the associated national lockdown in early 2020 was a turbulent moment for our participants. The stress of facing the prospect of losing livelihoods quickly gave place to another kind of stress – of meeting an explosion in demand as customers, disappointed by the gaps in provision by supermarkets, turned to local food businesses. Local organisations working on food poverty similarly described a sudden rise in demand for their services, both from the public and from governance actors. This motivated some of our participants to expand their operations, taking on new staff and enlarging their premises. This intense period was also a time of the joy which came from working together under adverse circumstances, and saw the building of closer bonds both within and between businesses and organisations. This was all, however, underlain by worries about the disease itself, and about how it may affect our participants, their families, and communities. By mid-2020, a certain sense of a ‘new normal’ was emerging; the shape of this new ‘normality’ was one of deep uncertainty. The severity of lockdown regulations kept changing dynamically throughout 2020, causing large fluctuations in demand and making it hard for LFAs to make long-term plans or establish new routines. Our participants described the challenges related to sudden expansion of their organisations, including problems with acquiring new premises, integrating new staff into the organisational culture and procedures, and reconfiguring administration of the business during a stressful and unusual period. This period also saw a continued effort from LFAs on the food poverty front; however, local food businesses faced a number of obstacles in contributing to this effort, including the closed nature of existing groups and networks. The national lockdown and limitations on family festivities, announced just before Christmas 2020, had a large impact on the morale of LFA staff, who had been working intensely both on the supply chain and emergency food provision fronts. Difficult weather in the late winter-early spring of 2021 also impacted local food production and caused supply chain disruptions for LFAs. Throughout the research period, our participants were concerned both about the effects of the illness itself, and about the effects of the illness and of pandemic control measures, such as self-isolation, on their operations. They reported receiving no or very little guidance on pandemic safety. The inconsistent and fragmented nature of the advice led the LFAs to develop their own safety protocols. The lack of coherent messaging from the government meant that what constituted an appropriate and inappropriate level of risk was ultimately left to interpretation. As a result, the leaders within these businesses and organisations had to walk a fine line between ensuring safety and security and not being seen to interfere in people’s personal choices. Towards the end of the reporting period, in mid-2021, the LFAs in both food business and in the third sector noted that they were starting to be affected by supply chain issues, potentially underpinned by the combined effects of Brexit and of the pandemic on the availability of labour and the flow of goods. They also noted that a number of local food system businesses were closing down, and that people working in third sector organisations were resigning. In our last conversations, our participants were expressing a disappointment and frustration that the achievements of the local food sector had not been acknowledged. During the pandemic, the local food sector had ‘plugged the gaps’ in the mainstream food supply, and had ‘stepped up’ to deliver agile and targeted emergency food provision where government-led efforts were faltering. Neither of those efforts, they felt, was being sufficiently recognised by policymakers. As a result, our participants felt that, in spite of their hard work, as a sector they were back to square one, of working in an ‘alternative’ niche at the margins of the dominant food system

How is 'the local' framed in UK system food debates? A review of mainstream and local food sector reports during the Covid-19 pandemic

The Covid-19 pandemic shook the UK’s food system, highlighting differences in long and short supply chains and their ability to respond and cope with disruption. Where long supply chains revealed weakness and suffered from the disruption, especially in the first few weeks of the pandemic, short supply chains stepped up to fill in these gaps and helped the vulnerable. Various reports were published during this time to highlight the relative strengths and weaknesses in supply chains and changes in consumer habits, including from the perspective of local food systems’ actors. The pandemic also coincided with the government’s release of the Agricultural Transition Plan 2021-2024, as well as the National Food Strategy. In this report, we review a selection of key documents (evidence papers, reports, manifestos and strategies) published during the pandemic (Spring 2020 - end of 2021) which examine local food chains and the UK food system, including analysis from non-governmental, government, science and industry organisations. We use these materials to assess how the UK’s local food sector was framed and understood during the first two years of the pandemic (impacts, responsiveness, adaptability, contribution to system resilience, etc.), and to understand what visions and recommendations were being proposed for the sector going forward. Due to differences in perspective and their approach to the food system and supply chains, we group the organisations who have published the reports into two main sets of actors: a ‘local food movement group’ and a ‘mainstream food system group’, the latter including policy, science and industry. Our analysis reveals that: • There is an evident split between those who call for an urgent strategy to create resilience where they posit the food system has failed, and others who claim an existing level of resilience that needs to be strengthened. • There are significant differences between the local food movement group and mainstream food system group in the way local food is framed, understood and imagined as a pathway for systemic food system resilience and security. • Central to this difference is how the two groups position local food in the wider UK food system. For the local food movement group, re-localising food supply chains should be a central part of an improved UK food system, a means to provide multi-benefit solutions (sustainable, fair, etc.), and build capacity for resilience. In contrast, the mainstream food system group focuses on how to support the current system, which it sees as largely resilient. The reports from this group emphasised tweaks (such as making better use of new technologies) to buffer the just-in-time system of supply chain organisation. • In terms of UK food system resilience for the future, and the place of local food within that food future, recommendations from local food movement bodies focused on supporting local food initiatives and short supply chains through funding, infrastructure and skills support. The pandemic was viewed as providing a test of local food resilience, and the initiatives in the main were viewed to have proved their resilient and adaptive capacity. This outcome, these reports concluded, should support further investment in distributed systems, and so is an opportunity to better fund and support the sector. • The mainstream food system group has a more circumspect approach to future resilience regarding local food, in which the focus is on public procurement and associated technology developments. These are posited as a key way to shorten food chains, in part framed as a market opportunity for smaller producers to access new markets via local authority anchor institutes. • The interests of the mainstream and local food groups align around public procurement, which featured prominently in local food movement reports as well as in the mainstream corpus, e.g. in Recommendation 13 of the National Food Strategy (The Plan). • There is no discussion of ‘local food’ in Defra’s Agricultural Transition Plan 2021-2024, and caution around the concept of ‘local’ in the National Food Strategy (Part 1), stemming from historical issues over limits to self-sufficiency

Opening up the participation laboratory: the co-creation of publics and futures in upstream participation.

How to embed reflexivity in public participation in techno-science and to open it up to the agency of publics are key concerns in current debates. There is a risk that engagements become limited to “laboratory experiments,” highly controlled and foreclosed by participation experts, particularly in upstream techno-sciences. In this paper, we propose a way to open up the “participation laboratory” by engaging localized, self-assembling publics in ways that respect and mobilize their ecologies of participation. Our innovative reflexive methodology introduced participatory methods to public engagement with upstream techno-science, with the public contributing to both the content and format of the project. Reflecting on the project, we draw attention to the largely overlooked issue of temporalities of participation, and the co-production of futures and publics in participation methodologies. We argue that many public participation methodologies are underpinned by the open futures model, which imagines the future as a space of unrestrained creativity. We contrast that model with the lived futures model typical of localized publics, which respects latency of materials and processes but imposes limits on creativity. We argue that to continue being societally relevant and scientifically important, public participation methods should reconcile the open future of research with the lived futures of localized publics

Anatomy of a buzzword: the emergence of ‘the water-energy-food nexus’ in UK natural resource debates

The existence of a water-energy-food ‘nexus’ has been gaining significant attention in international natural resource policy debates in recent years. We argue the term ‘nexus’ can be currently seen as a buzzword: a term whose power derives from a combination of ambiguous meaning and strong normative resonance. We explore the ways in which the nexus terminology is emerging and being mobilised by different stakeholders in natural resource debates in the UK context. We suggest that in the UK the mobilisation of the nexus terminology can best be understood as symptomatic of broader global science-policy trends, including an increasing emphasis on integration as an ideal; an emphasis on technical solutions to environmental problems; achievement of efficiency gains and ‘win-wins’; and a preference for technocratic forms of environmental managerialism. We identify and critique an ‘integrative imaginary’ underpinning much of the UK discourse around the concept of the nexus, and argue that attending to questions of power is a crucial but often underplayed aspect of proposed integration. We argue that while current efforts to institutionalise the language of the nexus as a conceptual framework for research in the UK may provide a welcome opportunity for new forms of transdisciplinary, they may risk turning nexus into a ‘matter of fact’ where it should remain a ‘matter of concern’. In this vein, we indicate the importance of critique to the development of nexus research

Doing the 'dirty work of the green economy: Resource recovery and migrant labour in the EU

Europe has set out its plans to foster a ‘green economy’, focused around recycling, by 2020. This pan-European recycling economy, it is argued, will have the triple virtues of: first, stopping wastes being ‘dumped’ on poor countries; second, reusing them and thus decoupling economic prosperity from demands on global resources; and third, creating a wave of employment in recycling industries. European resource recovery is represented in academic and practitioner literatures as ‘clean and green’. Underpinned by a technical and physical materialism, it highlights the clean-up of Europe’s waste management and the high-tech character of resource recovery. Analysis shows this representation to mask the cultural and physical associations between recycling work and waste work, and thus to obscure that resource recovery is mostly ‘dirty’ work. Through an empirical analysis of three sectors of resource recovery (‘dry recyclables’, textiles and ships) in Northern member states, we show that resource recovery is a new form of dirty work, located in secondary labour markets and reliant on itinerant and migrant labour, often from accession states. We show therefore that, when wastes stay put within the EU, labour moves to process them. At the micro scale of localities and workplaces, the reluctance of local labour to work in this new sector is shown to connect with embodied knowledge of old manufacturing industries and a sense of spatial injustice. Alongside that, the positioning of migrant workers is shown to rely on stereotypical assumptions that create a hierarchy, connecting reputational qualities of labour with the stigmas of different dirty jobs – a hierarchy upon which those workers at the apex can play

Marion Demossier (2012) Wine Drinking Culture in France

Marion Demossier (2012) Wine Drinking Culture in France: A National Myth or a Modern Passion?, Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 2010. Marion Demossier’s monograph offers a contribution to the ongoing debate about the role of consumption in the creation of individual, regional, and national identities. As the exemplary ‘local commodity’, and a contemporary symbol of both Frenchness and cultural distinction, wine offers a unique point of entry for an examination of the relationship between c..