Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol Public food procurement from family farming: A food system and social network perspective Daniel Gaitán-Cremaschi a, Laurens Klerkx b, *, Norman Aguilar-Gallegos b, c, Jessica Duncan d, Alejandro Pizzolón e, Santiago Dogliotti e, Walter A.H. Rossing f a Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain b Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 8130, 6700EW Wageningen, The Netherlands c Centro de Investigaciones Económicas, Sociales y Tecnológicas de la Agroindustria y la Agricultura Mundial (CIESTAAM), Universidad Autónoma Chapingo (UACh), Carretera México – Texcoco km. 38.5, Chapingo, Estado de México C.P. 56230, Mexico d Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 8130, 6700EW Wageningen, The Netherlands e Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de la República, Av. Garzón 780, CP12800 Montevideo, Uruguay f Farming Systems Ecology Group, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 430, 6700AK Wageningen, The Netherlands A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: There is promising evidence that public food procurement from family farming (PFPF) can serve as a powerful Public food procurement policy instrument in transitions towards more sustainable food systems. Despite the evidence around PFPF, there Family farming is lack of systemic and actor-oriented approaches analysing the relational and interactional dynamics among the Food systems multiple and diverse sets of actors in PFPF programs. In this paper, we address this gap by presenting an inte­ Social network analysis Innovation systems grative framework that brings together food systems research, innovation studies and social network analysis, to Food system transformation assess the role of actor networks in PFPF. To illustrate the usefulness of the framework, we present the case of public procurement from family farming in Uruguay. We show how the framework has potential to: highlight the composition and diversity of networks of actors in PFPF; unravel individual and network barriers faced by actors in food systems; and, identify how interactions and (intermediary and brokerage) roles of network actors stimulate innovation or block the changes that are needed for PFPF to catalyse the transition towards sustainable food systems. 1. Introduction feeding programmes, the provision of food in the cafeterias of public offices, hospitals, prisons and universities (FAO 2018a; De Schutter et al. Food systems encompass the entire range of actors (and institutions), 2022). In their standard forms, public food procurement programs are and the activities involved in the production, aggregation, processing, designed with the primary goal of procuring food in a manner that is distribution, consumption, and disposal of food, and the broader eco­ cost-efficient, timely and appropriate to institutional needs (Kelly & nomic, societal, and natural environments in which they are embedded Swensson 2017). However, this tends to favour dominant, unsustainable (Nguyen 2018). Well-functioning food systems are key to ensuring food food systems, characterised by conventional industrial farming and and nutrition security and social welfare and are essential to maintain­ value chains controlled by large-scale and powerful agri-food industries ing the health of human-managed ecosystems (Caron et al. 2018). When and companies (Gaitán-Cremaschi et al., 2019). Yet, when properly it comes to the transformation of food systems, governments have an designed, they can enhance sustainability across various components of important role to play in establishing and reinforcing political priorities. the food system (De Schutter 2015; HLPE 2017; Swensson et al. 2021) Towards this end, there have been growing calls to redesign public food by, for example, incentivizing sustainable production patterns through procurement as a lever to bring sustainable food systems to scale. guidelines on what types of food will be purchased (e.g., local, diverse, Public food procurement (also referred to as institutional food pro­ seasonal), from whom (e.g. local farmers, family farmers), and from curement and public food purchasing) is the process by which govern­ which type of production (e.g. organic, agroecological) (Swensson & ments purchase food for their own or public use, including public school Tartanac 2020). Public food procurement can determine the way food is * Corresponding author. E-mail address: laurens.klerkx@wur.nl (L. Klerkx). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102325 Received 3 March 2021; Received in revised form 25 July 2022; Accepted 26 July 2022 Available online 3 August 2022 0306-9192/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 transported and marketed (e.g. through short marketing channels), and organisations that catalyse transitions by bringing together dispersed, it can also shift food consumption patterns towards sustainable and diverse and previously disconnected actors to facilitate knowledge and healthy diets (FAO 2015, 2017, 2018a FAO et al. 2020; Swensson & innovation co-creation and the scaling of innovations (Hermans et al. Tartanac 2020). Therefore, depending on how procurement choices are 2017; Kivimaa et al. 2019). The lack of well-established multi-stake­ made, changes in food systems driven by public food procurement may holder, multi-sectoral, and multi-level networks, and the lack of actors simultaneously contribute to deliver multiple sustainability goals, i.e. performing intermediary roles, may lead to innovation failures in the social, economic, environmental, and food and nutrition security goals design and implementation of PFPF, and the inability of this policy in­ (Swensson & Tartanac 2020). strument to achieve its potential. In recent years, in many countries in Latin America and the Carib­ In this paper, we address the lack of systemic and actor-oriented bean, public food procurement has targeted the purchasing of food from approaches and present an integrative framework that enables anal­ family farmers (for example, the school feeding public programmes in ysis of the structure and functioning of PFPF from a food system and Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, and Peru (FAO 2015, 2017; network perspective. Conceptually, our framework builds on elements FAO et al., 2021), as well as the special procurement regime in Uruguay, of two other frameworks: the food system framework developed by and the Brazilian flagship National School Feeding Program (PNAE) Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. (2019) to characterise the diversity of food (FAO 2015, 2017; FAO et al., 2021). This illustrates the growing systems; and, the framework developed by FAO (Kelly & Swensson recognition of family farmers not just as food providers, but as central 2017) that illuminates three interrelated pillars for setting up an effec­ actors in the transition to sustainable food systems (Santacoloma & tive PFPF. Zárate 2021).1 Evaluations of public food procurement from family The operational objectives of our framework are to (i) identify supply farming (hereafter PFPF), especially the PNAE in Brazil, highlight both and demand-side barriers faced by multiple food system actors partici­ the potential and limitations for the transition to sustainable food pating in PFPF; and (ii) map the networks of actors configuring a PFPF, systems. with the aim of exploring how the functional patterns resulting from the A growing body of research suggest PFPF has the capacity to increase actors’ interactions stimulate or block innovation for the proper func­ family farmer’s incomes and the functioning of local markets (FAO tioning of PFPF. Methodologically, this framework is informed by social 2015, 2017; Schneider et al. 2016). Further, PFPF has been shown to network analysis (SNA), a tool to visualise and explore patterns of social increase farm-level agrobiodiversity and sustainability, especially in relations (Borgatti et al., 2009), which also has increasing application in those farms that still hold practices that are more supportive of sus­ the context of supply chains (Borgatti and Li, 2009) and food systems tainable agriculture such as agroecology (Guerra et al. 2017; Wittman & analysis (Rocker et al. 2022). Blesh 2017; Valencia et al. 2019) and; PFPF has been shown to increase To illustrate the usefulness of the framework, we present the case of the consumption of fresh food such as fruits and vegetables, promoting public procurement of vegetables from family farming in Uruguay, healthy diets, especially for schoolchildren (Sidaner et al. 2013; FAO where PFPF was designed and implemented at the end of 2014 as a 2015, 2017; FAO et al. 2020). Nevertheless, research has also shown that strategy to enhance food and nutrition security and strengthening family implementation of PFPF is not straightforward. PFPF requires enabling farming. The findings that emerge from the application of the frame­ institutional and regulatory environments, coordinated interventions in work provide lessons for the case in Uruguay, but also for the wider both supply and demand, and the coordination of multi-stakeholder and design and implementation of PFPF worldwide. multi-sectoral actors (FAO 2017; 2018a; Miranda 2018). To date, research on PFPF has generally focused on the motivations 2. Public food procurement from family farming: a framework and barriers of family farmers who participate in PFPF (de Assis et al. 2017; Wittman & Blesh 2017); the potential of these programs in 2.1. A framework to analyse PFPF from a systemic and network favouring diversification of production, and associated ecosystem ser­ perspective vices (Wittman et al. 2016; Borsatto et al. 2019; Valencia et al. 2019); the nutritional and health benefits, mostly concerning school feeding Recognizing that food systems are expansive, for analytic purposes (FAO 2015, 2017; Wittman et al. 2016) and; the regulatory frameworks three interrelated food system components can be distinguished: (i) the and policy reforms required for developing and implementing PFPF agricultural production system, (ii) the value chain, including con­ initiatives (Kelly & Swensson 2017; Swensson & Tartanac 2020). sumption and, (iii) the structures that support daily operation and However, research taking systemic and actor-oriented approaches that innovation of agricultural production systems and value chains (for a go beyond evaluating PFPF at specific components of the food system, i. detailed description of each of the three components see Gaitán-Cre­ e. agricultural production or consumption, remains nascent. Such sys­ maschi et al. (2019)). Interactions across these components give rise to temic and actor-oriented approaches would position PFPF as a policy multiple configurations of food systems, with varying sustainability tool in which heterogeneous sets of actors operating across different performance in terms of social, economic, environmental, and food and activities (e.g. production, distribution and consumption of food), across nutrition security goals (IPES-Food 2016; Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. 2019). multiple sectors (e.g. agriculture, health, nutrition and social develop­ The most dominant forms of food system configurations (hereafter ment), and at different governance levels (e.g. local regional and na­ dominant food systems) are characterised by a conventional approach to tional) connect to mobilise and exchange knowledge, resources and farming that typically involves the systematic use of chemical inputs, capabilities to solve barriers and stimulate innovation (Turner et al. mono-cropping, and low diversity production systems (Therond et al. 2017). 2017). Products in these systems usually enter into long value chains in Innovation scholars have emphasised the role of social networks, i.e. which actors are often fully dependent on, or controlled by, a specific a set of actors and their connections, referred to as ‘edges’ (Borgatti & party such as specialised distribution firms, large retailers, or agri-food Halgin 2011), in mobilising and building systemic innovation capacity companies (Morel et al. 2020). While these systems perform well in (Spielman et al. 2009; Turner et al. 2017). Scholarly work has also terms of producing large amounts of standardised foods, they are often attributed particular importance to intermediary actors, individuals or associated with a range of negative impacts such as land degradation, biodiversity loss, unequal distribution of financial benefits, the mar­ ginalisation of rural communities, and health-related problems due to 1 In the Latin America and the Caribbean region, around 80% of farms belong exposure to pesticides (IPES-Food 2015) (left side Fig. 1). to family farmers, making family farming the main source of agricultural and Multiple configurations of alternative food systems have also rural employment and of food for domestic consumption (Sabourin et al. 2014; emerged, harbouring promising technological and non-technological FAO 2018b). characteristics that can inspire transformation (Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. 2 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 Fig. 1. A framework to analyse the effective implementation of public food procurement from family farming (PFPF). On the left side, a dominant food system is depicted based on the productivist paradigm supported by standard public food procurement. On the right side, a sustainable food system supported by redesigned public food procurement that recognises interactions between agricultural production systems, value chains and support structures. Redesigning the standard public food procurement into PFPF requires an enabling environment (Pillar I), uncovering day-to-day barriers to move from standard public food procurement to PFPF (Pillar II), and support structures with coordinated networks of actors to co-create and scale innovations in the procurement procedures network (PPN), the capacity- building network (CBN), and the funding support network (FSN) (Pillar III). PFPF also requires a network of actors that coordinate their actions to deliver food from agricultural production systems to consumers in public organisations, i.e. food flows network (FN). 2019, 2020). These include, among others, food systems based on ag­ 2018; FAO et al., 2021). By reducing the dominance of price as a pur­ roecological production or more sustainable agricultural practices chasing criterion and incorporating quality criteria and socio-economic enacted by family farmers, and short marketing channels orientated values, public food procurement can be used to support alternative food toward local and regional consumption. Despite the efforts to create system configurations and help to achieve broader socio-economic and opportunities for transformation, dominant food systems still receive the environmental goals (right side of Fig. 1) (Swensson 2018; FAO et al., bulk of state and industry support via research and development (R&D) 2021). activities and programs, extension services and economic and innova­ Following Kelly & Swensson (2017), there are three interrelated tion policies, limiting the potential for scaling of alternative systems pillars for setting up an effective PFPF (in our framework a move from (Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. 2019). left to right in Fig. 1). Pillar I (the upper part of Fig. 1) refers to the Public food procurement has traditionally supported the dominant external environment of the food system that recognises family farmers food system by incentivising cost-efficient, transparent and competitive as a central actor for rural development and the transition to sustainable processes (FAO et al., 2021). Further, public food procurement often food systems, and, therefore, facilitates linkages of family farmers to involves stringent legal, technical, and financial requirements for PFPF. The enabling environment provides the background against which participation, including, among others, registration as some form of a PFPF is operationalised. The enabling environment includes, among legal entity, paying taxes and fees, capacity for homogenous and regular others, policies for rural development; for food security and nutrition; deliveries of large size lots, which often include products that are not for agroecological and organic production; and for cross-sectoral locally produced, and certificates that guarantee a stipulated quality of collaboration, translated into institutional coordination (Kelly & the food products, often relating to attributes such as price, size, colour, Swensson 2017). Pillar II (in the centre of Fig. 1) refers to day-to-day and firmness (Kelly & Swensson 2017; Miranda 2018; UNIDO, 2020). demand and supply barriers that exist when moving from standard These requirements also tend to favour dominant food systems, as these public food procurement to PFPF. On the demand side, these barriers host the specialised processing and distribution firms that have the include, for example, inflexible tendering and contractual arrange­ experience, the logistics, and the capital to fulfil the procurement re­ ments, and food baskets that do not match local and seasonal produc­ quirements (left side of Fig. 1). tion. Examples on the supply side include low and fragmented Despite these tendencies, redesigning public food procurement for the explicit inclusion of family farmers (PFPF) has gained prominence in recent years as a policy tool to help drive the transition to sustainable food systems (FAO 2017; FAO 2018a; Kelly & Swensson 2017; Miranda 3 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 production, lack of access to extension services and finance, and a weak and maintenance of local food systems (Trivette 2019), and to analyse marketing capacity of family farmers. Pillar III provides the support urban production and food systems (Núñez-Ríos et al. 2020). In this way, structures for innovation that are key to the functioning of PFPF2: (i) SNA constitutes a useful tool for the operationalisation of the framework procurement procedures, (ii) capacity-building, and (iii) funding. Each laid out in Subsection 2.1. Specifically, SNA can help to map the net­ support structure comprises a network of public and private actors works of actors and their relations that constitute each of the support operating in multiple sectors (e.g. agriculture, social development, food structures of PFPF, i.e. the procurement procedures network (PPN), the and nutrition security, and health) and at different governance levels (e. capacity-building network (CBN) and the funding support network g. from local to national), contributing to overcoming barriers (cf. Pillar (FSN), as well as the actors that coordinate their actions to deliver food II) to inclusion of family farmers (on the right side of Fig. 1). from agricultural production systems to public organisations, i.e. the The procurement procedures network (PPN) involves a set of private food flows network (FN), and analyse their capacity to innovate and to and public agents and institutions that coordinate actions to adapt scale the innovations. public procedures and practices to the characteristics of family farmers According to Hermans et al. (2017), social networks enhance both and their production and marketing capacities. Adaptations include the capacity to innovate and the scaling of an innovation in two ways. changes in contract modalities (e.g. from inflexible competitive public First, actors in networks provide various complementary resources and tenders to other more flexible modalities such as direct procurement, knowledge and enable social learning processes, which are essential to and soft tendering3); in tendering requirements and processes (e.g. design and develop feasible innovations (knowledge and innovation co- removing price as the primary criterion to include broader economic, creation). Second, social networks enable scaling of innovations. Scaling social and environmental criteria); in payment procedures and prices; refers not only to the successful adoption of innovations in ’horizontal and in the provision of less costly services for safety and quality control networks’ of peers (out scaling), but also includes the institutional (Kelly & Swensson 2017; Miranda 2018; FAO 2017; FAO 2018a; FAO support for these innovations through ’vertical networks’ involving ac­ et al., 2021). The capacity-building network (CBN) involves a coordinated tors at higher governance levels such as agricultural ministries and articulated network of state and non-state actors defining and (upscaling) (Douthwaite et al. 2003; Hermans et al. 2013a). Networks providing a capacity-building strategy targeted at family farmers and enable or constrain actors in their capacity for action. A network’s ca­ tailored to their needs, so that they can comply with institutional re­ pacity to innovate is determined by the position of the various actors’ in quirements in public food procurement (FAO 2017; Kelly & Swensson the social structure (Burt 1982) and by the sorts of ties the actors can 2017; FAO 2018a). Capacity-building addresses agricultural production build and take benefit from (Turner et al 2017; Cofré-Bravo et al. 2019). and planning, logistics, marketing, organisational and management To explain a social network’s capacity to innovate and its potential skills. The funding support network (FSN) refers to the network of actors for scaling of the innovations, social network scholars have focused on providing financial flows to ensure that institutional demand is regular different network features (Rockenbauch et al. 2019). These features and reliable. include: (i) the network structural properties; (ii) the network compo­ Actors involved in the PPN, CBN and FSN networks provide the sition and diversity; (iii) the position and influence of actors in the support structures for actors in agricultural production and value chain networks, including intermediation and brokerage. that enable them to coordinate their actions and innovate to deliver food Network structural properties infer to the supposition that for inno­ to public organisations by, for example, creating and managing food vation to occur, social networks require both an appropriate density and hubs, distributing and transporting food, or by brokering demand and an adequate centralisation level (Spielman et al. 2011; Isaac 2012; supply through the elaboration of menus that are aligned to local and Rockenbauch et al. 2019). Density refers to the number of actual re­ seasonal production. The articulation between the actors in agricultural lations in the network relative to the number of possible relations, production (i.e. family farmers) and the actors in value chains (including whereas centralisation reflects to which extent all relations in the consumption by public organisations) are labelled as the food flows network run through one or few actors (Freeman 1978; Borgatti et al. network (FN). Finally, state and non-state actors can perform roles in 2013). Density is negatively related to network size (Borgatti et al. one or all the four networks (i.e. PPN, CBN FSN and FN). 2013). High density is commonly related to faster information dissem­ ination and flow in a social system (Aguilar-Gallegos et al. 2017). High- density networks may foster collective action (essential for scaling) and 2.2. Social networks, innovation and PFPF learning, but provide limited entry of new knowledge, resources, and information (essential for knowledge and innovation co-creation), as the Social network analysis (SNA) is a tool for investigating social actors in the network may tend to have the same type of knowledge and structures and their functioning with the use of graph theory (Otte & resources (Isaac 2012; Hermans et al. 2017; Rockenbauch et al. 2019). Rousseau 2002). SNA conceptualises a social structure as a network that Hence, the network may become myopic. Conversely, low-density net­ consists of a set of actors or nodes, along with a set of edges of a specific works may enable and stimulate processes of searching (Kratzer & type that link them (Borgatti & Halgin 2011). Edges refer to social re­ Ammering 2019; Cofré-Bravo et al. 2019) and access to new knowledge, lations such as collaboration, trade, resource, information flows or any resources, and information. Individual actors in such open networks that other possible connection (Borgatti et al. 2013). SNA has been applied to are central are less constrained by group norms and therefore more food systems analysis (Rocker et al. 2022), and supply chains (Borgatti likely to innovate (essential for innovation). However, the few connec­ and Li, 2009) to, for instance, understand how value is created in supply tions in low-density networks may reduce the exchange of knowledge, chains and operations (Han et al. 2020), to understand how local food resources, and information (essential for scaling) (Isaac 2012; Hermans system networks evolve (Brinkley et al. 2021), to investigate how social et al. 2017; Rockenbauch et al. 2019). networks are important for food system resilience (Bruce et al. 2021), to Network density is related to centralisation, which refers not only to show the impact that different retailer types have on the development the relative prominence of nodes in networks (i.e. a network can be centralised around particular nodes or set of nodes), but also to the 2 network’s overall cohesion (Scott 2013). In highly centralised networks, Kelly & Swensson (2017) proposes a fourth building block ‘coordination and one or a few central actors may facilitate the diffusion of relevant evaluation’, which we treat as being implicitly incorporated in procurement knowledge and resources within the network. However, at the same procedures; capacity-building; and funding. 3 Direct procurement involves a non-competitive process whereby the buyer time high centralisation may limit access to knowledge sources, and thus uses a contract to directly procure food from a supplier. Soft tendering applies prevent social learning, which is essential for innovation (Rockenbauch less restrictive procurement requirements and is restricted to a target group of et al. 2019). Centralised networks are not desirable (Gava et al. 2017) suppliers (Miranda 2018). for complex problem solving, knowledge exchange and innovation 4 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 scaling, since these require relationships and access to resources. government agencies through competitive public tendering. Most cen­ Network composition and diversity refers to the number and type of tralised purchases are for public institutions located in the metropolitan actors (e.g. in terms of sector or scale of operation) that constitute a area, including the department of Montevideo and the departments of network. A network’s capacity to innovate and its potential for scaling of Canelones and San José. Decentralised purchases are commonly made innovations require broad, multidisciplinary and diverse networks to by departmental governments and institutions that choose and manage ensure there are different sources of knowledge and information, skills, their own supplier base (FAO 2018a). Decentralised purchases are car­ and capabilities to identifying and solving complex problems (Borg et al. ried out through competitive public tendering or direct procurement.4 2015; Hermans et al. 2017). Low diversity in networks, coupled with The procedure used depends on the amount (in monetary terms) to be homophilous relations (i.e. relations between actors of the same type, procured. for example, between two farmers), may create the trust required for Under the special regime of Law 19.292 of 2014, family farmers must collective action (essential for scaling), but can be a limitation for net­ organise themselves as a society, a cooperative or an association to be works that require diverse information (essential for knowledge and able to sell their products to public institutions. The family farmer or­ innovation co-creation) (Isaac 2012; Hermans et al. 2017). ganisations must be constituted by 5 or more producers, at least 70 % of Actor network position refers to the claim that innovation requires whom belong to the category family farmers (Miranda 2018). Family influential actors with strategic positions in the network, so innovations farmers who are members of these organisations must be registered in are developed and spread. These actors are often intermediaries and/or the Registry of Family Farmers managed by the General Directorate of brokers, who act as facilitators of collaborative settings in which social Rural Development (DGDR) of the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and learning takes place (essential for knowledge and innovation co- Fisheries (MGAP). To participate in public food procurement, the family creation); who connect the different types of actors and facilitate farmer organisation must be registered in the National Registry of communication in the broader system (essential for outscaling); and Qualified Organisations (RENAOH), which is also administered by the who perform an advocacy function (essential for upscaling) (Gava et al., DGDR. The formalities for participation by family farmer organisations 2017; Hermans et al., 2013a; Hermans et al., 2017). However, although in PFPF follow the legal procedures in the public procurement system. influential actors can use their position in a network to facilitate change, However, unlike other food suppliers, products offered by family farmer they can also block knowledge and innovation co-creation and scaling organisations must come entirely from the activity of their members. A due to their central position in the network (Smith et al. 2014). second difference is that prices for food products may be set 40 % higher Finally, different combinations of network density, centralisation than the produce reference prices provided by the Farmer Observatory, and compositions, and influential actors are associated with different which is managed by the MGAP and the Agro-Food Park of the metro­ trade-offs. It has thus been argued that a dynamic balance needs to be politan region (UAM). sought over the course of knowledge and innovation co-creation and To date, there are about 12 family farmer organisations that are scaling processes (Cofré-Bravo et al. 2019). registered for participation under Law 19.292 of 2014. All these orga­ nisations commercialise fruits and vegetables, with a few commercial­ 3. Materials and methods ising honey, chicken and pork through the decentralised system. The family farmer organisations are mostly located in the south of Uruguay In this and the next sections, we apply the conceptual and method­ in the department of Canelones and in the north-western department of ological framework to the case of PFPF in Uruguay. SNA is used to map Salto. and analyse the structure and functioning of the procurement proced­ ures network (PPN), the capacity-building network (CBN) and the food 3.2. Data collection flows network (FN). The funding support network is not considered as there is no specific funding to PFPF in Uruguay. SNA is complemented The framework presented in Section 2 was used to analyse the with qualitative information on the existing barriers faced by in­ structure and functioning of PFPF networks in Uruguay. Emphasis is dividuals or groups of actors and with information on the social, tech­ given to Pillar II and Pillar III of the framework (See Subsection 2.1). nological and institutional innovations that have been implemented to First, a comprehensive list of actors involved in PFPF was constructed design and improve the functioning of PFPF in Uruguay. through a literature review (i.e. reports and organisations’ websites) and insights from three local experts knowledgeable on family farming and 3.1. Case: public food procurement from family farming in Uruguay public food procurement in Uruguay. The final list included 29 actors comprising family farmer organisations and farmer unions (n = 11), In Uruguay 47 % of all farms are designated as family farms. These public organisations implementing Law 19.292 of 2014, or procuring 21,426 farms have an average surface area of 68 ha and are involved in food from family farmers (n = 11), private advisors and extension ser­ livestock production (54 %), in fruit and vegetable production (23 %), vices (n = 3), value chain actors (n = 3), and an international organi­ and in milk production (10 %). To be classified as a family farm in sation (n = 1). Actors were categorised by type (i.e. public, private and Uruguay means that: labour is mainly provided by the family, with hired public–private), governance level (i.e. regional, national, international) labour limited to two salaried employees; the family lives on the farm or and sector (i.e. agriculture, social development, food and nutrition se­ within a 50 km radius; and the total area for production does not exceed curity, health, defence, economy, marketing, education, and other). 500 ha (Tommasino et al. 2014; MGAP 2020). Family farms are not by Face–to–face semi-structured interviews were conducted with all actors definition more sustainable or apply more sustainable farming practices. in November and December 2019. Each interview consisted of two parts. However, research suggests that overall, smaller farms are more bio­ In the first part data were gathered for the SNA of the support structures diverse (Ricciardi et al. 2021), while large and industrial farming is often in Pillar III (Fig. 1). Actors were asked to describe their roles, if any, in linked to the aggravation of global environmental challenges (Dong the procurement procedures network (PPN), capacity-building network 2021). (CBN), and food flows network (FN), and provide information on the role In Uruguay, different policies address productive, social and organ­ isational aspects of family farming, seeking equitable, economic and sustainable inclusion. For example, Law 19.292 (2014) creates a special 4 Public tendering refers to administrative procedures by which the public regime for family farmers in PFPF by establishing that 30 per cent of all institutions invite interested suppliers to formulate proposals that meet the public centralised food purchases and 100 per cent of all decentralised tender specifications. From these, the most advantageous is selected. Direct public food purchases need to come from family farms (FAO 2015). The procurement allows public institutions to enter into contracts with suppliers Centralised Procurement Unit (UCA) procures food on behalf of central without the need to make a public call for tender. 5 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 and nature of the relations (i.e. the edges) of each of other actors that categories, sectors and governance levels); and the degree to which the had previously been identified. Edges in the PPN and CBN pertained to multiple actors interact. The latter was measured using the E-I index relations of collaboration, and resource, knowledge and information (Krackhardt & Stern 1988), which for the case at stake measures the exchange. Edges in the FN refer to relations of production, trade and number of relations between actors of the same actor category, sector, consumption. During the interviews actors were free to identify other and governance level, compared to the number of relations with other actors that were not previously listed. While those actors were not actor categories, sectors or governance levels (i.e. E-I index actor cate­ interviewed, they were included in the SNA analysis. gory, E-I index sector and E-I index governance level, respectively). The The second part of the interview explored the individual and col­ E-I index values range from − 1 to +1. Smaller values indicate homo­ lective barriers in the three networks (Pillar II of the framework) and the phily, i.e. a dominance of relationships among actors of the same cate­ implementation of innovations (as a single actor or with other actors) gory, sector or governance level, and larger values indicate heterophily, that had been developed to overcome these barriers (Pillar III of the i.e., a dominance of relationships between actors of different categories, framework). In the interviews open-ended questions were used to sector or governance levels. Lastly, to assess the feature actor network generate deeper insights into each actor’s perceptions. position, two SNA metrics were used; degree centrality and Gould & Fernandez’ (1989) brokerage metric. Degree centrality measures the sum of the number of inbound (indegree) and outbound (outdegree) 3.3. Data analysis relations an actor has with adjacent actors. Higher degree centrality scores (i.e. higher number of relations) are indicative of influential ac­ 3.3.1. Social network analysis (SNA) tors in the network. Gould & Fernandez’ (1989) brokerage metric was The interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analysed. used to investigate the intermediary or brokerage roles that actors play Social network data was systematised by creating a name-based adja­ in each of the PFPF networks. This metric computes the number of times cency matrix with names of all actors, IDs, actor attributes, roles, and an actor connects two otherwise unconnected actors and plays a struc­ relationships. Relationships between the actors were described and turing role (i.e. a coordinator role; a consultant role; a representative coded as absence of relation or presence of unidirectional or bidirec­ role; a gatekeeper role; and a liaison role (Chaudhary & Warner 2016) tional relations (Aguilar-Gallegos et al. 2017). These data were used to (Fig. 2). visualize the PPN, CBN and FN networks, and compute SNA metrics. From here we could analyse the capacity of the three networks to 3.3.2. Analysis of barriers and innovations in PFPF innovate and to scale innovations. Mapping and analysis was done using The transcriptions of the interviews were analysed using qualitative UCINET Social Network Analysis software (Borgatti et al. 2002) and content analysis. This is a method used to systematically summarize NetDraw Network Visualization (Borgatti 2011). qualitative data by assigning text to categories that are defined in a For each of the three networks, the feature network structural prop­ coding frame (Schreier 2012). Barriers and innovations were deduc­ erties, was assessed using the metrics density and network centralisation. tively classified in predefined themes (codes), following the conceptual A density of zero indicates that actors are completely disconnected while framework introduced in Subsection 2.1. The main themes for the pro­ a density of one indicates a fully-connected network. A centralisation of curement procedures network (PPN) included barriers and innovations one means that all actors are linked only to one central actor, whereas a in contract modalities and tendering processes; prices; payment mo­ centralisation of zero indicates that all actors have the same number of dalities; food baskets; and internal procedures for food procurement in relations (Freeman 1978; Borgatti et al. 2013). Composition and diversity public institutions. The main themes for the capacity-building network was analysed by the size of the network (i.e. number of actors); the (CBN) included barriers and innovations associated with articulation variety of actors that compose the network (i.e. number of actor Fig. 2. Gould & Fernandez’ brokerage roles (figure taken from Everett & Borgatti 2012). The actor (circle) in the middle of each row plays an intermediary or brokerage role. A black circle represents an actor of category, sector or governance level A; a grey circle represents an actor of category, sector or governance level B and a white circle repre­ sents an actor category, sector or governance level C. A coordinator role occurs when the broker connects actors of the same category, sector or governance level and the broker also belongs to that actor category, sector or governance level; a consultant role occurs when the broker connects two unconnected actors that belong to one actor category, sector or governance level while the broker belongs to a different one; a representative role occurs when the broker and one un­ connected actor belong to one actor cate­ gory, sector or governance level while the other unconnected actor belongs to a different one; a gatekeeper role occurs when the broker and one of the two unconnected actors belong to one actor category, sector or governance level while the other uncon­ nected actor belongs to a different one; a liaison role occurs when the broker and the two unconnected actors all belong to different actor categories, sector or governance levels (Chaudhary & Warner 2016). 6 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 and partnerships of state and non-state actors; and targeting and PPN, actor categories, especially in the regions, connect mostly with tailoring capacity-building activities to family farmers and institutional actors of a different category (E-I index actor category score of 0.4, e.g. needs. Main themes for the food flows network (FN) included barriers private actors with public actors), especially through the Regional and innovations related to horizontal and vertical arrangements be­ Development Boards (MDRs). The MDRs are spaces of dialogue and tween family farmer organisations and actors in the value chain (i.e. concertation of policies between the public organisations (especially the transport, distribution and consumption of food). General Directorate of Rural Development (DGDR) and its Territorial Rural Development Teams (ETDRs-DGDR)) and the family farmer or­ 4. Findings ganisations. In this network, there are few linkages between actors belonging to different sectors (E-I index sector score of − 0.5), and there 4.1. Pillar III - PFPF networks– procurement procedures network (PPN), is a slight tendency of actors to form more linkages with actors that capacity-building network (CBN) and food flows network (FN) operate at the same governance level (E-I index governance level score of − 0.2) (Table 2). We present the three networks in PFPF, i.e. PPN, CBN and FN, and As indicated by the degree centrality scores, the three actor cate­ describe their features regarding network structural properties; gories, i.e. public, private and public–private actors, have equal levels of composition and diversity; and actor position. These features determine importance. The most influential actors are the DGDR and the ETDRs- the capacity of the networks to innovate (knowledge and innovation co- DGDR in the departments of Salto and Canelones, which provide creation to solve the supply and demand-side barriers; subsection 4.2), organisational and technical advice to family farmer organisations. They and to scale the innovations (out and upscaling; subsection 4.3). Section also participate in the MDRs; the family farmer organisations in Salto, i. 5 elaborates on policy and theoretical implications. The three networks e. Fomento Rural Colonia 18 Julio (SFR18J), Fomento Rural Colonia and their features are visualised in Fig. 3. The full names of the network Ossimani y Llerena (SFRCOyL), Fomento Rural Colonia Gestido (SFRCG) actors are presented in the Supplementary material. and Fomento Rural Salto (SFRS); and the MDRs. These most influential actors also perform intermediation and brokerage in these networks, 4.1.1. Network structural properties: density and network centralisation except for the family farmer organisations (Fig. 3e). The main inter­ Densities are not high in any of the three networks. However, the mediation and brokerage roles are described in Subsection 4.3. density is higher for the CBN in comparison with the PPN and the FN. The FN is the largest network in terms of the number of actors, Connections in the CBN represent 16 % of all possible connections, composed of 56 actors. Of these, 31 actors are public organisations that whereas in the PPN and the FN these only reach 8 % and 2 %, respec­ purchase food products from large distribution firms through the cen­ tively (Table 1). tralised purchasing system or from family farmers in the decentralised Centralisation scores are similar across the three networks: 18 % in system (e.g. Ministry of Internal Affairs (MI), INDA, Ministry of Defence; the PPN, 16 % in the CBN and 20 % in the FN (Table 1), indicating that hospitals of the National Administration of Health Services (ASSE) and only one-fifth of the relations are dominated by few actors. Although the Administration of Public Education (ANEP)). The remaining 24 ac­ based on a low number of observations, these results suggest that the tors are private actors, especially family farmer organisations and their higher the network’s density, the lower its centralisation. group collection centres (labelled as Pack in Fig. 3c) (Table 2 and Fig. 3c). In this network, each actor category tends to connect more with 4.1.2. Composition and diversity, and actor position (degree centrality, actors of a different category (E-I index actor category of 0.1) and a intermediation and brokerage roles) different sector (E-I index sector of 0.3) but operates at the same The PPN is made up of 35 actors, mainly public actors that especially governance level (E-I index governance level of − 0.2) (Table 2). operate at the national level, some of them with offices at the regional Our analysis points to large differences between the regions. In the level. These actors participate in various sectors, such as agriculture and north-western departments of Salto, Paysandú, Rivera, Artigas and rural development, food and nutrition security, and social development Tacuarembó there is a regional network in which private actors (mostly (Table 2 and Fig. 3a). In this network, each actor category tends to the family farmer organisations) connect with each other to supply food connect with actors of the same category (E-I index actor category score to public institutions (e.g. the schools, hospitals and the canteens of of − 0.3), especially at the national level (i.e. public actors with public INDA in the department of Salto). In the southern departments, family actors). Further, there are multiple connections between actors across farmer organisations such as Productores Unidos de San Antonio sectors (E-I index sector score of 0.6), mostly in the department of Salto. (SFRSA), Fomento Rural Tapia (Tapia), Fomento Rural Progreso (Pro­ The connections between actors in this network occur mostly at the greso) and Fomento Rural Canelón Chico (CanChico), often do not same governance level (E-I index governance score of − 0.4) (Table 2). connect with each other, but have bilateral connections with regional (e. As indicated by their degree centrality score, the most influential g. hospitals of ASSE) or national buyers (e.g. Ministry of Internal Af­ actors comprise the General Directorate of Rural Development (DGDR) fairs). The most influential actors are the family farmer organisations and the Ministry of Social Development (MIDES, and its territorial office SFR18J in the department of Salto, the organisation SFRSA in the in Salto), who implement policies and programs aimed at supporting department of Canelones, and the Centralised Procurement Unit (UCA) family farming and the vulnerable rural population respectively. These at the national level. In this network, SFR18J plays the main interme­ actors are also responsible for implementing Law 19.292 (2014). Other diation and brokerage roles, (Fig. 3f). These roles are described in influential actors include the National Food Institute (INDA); Trans­ Subsection 4.3. forma Uruguay (TUruguay), which aims to support economic and social development; the Centralized Procurement Unit (UCA), which manages 4.2. Barriers hampering implementation of PFPF – (Pillar II) centralised food procurement; and the Purchasing and Contracting State Agency (ACCE). This agency provides advice to public organisations in Interviewees reported a range of barriers that are currently inhibiting public purchases and plays an active role in implementing actions to the optimal implementation of PFPF in Uruguay. Main barriers in the improve the management and transparency of public procurement. PPN include: Intermediation and brokerage in the PPN is performed by these influ­ ential actors except for DGDR and UCA (Fig. 3d). The main intermedi­ a. Contract modalities and tendering process: the inflexible centralised ation and brokerage roles are described in Subsection 4.3. procurement system and the stringent tender requirements are not The CBN is composed of 27 actors with similar numbers of public and adapted to the productive, economic, and logistical capabilities of private actors. Most of these actors belong to the agricultural sector, and family farmer organisations. These requirements include among most operate at the regional level (Table 2 and Fig. 3b). Contrary to the others: large volumes and high frequencies of delivery, payment for 7 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 Fig. 3. Composition and diversity, and actor position (i.e. degree centrality and intermediary and brokerage roles) of the procurement procedures network (PPN; a and d, respectively), capacity-building network (CBN; b and e, respectively) and food flows network (FN; c and f, respectively) in public food procurement from family farming (PFPF) in Uruguay. 8 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 Table 1 public institutions in (e.g. articulation between the General Direc­ Network structural properties of the procurement procedures network (PPN), torate of Rural Development (DGDR) and the General Directorate for capacity-building network (CBN) and food flows network (FN) in PFPF. Farms (DIGEGRA)). Although interviewees mentioned there is an PPN CBN FN interest in articulation, each institution needs to fulfil different Density 8% 16 % 2% institutional objectives. Network centralisation 18 % 16 % 20 % g. For targeting and tailoring capacity-building activities to family farmers’ and institutional needs: capacity-building activities and programs only have a short duration, are commonly not connected over time, and in many cases are not tailored to the needs of family farmers. For Table 2 Network composition and diversity of the procurement procedures network example, interviewees mentioned a general lack of capabilities in (PPN), capacity-building network (CBN) and food flows network (FN) in public logistics, management, and marketing among family farmers, food procurement from family farming (PFPF). essential to comply with institutional needs, and to a lack of knowledge on how to gain access to public tenders. PPN CBN FN # actors 35 27 56 Main barriers for the FN include: Other 0 0 4 # actors × actor category Public 25 12 31 h. For horizontal arrangements between family farmer organisations: Law Private 8 9 24 19.292 of 2014 lacks mechanisms to enhance alliances between Public – private 2 6 1 family farmer organisations that are complementary in terms of the # actors × sector produce they offer, allowing them competitive advantage in public Agriculture 13 23 14 Food and nutrition 5 0 7 tenders. Specifically, alliances between family farmer organisations Social Development 5 1 1 from the north-western departments of Uruguay and family farmer Education 3 0 2 organisations in Canelones were mentioned, as their climatological Economy 2 0 1 differences would allow for a broader diversity of produce. Marketing 2 1 9 Health 1 0 7 i. For vertical arrangements between value chain actors: interviewees Defence 1 0 7 mentioned the logistics and distribution problems to bring produce Other 3 2 8 from family farmer organisations to the consumers (public # actors × governance level institutions). Canelones 7 8 12 Salto 5 7 12 National 15 7 10 4.3. Innovations to overcome barriers hampering implementation of San Jose 1 4 3 public food procurement from family farming (PFPF) – Pillar III International 1 1 0 Paysandú 3 0 5 This subsection describes the main innovations that have been Rivera 3 0 2 Metropolitan region 0 0 7 developed and implemented to solve the supply and demand side bar­ # relations 94 112 62 riers, and thus, improve the functioning of PFPF in Uruguay. Following E-I index a Hermans et al. (2017), innovations refer to new technologies, knowl­ E-I index actor category − 0.3 0.4 0.1 edge, processes, new modes of thinking or the reordering of institutions E-I index sector 0.6 − 0.5 0.3 E-I index governance level − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.2 and of organisations that have been implemented to serve a specific purpose. Description of the innovations focuses on the three areas of a Values range from − 1 (all relations are between actors of the same category, interest emerging from the SNA; the national level, the north-western same governance level or same sector) to + 1 (all relations are between actors of departments of Uruguay, i.e. Salto, Paysandú and Rivera, and the different categories, different sectors or different governance levels). southern department of Canelones. The actors involved in developing the innovations described in this Subsection are depicted in the graphs compliance with safety standards, and tender specifications that of the PPN, CBN and FN (Fig. 4) along with their intermediary and include all products in a single lot, which often includes imported brokerage roles. A summary of the innovations is presented in Table 3, products such as bananas. along with the supply and demand-side barriers they aimed to overcome b. Prices: the high costs of the management, logistics, and infrastructure (see Subsection 4.2). for the collection and distribution of food in some cases cannot be recovered by family farmer organisations even with prices 40 % 4.3.1. Procurement procedures network (PPN) higher than the reference produce price. Three cases of innovations for overcoming barriers in the procure­ c. Payments modalities: delayed payments impose a high financial ment procedures network (PPN) were mentioned most frequently. In burden on the family farmer organisations. In most cases, a 45–90 these cases, the most influential actors (high degree centrality scores in day waiting period is enforced before payment. the SNA analysis) performed the most essential intermediation and d. Food baskets: the design of institutional menus does not consider local brokerage roles. The first innovation is the inter-institutional committee agricultural products and their seasonality. constituted in 2018 by the General Directorate of Rural Development e. Internal procedures for procurement of food in public institutions: there is (DGDR), the Purchasing and Contracting State Agency (ACCE), and the a lack of knowledge and commitment of procurement officers in Ministry of Social Development (MIDES), and coordinated by Trans­ public institutions to comply with the family farmer quota under the forma Uruguay (number 1 in Fig. 4a). In the Network, these four actors special regime. Some interviewees mentioned that this could be due bridge the multiple public actors at the national scale, who have com­ to close ties between the officers and traditional suppliers or because plementary interests in PFPF (coordinator role – the broker connects changes in procurement procedures imply more work. public actors at the national level, see Fig. 2). The committee was created to develop proposals for adapting procurement procedures in Main barriers in the CBN include: the centralised system so that family farmers could effectively take advantage of the special regime of Law 19.292. Actors in the committee f. For articulation and partnerships of state and non-state actors: enact the network functions of knowledge and innovation co-creation capacity-building activities lack coordination between and within and upscaling. At the moment of this study, actions based on a list of 9 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 Fig. 4. Group of actors interacting to develop main innovations to overcome supply and demand-side barriers in the procurement procedures network (PPN), capacity-building network (CBN), and the food flows network (FN). The numbers in the figure represent the innovations that are described in Table 3. proposals, such as preferential delivery for family farmer organisations, country in support of the right to adequate food sourced from family lotting, and changes to standard quality controls (see full description of farmers. The program was tried out in 2017 with the procurement of proposals in Table 3) were being analysed by the Centralised Procure­ food from four family farmer organisations in the department of Salto. ment Unit (UCA). Some interviewees commented that UCA seemed Two more organisations, one in the department of Rivera and one in the reluctant to adopt some of the proposals as it was concerned about department of Paysandú, i.e. SFRR and SFRP, joined the pilot later. reducing the contracting system’s efficiency. The third frequently mentioned innovation concerned internal The second innovation refers to the changes in the procurement changes in the procurement system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs system at the national and regional level of the MIDES and the National (MI). This facilitated one of the first experiences of public food pro­ Food Institute (INDA) and the conversion of the Program of Support for curement from family farmers in the department of Canelones (number Public and Private Institutions into the Feeding Rights program (number 3 in Fig. 4a). The innovation consisted of direct procurement of food 2 in Fig. 4a). These changes were possible with the integration of INDA products framed in a tripartite agreement between the MI (the pro­ into the MIDES in 2016. Through the national office and their territorial curement institution), the family farmer organisation SFRSA (the sup­ offices in Salto, MIDES and INDA implemented the Law 19.292 (repre­ plier organisation), and the agency of rural development of the sentative role – the broker connects actors operating at the national level municipality of Canelones, acting as a third party between the MI and with actors operating in regions, see Fig. 2), coordinated actions in the SFRSA.5 The agreement led the MI to adjust the procurement procedures region (coordinator role – the broker connects the actors operating at the in a process of knowledge and innovation co-creation and procure most regional level), and collected information on needs and bottlenecks to of its vegetable demand from the family farmer organisation SFRSA. design changes in the procurement system to the various problems that Since the three actors are directed linked in the network, no brokerage arose in the implementation of Law 19.292 (gatekeeper role – the broker role was identified, which may hamper the network function of scaling mediates the relationships between actors operating at the regional level the more so because these actors do not hold central positions in the PPN and actors at the national level, see Fig. 2). Changes in the procurement network. system included new contract modalities; a revolving fund; adjusted tender requirements; and price bonifications for organic or agroeco­ 4.3.2. Capacity-building network (CBN) logical products (see full description of changes in Table 3). Lessons Three cases of innovations were mentioned most frequently to from the implementation of PFPF in Salto were used by MIDES and INDA overcome barriers in the CBN. In all of them, the most influential actors to institutionalise procurement procedures (upscaling of the in­ in the network, i.e. DGDR and its regional teams the ETDRs-DGDR, and novations) and to outscale the innovation by implementing a pilot in the the MDRs, played essential brokerage roles, especially at the governance department of Canelones (liaison role – the broker and the other actors all belong to different governance levels, see Fig. 2). For example, the Feeding Rights program has the goal of replacing dry foods delivered by 5 Beyond SFRSA, there are other four farmer organizations supplying chicken, INDA - MIDES with fruits and vegetables to more than 600 centres in the pork and products derived from milling. 10 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 Table 3 Main innovations developed to solve supply and demand-side barriers in the procurement procedures network (PPN), capacity-building network (CBN) and the food flows network (FN). Supply and demand side barriers a – i are described in Subsection 4.2. Numbers in the first column are referenced in Fig. 4, using the shading colour as indicated. levels in which they operate. institutions operating at the national level (coordination role). It also The first innovation concerned the public calls for projects launched represented these national institutions at the regional level (representa­ individually by public institutions or as part of agreements between the tive role) through the Territorial Rural Development Teams, i.e. ETDRs- MGAP, especially the DGDR, and other public institutions such as DGDR, and controlled incoming information from the regional to the MIDES, the National Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA) and the national level (gatekeeper role). The intermediation and brokerage roles National Institute of Cooperatives (INACOOP) (number 1 in Fig. 4b). performed by these influential actors (high degree centrality scores as While most of these projects were not directly linked to PFPF, the in­ informed in the SNA), i.e. DGDR and ETDRs-DGDR, fostered diffusion of terviewees commented that they had helped family farmers to develop resources, skills, and information, which were essential for knowledge technical, organisational, and management capacities.6 For this inno­ and innovation co-creation, and the central position of these actors in vation, DGDR coordinated the public calls together with multiple public the network favoured the scaling of the innovations. The second innovation concerned the articulation between the Inter- American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) operating at 6 the international level, with the advisors belonging to the ETDRs-DGDR Only one project specifically dedicated to PFPF was launched in 2016 by in a process of knowledge and innovation co-creation. DGDR connected DGDR to strengthen the organisational and commercial capabilities of family farmer organisations planning to supply public institutions. actors in triads (liaison role) where capacity-building strategies 11 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 developed in the agreement IICA - DGDR were outscaled by the ETDRs- of studies have addressed PFPF as a lever for the transition to sustainable DGDR through the System of Technical Assistance and Rural Extension food systems, we identified limited attention in the international liter­ for family farming (ATER) (number 2 in Fig. 4b). In this innovation, the ature for the relational and interactional dynamics among the multiple ETDRs-DGDR were essential in implementing the capacity-building and diverse sets of food system actors participating in PFPF. More programs developed by DGDR and IICA (representative role). The attention is pressing as our study confirms that the capacity for effective ETDRs-DGDR are also the network structures/actors through which the implementation of PFPF is very much defined by network relations (and needs of family farmer organisations are fed back to the national level intermediation), rather than by the individual roles and actions of actors (gatekeeper role). This is essential for upscaling. and organisations, echoing FAO (2015, 2017) and FAO et al. (2021). The third innovation concerned the institutionalisation of the MDRs We have put forward an integrative framework to help structure (number 3 in Fig. 4b). In the department of Salto, the MDRs acted as thinking about how to assess PFPF from a food system and network liaison (liaison role) intermediating between the family farmer organi­ perspective as a basis for informed decision making. The framework sations and the representatives of the MGAP (especially DGDR and operationalises PFPF as a policy tool in which food system actors DIGEGRA) and other public institutions. Contrary to the case of Salto involved in agricultural production, value chains and support structures where family farmer organisations are fully connected (the density of connect to mobilise and exchange knowledge, resources and capabil­ connections in this region is high), in the department of Canelones the ities, with the aim of overcoming barriers and stimulating innovation MDR also served as a space where family farmers connect to each other and scaling. As illustrated with the case of Uruguay, implementation of (consultant role – the broker intermediates family farmer organisations, the framework: (i) allows analysis by visualizing the composition and see Fig. 2). In both regions, the MDRs connect diverse public and private diversity of the three networks of food system actors in PFPF, i.e. the actors with different sources of knowledge and information, skills, and PPN, CBN and FN; (ii) enhances understanding of the influence, roles of capabilities, which are essential to identifying and solving complex actors, and the implications of intermediation in the innovation pro­ problems. The MDRs are also spaces that facilitate learning and the cesses; (iii) unravels individual and collective barriers faced by actors diffusion and scaling of the innovations. that constrain implementation of PFPF; and, (iv) identifies network structures and actors that foster or hinder innovation. The resulting 4.3.3. Food flows network (FN) understanding of the constituent networks in PFPF enables identifying Two cases of innovations were mentioned most frequently to over­ entry points for interventions so as to stimulate innovation and increase come barriers in the FN. The first innovation involved the horizontal the potential of PFPF to support the transition to sustainable food sys­ integration of four family farmer organisations (i.e. linkages between tems. Such analysis is fundamental, as the degree of multi-stakeholder the family farmer organisations in the FN network) in a group collection dialogue and coordination in PFPF initiatives has been identified as a centre coordinated by SFR18J (coordination role) (number 1 in Fig. 4c). bottleneck for their successful implementation (Miranda, 2018). To supply food to public institutions, family farmer organisations need to be registered in the RENAOH as stated in Law 19.292 of 2014. 5.1. Lessons and entry points for intervention in PFPF networks However, in the pilot for the procurement of food by MIDES and INDA in the north-western department of Salto, only one of the four family Implementation of our framework to Uruguay’s case highlighted the farmer organisations participating, i.e. SFR18J, was formally registered. presence of two main regional PFPF networks: the pilot initiative of To overcome this regulatory barrier, an individual farmer-member of INDA - MIDES in the north-western departments of Uruguay, and the each of the non-registered organisations was allowed to register as a pilot initiative of the family farmer organisation SFRSA in the southern member of SFR18J. In the group collection centre, SFR18J were department of Canelones. These regional networks differed in the receiving the products from the three organisations, products that were composition and diversity and actors’ position in the respective PPN, afterwards distributed to public institutions (e.g. schools, hospitals and CBN and FN. canteens of INDA in the department of Salto) or transported to the family farmer organisations’ collection centres in the departments of Paysandú 5.1.1. Procurement procedures network (PPN) and Rivera (representative role). The regional network structure with The PPN may be considered a low-density network that stimulates multiple horizontal linkages between the family farmer organisations processes of searching and access to new knowledge, resources, and allowed these organisations to increase the volume of products and, information that are essential for changes in procurement procedures, more successfully compete in public tenders. For MIDES – INDA this was both at the regional and national level. This network structure is also also a successful innovation that allowed to connect the family farmer favourable (confirming findings by Kratzer & Ammering 2019; Simon organisations in Paysandú and Rivera (outscaling of the innovations) et al. 2021), since there are no actors who centralise resources and de­ that involved socio-economically vulnerable members, with the orga­ cisions. However, as discussed in Subsection 2.2, given the low number nisations in Salto that had a more advanced level of development. of connections, the exchange of knowledge, resources and information The second case of innovation involved establishing vertical linkages may also be reduced. between the group collection centre in Salto (managed by SFR18J) and Regional PPN similarities and differences in terms of the density of two companies to solve logistic and distribution problems (number 2 in connections, composition, diversity, and actor’s position (i.e. influence, Fig. 4c). Transportation of products from the group collection centre to intermediation and brokerage), revealed two important findings. First, the department of Rivera was done through a big milk company, with our results showed that there is not a single PPN structure that works which a fixed price per kilo of product was agreed. The transportation of well across regions. Rather, network structures were based on the re­ products to the department of Paysandú was outsourced to vegetable gion’s characteristics and the capabilities of its public institutions and retailers with already existing commercialization channels (see the family farmer organisations. This implies that PFPF design and imple­ connections in Fig. 3 between the group collection centre managed by mentation need to be kept flexible enough to allow for adjustments and the SFR18J and the family farmer organisations in the departments of evolution (Kelly & Swensson 2017). In both regional PPN networks, Paysandú and Rivera). interactions between actors allowed simplifying requirements and adapting tender specifications (e.g. contract size, food basket re­ 5. Theoretical, methodological and policy implications quirements and payment time-frames). These requirements have been identified in our study and in the literature as some of the most common The lessons of this study provide theoretical, methodological, and barriers to PFPF as that they create significant transaction costs for policy insights for improving PFPF, not only in Uruguay but also in other participation of family farmers in public food markets (Mercado et al. countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. While a growing number 2016; FAO 2017; Miranda 2018). Nevertheless, a bigger and more 12 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 connected innovation network with actors from multiple sectors may building activities can be tailored to address skills gaps. For this purpose, imply a stronger position as was shown with the PPN in the north- the brokerage and intermediation roles such as those performed by the western initiative having a stronger position compared to the initia­ ETDRs-DGDR are essential to translate farmer capacity building needs to tive in the south. This confirms Sartas et al.’s (2018) claims that the higher governance levels, especially in network structures such as the bigger and more connected the network, the better the outreach of the CBN where relations are mostly between actors operating at the same innovations and the speed of innovation diffusion. level. Second, network differences between the two initiatives suggested Third, the north-western initiative’s CBN structure with a bigger and that scaling (outscaling and upscaling of innovations) requires the ex­ denser network than the south’s initiative showed that another way of istence of well-positioned influential actors from within the incumbent sharing knowledge and capabilities and outscaling best practices in system. In SNA terminology, this implies actors with high degree cen­ innovation networks is via alliances between family farmers organisa­ trality scores. This was the case of the Ministry of Social Development tions. Consideration of this result in the design and implementation of (MIDES) and the National Food Institute (INDA) and their regional of­ PFPF may enable family farmer organisations to address collectively the fices in the pilot initiative in the north-west of Uruguay, where these high transaction costs involved in participating in PFPF models (Kelly & actors intermediated in the creation of new alliances, supported Swensson 2017). knowledge innovation and co-creation to overcome barriers, and increased the legitimacy of PFPF. Moreover, they acted as an informa­ 5.1.3. Food flows network (FN) tion interface between the needs of procuring organisations (e.g. Our analysis of the FN showed three points that deserve special schools, the hospital in Salto and the canteens of INDA) and the family attention. First, compared to the PPN and CBN the FN has a higher farmer organisations, which was essential for adjusting procurement centralisation, especially because of the central position of the family requirements. Additionally, these actors performed a political function farmer organisation SFR18J. While higher centralisation may facilitate within the network by lobbying and translating the results of the pilot the diffusion of relevant knowledge and resources (Rockenbauch et al. into institutionalised procedural reforms. While the PPN structure of the 2019) among the family farmer organisations, the central position of pilot in the south, dominated by only three actors, was effective for SFR18J may also pose a risk to the future of this regional network in case solving day-to-day procurement barriers, the lack of intermediation and this actor is removed. Nevertheless, contrary to the initiative in southern brokerage roles may hinder the scaling of the innovations. Moreover, Uruguay, the horizontal engagement of family farmer organisations, since these actors are fully connected in a closed network structure, their vertical linkages with actors in transport and distribution, and the there may be little entry of new knowledge, resources and information, active involvement of procuring institutions resulted in a vibrant inno­ which are essential for knowledge and innovation co-creation. This vation setting that was conducive to an FN with a regional scope. This points to the need for investments in the creation of an innovation shows that different networks may need different combinations of hor­ community in PFPF networks with special attention to intermediation izontal and vertical coordination and brokerage, echoing Poulton et al. and brokerage in networks as shown earlier by Kilelu et al. (2017a) and (2010) and Kilelu et al. (2017b). Ramirez et al. (2018) for the case of agri-food clusters. Second, differences in network structures between the initiatives in the north-western and southern departments of Uruguay suggest that 5.1.2. Capacity-building network (CBN) decentralised purchases in PFPF can occur at different levels. This is Like the PPN, the CBN may be considered a low-density and low relevant as decentralised purchases mean more flexibility for custom­ centralised network that may be conductive for innovation. However, at izing procurement systems to suit the needs of public institutions and the regional level, our analysis showed three points that deserve special family farmer organisations (Kelly & Swensson 2017; Swensson 2018). attention. First, the relevance and network position of multi-stakeholder These are common benefits of decentralised networks (Gava et al. 2017) platforms, such as the MDRs (i.e. high degree centrality score). The and PFPF models (Swensson & Klug 2017). MDRs intermediated between public and private (i.e. family farmer Third, beyond the learnings derived from the two regional initiatives organisations) actors and connected previously unconnected family for decentralised PFPF, our results also showed that the 30 per cent farmer organisations in the department of Canelones. While the MDRs quota of centralised food purchases for family farmers had not been were not directly linked to PFPF initiatives, strengthening the interme­ reached yet, as illustrated in the FN, where no linkages existed between diary roles of the MDRs may capitalise on the network structure of rural family farmer organisations and the Centralised Procurement Unit decentralisation to articulate farmers’ needs in PFPF, provide a space (UCA). In the PPN the most influential public actors (high degree cen­ where conflicts may be solved, and create the conditions for the trality scores) that operate at the national level, were willing or had the spreading of good practices between family farmers and public organi­ mandate to implement Law 19.292. Yet, in the FN, UCA was perceived sations. This is important as the literature on agricultural innovation by the interinstitutional committee coordinated by Transforma Uruguay systems emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder innovation as blocking system innovation. The prominent place of UCA within the platforms for enhancing the capacity to innovate in stakeholder net­ network was hampering the removal of barriers to innovation and works (Kilelu et al. 2013; Hermans et al. 2017). scaling of PFPF in Uruguay. As such, all the centralised purchases were Second, public actors from the agriculture sector dominated the CBN, found to be still subject to the stringent formal and technical re­ which reflected the predominance of homophilous sectoral relations. quirements that create significant barriers to family farmer organisa­ This network structure has led to public projects on capacity-building tions to participate and which continue favouring dominant specialized mostly focused on improving family farmers’ technical-productive ca­ distribution firms. pacities or organisational skills. Therefore, public cross-sectoral coor­ dination to tailor capacity-building activities, such as strengthening 5.2. Merits and limitations of SNA for analysing the structure and logistical, managerial and marketing skills, would be still required. This functioning of PFPF and further research reinforces findings of multiple PFPF initiatives around the world in which lack of these skills has been identified as a main area of weakness Linking the use of SNA with the emerging literature on food systems, (FAO 2017). Public and cross-sectoral coordination will also ensure networks, and supply chains (Borgatti and Li, 2009; Brinkley et al., there is overlap between farmers receiving capacity-building and those 2021; Bruce et al., 2021; Rocker et al., 2022) we showed that analyses at supplying food to public institutions (Cirillo et al. 2017). For example, the level of nodes and at the level of the whole network are both needed Kelly & Swensson (2017) found in a cross-case analysis of PFPF that even to understand a PFPF. SNA metrics at the level of the whole network where proper extension services exist, effective implementation of PFPF were meaningful to not only understand the network configuration, but needs an evaluation of the “starting-points” of family farmers so capacity also to map out the big picture. Node level SNA metrics were useful for 13 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 showing the nodes’ prominence and importance within the network. CRediT authorship contribution statement They also enabled analysis of the intermediation and brokerage roles that fostered and facilitated the innovation processes. Based on these Daniel Gaitán-Cremaschi: Conceptualization, Methodology, multiple SNA metrics it was possible to compare three different net­ Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. works and dig down in their structures and innovation contributions. Laurens Klerkx: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Su­ Thus, both analytical levels complemented each other. Our framework pervision. Norman Aguilar-Gallegos: Methodology, Formal analysis, has limitations, especially concerning the SNA. While SNA provided a Writing – review & editing. Jessica Duncan: Conceptualization, powerful visual and analytical method to explore the PFPF networks, Writing – review & editing. Alejandro Pizzolón: Methodology, Writing identify supply and demand side barriers and innovation processes, the – review & editing. Santiago Dogliotti: Methodology, Writing – review method falls short of understanding human agency dynamics in social & editing. Walter A.H. Rossing: Conceptualization, Methodology, networks (Marshall & Staeheli 2015). A further extension of the Writing – review & editing, Supervision. framework could combine SNA with more reflexive approaches such as those offered by Actor Network Theory (Law & Hassard 1999; Latour Declaration of Competing Interest 2005) to inform future hypothesis-based research on the processes by which the PFPF networks form, sustain, innovate, and change over time The authors declare that they have no known competing financial (Marshall & Staeheli 2015; Müller & Schurr 2016). Such analysis may interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence also provide more nuanced perspectives on agency, the power dynamics the work reported in this paper. in the transformation of food systems, and on intermediation and brokerage as forms of network-based political capital (Rossi et al. 2019; Acknowledgements Turner et al. 2020). This research forms part of HortEco project (Horticultural food sys­ 6. Concluding remarks tems based on ecologically intensive production and socio-economically sustainable value chains in the transition economies Chile and This research confirmed that there is no ‘ideal’ network structure for Uruguay), funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific innovation in PFPF. Trade-offs in terms of network structure, density, Research–Science for Global Development (NWO-WOTRO) contract no. centralisation, diversity and composition will always need to be W08.250.304. Special thanks go to all the interviewees of the study. managed. In turn, innovation in PFPF will depend on the maturity of the networks and their actors, i.e., family farmer organisations, supporting institutions, and procuring organisations, etc. The analytical results Appendix A. Supplementary material showed that during the innovation processes the actors’ interactions and roles may lead to different configurations depending on their necessities Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. and phases, which is in line with ideas on dynamic network configura­ org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102325. tions for innovation and scaling (Hermans et al. 2013b; Cofré-Bravo et al. 2019). Our findings showed that different network configurations References with different actors are needed across processes of knowledge and Aguilar-Gallegos, N., Martínez-González, E.G., Aguilar-Ávila, J., 2017. Análisis de redes innovation co-creation, outscaling and upscaling. This has implications sociales: Conceptos clave y cálculo de indicadores. UACh - CIESTAAM, Chapingo, for the literature on public procurement, where actor interactions and México. roles have been understudied and where applications of multi-scale food Assis, S.C.R.d., Priore, S.E., Franceschini, S.d.C.C., 2017. Impacto do Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos na Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional dos agricultores. system approaches have been limited. Ciência Saúde Coletiva 22 (2), 617–626. For the case study in Uruguay, PFPF was found to be an innovation Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Freeman, L.C., 2002. UCINET for Windows, Version 6.59: policy tool with the potential to enact more sustainable local food sys­ Software for Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S.P., Halgin, D.S., 2011. On network theory. Org. Sci. 22 (5), 1168–1181. tems, which was especially noticeable in the initiative in the north- Borg, R., Toikka, A., Primmer, E., 2015. Social capital and governance: a social network western departments. It encouraged sustainable agricultural practices analysis of forest biodiversity collaboration in Central Finland. Forest Policy Econ. by providing an extra price bonus of 10 % for all products from certified 50, 90–97. organic farms, farms in transition to organic or farms producing in an Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Johnson, J.C., 2013. Analyzing Social Networks. SAGE Publications Limited, London, p. 296. agroecological manner; it promoted local-to-local linkages between Borgatti, S.P., 2011. NetDraw: Graph visualization software. Harvard: Analytic family farmer organisations; it created opportunities for collective Technologies. 2002. Structural Holes: the social structure of competition. marketing; it fostered vertical linkages in the value chain and the cre­ Borgatti, S.P., Li, X., 2009. On social network analysis in a supply chain context. J. Supply Chain Manage. 45 (2), 5–22. ation of short marketing channels; it enhanced a better coordination Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D.J., Labianca, G., 2009. Network analysis in the social between the suppliers and buyers, with food baskets adapted to the sciences. Science 323 (5916), 892–895. seasonal and local production, which are more likely to satisfy local food Borsatto, R.S., Altieri, M.A., Duval, H.C., Perez-Cassarino, J., 2019. Public procurement as strategy to foster organic transition: insights from the Brazilian experience. preferences; and it fostered a stronger regional governance system. All of Renewable Agric. Food Syst. 1–9. this with direct social and economic benefits for family farmers and with Brinkley, C., Manser, G.M., Pesci, S., 2021. Growing pains in local food systems: a potential spill over effects on the local community, nutrition and the longitudinal social network analysis on local food marketing in Baltimore County, Maryland and Chester County, Pennsylvania. Agric. Human Values 38 (4), 911–927. environment, which need to be further studied. Bruce, A., Jackson, C., Lamprinopoulou, C., 2021. Social networks and farming Although this analysis was developed prior to the Covid-19 outbreak, resilience. Outlook Agric. 50 (2), 196–205. the pandemic has revealed that dominant food systems are highly Burt, R.S., 1982. Toward a Structural Theory of Action, Vol. 10. Academic Press, New York. vulnerable to disruptions leading to, e.g., limited access to agricultural Caron, P., Ferrero y de Loma-Osorio, G., Nabarro, D., Hainzelin, E., Guillou, M., inputs, closure of distribution channels, food price spikes, and food Andersen, I., Arnold, T., Astralaga, M., Beukeboom, M., Bickersteth, S., Bwalya, M., shortages (Clapp & Moseley 2020; Nemes et al. 2021; Tittonell et al. Caballero, P., Campbell, B.M., Divine, N., Fan, S., Frick, M., Friis, A., Gallagher, M., 2021). Following a plea by FAO et al. (2021) PFPF may be considered an Halkin, J.-P., Hanson, C., Lasbennes, F., Ribera, T., Rockstrom, J., Schuepbach, M., Steer, A., Tutwiler, A., Verburg, G., 2018. Food systems for sustainable development: important opportunity to build more sustainable and resilient food proposals for a profound four-part transformation. Agron. Sustainable Dev. 38 (4). systems that help communities better prepare for and cope with such Chaudhary, A.K., Warner, L.A., 2016. Introduction to social network research: brokerage external shocks. typology. IFAS Extension. University of Florida. Available from: . Cirillo, C., Györi, M., Soares, F.V., 2017. Targeting social protection and agricultural interventions: the potential for synergies. Global Food Security 12, 67–72. 14 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 Clapp, J., Moseley, W.G., 2020. This food crisis is different: COVID-19 and the fragility of Kilelu, C.W., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2017a. Supporting smallholder commercialisation the neoliberal food security order. J. Peasant Studies 47 (7), 1393–1417. by enhancing integrated coordination in agrifood value chains: experiences with Cofré-Bravo, G., Klerkx, L., Engler, A., 2019. Combinations of bonding, bridging, and dairy hubs in Kenya. Exp. Agric. 53, 269–287. linking social capital for farm innovation: how farmers configure different support Kilelu, C., Klerkx, L., Omore, A., Baltenweck, I., Leeuwis, C., Githinji, J., 2017b. Value networks. J. Rural Studies 69, 53–64. chain upgrading and the inclusion of smallholders in markets: reflections on de Schutter, O., Quinot, G., Swensson, L.F.J., 2022. Public food procurement as a contributions of multi-stakeholder processes in dairy development in Tanzania. Eur. development tool: the role of the regulatory framework. In: FAO, Alliance of J. Dev. Res. 29, 1102–1121. Bioversity International and CIAT and Editora da UFRGS. (2021). Public food Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S., Klerkx, L., 2019. Towards a typology of procurement for sustainable food systems and healthy diets – Volume 1. Rome. intermediaries in sustainability transitions: a systematic review and a research de Schutter, O., 2015. Institutional food purchasing as a tool for food system reform. In: agenda. Res. Policy 48 (4), 1062–1075. Global Alliance for the Future of Food. Advancing health and well-being in food Krackhardt, D., Stern, R.N., 1988. Informal networks and organizational crises: an systems: strategic opportunities for funders, Canada. experimental simulation. Social Psychol. Q. 51 (2), 123–140. Dong, L., 2021. Toward resilient agriculture value chains: challenges and opportunities. Kratzer, A., Ammering, U., 2019. Rural innovations in biosphere reserves – a social Prod. Operations Manage. 30 (3), 666–675. network approach. J. Rural Studies 71, 144–155. Douthwaite, B., Kuby, T., van de Fliert, E., Schulz, S., 2003. Impact pathway evaluation: Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social. Reasembling the Social: An Introduction to an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agric. Syst. 78 Actor-Netwrok Theory. University Press, Oxford. (2), 243–265. Law, J., Hassard, J. (Eds.), 1999. Actor Network Theory and After. Blackwell Publishers/ Everett, M.G., Borgatti, S.P., 2012. Categorical attribute based centrality: E-I and G–F The Sociological Review, Malden, MA. centrality. Social Networks 34 (4), 562–569. Marshall, D.J., Staeheli, L., 2015. Mapping civil society with social network analysis: FAO, 2015. Las compras públicas a la agricultura familiar y la seguridad alimentaria y methodological possibilities and limitations. Geoforum 61, 56–66. nutricional en América Latina y el Caribe: Lecciones aprendidas y experiencias. FAO, Mercado, G., Hjortsø, C.N., Kledal, P.R., 2016. Public procurement for school breakfasts Chile. in the Bolivian Altiplan: Governance structures enabling smallholder inclusion. FAO, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT and Editora da UFRGS, 2021. Public J. Rural Studies 44, 63–76. food procurement for sustainable food systems and healthy diets – Volume 1. Rome. MGAP, 2020. Estado de situación de la producción familiar agropecuaria y los FAO, 2017. Public Purchases of Food from Family Farming, and Food and Nutrition agricultores familiares en base al Censo General Agropeucario y Registro de Security in Latin America and the Caribbean Lessons Learned and Experiences. FAO. Productores Familiares Agropecuarios. Montevideo, Uruguay. FAO, 2018a. Strengthening sector policies for better food security and nutrition results. Miranda, A., 2018. Public food procurement from smallholder farmers: Literature review Public food procurement. Policy guidance note 11. FAO. and best practices. Working Paper, No. 176, International Policy Centre for Inclusive FAO, 2018b. Panorama de la pobreza rural en America Latina y el Caribe. Soluciones del Growth (IPC-IG). Siglo XXI para acabar con la pobreza en el campo. Santiago. 116 pp. Morel, K., Revoyron, E., San Cristobal, M., Baret, P.V., 2020. Innovating within or FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO, 2020. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the outside dominant food systems? Different challenges for contrasting crop World 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. Rome, FAO. diversification strategies in Europe. PloS one 15 (3), e0229910. Freeman, L.C., 1978. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Müller, M., Schurr, C., 2016. 1-Assemblage thinking and actor-network theory: Networks 1 (3), 215–239. conjunctions, disjunctions, cross-fertilisations. Trans. Inst. Br. Geographers 41 (3), Gaitán-Cremaschi, D., Klerkx, L., Duncan, J., Trienekens, J.H., Huenchuleo, C., 217–229. Dogliotti, S., Contesse, M., Rossing, W.A., 2019. Characterizing diversity of food Nemes, G., Chiffoleau, Y., Zollet, S., Collison, M., Benedek, Z., Colantuono, F., systems in view of sustainability transitions. A review. Agronomy Sustainable Dev. Dulsrud, A., Fiore, M., Holtkamp, C., Kim, T.-Y., Korzun, M., Mesa-Manzano, R., 39 (1), 1. Reckinger, R., Ruiz-Martínez, I., Smith, K., Tamura, N., Viteri, M.L., Orbán, É., 2021. Gaitán-Cremaschi, D., Klerkx, L., Duncan, J., Trienekens, J.H., Huenchuleo, C., The impact of COVID-19 on alternative and local food systems and the potential for Dogliotti, S., Contesse, M.E., Benitez-Altuna, F.J., Rossing, W.A.H., 2020. the sustainability transition: Insights from 13 countries. Sustainable Prod. Sustainability transition pathways through ecological intensification: an assessment Consumption 28, 591–599. of vegetable food systems in Chile. Int. J. Agric. Sustainability 18 (2), 131–150. Nguyen, H., 2018. Sustainable food systems concept and framework. Food and Gava, O., Favilli, E., Bartolini, F., Brunori, G., 2017. Knowledge networks and their role Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. in shaping the relations within the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in Núñez-Ríos, J.E., Aguilar-Gallegos, N., Sánchez-García, J.Y., Cardoso-Castro, P.P., 2020. the agroenergy sector. the case of biogas in Tuscany (Italy). J. Rural Studies 56, Systemic design for food self-sufficiency in urban areas. Sustainability 12 (18), 7558. 100–113. Otte, E., Rousseau, R., 2002. Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the Gould, R.V., Fernandez, R.M., 1989. Structures of mediation: A formal approach to information sciences. J. Inf. Sci. 28 (6), 441–453. brokerage in transaction networks. Sociol. Methodol. 89–126. Poulton, C., Dorward, A., Kydd, J., 2010. The future of small farms: new directions for Guerra, J., Blesh, J., Schmitt Filho, A. L., Wittman, H., 2017. Pathways to agroecological services, institutions, and intermediation. World Dev. 38 (10), 1413–1428. management through mediated markets in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Elementa: Science Ramirez, M., Clarke, I., Klerkx, L., 2018. Analysing intermediary organisations and their of the Anthropocene, 5. influence on upgrading in emerging agricultural clusters. Environ. Planning A: Econ. Han, Y., Caldwell, N.D., Ghadge, A., 2020. Social network analysis in operations and Space 50 (6), 1314–1335. supply chain management: a review and revised research agenda. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Ricciardi, V., Mehrabi, Z., Wittman, H., James, D., Ramankutty, N., 2021. Higher yields Manage. 40 (7/8), 1153–1176. and more biodiversity on smaller farms. Nat. Sustainability 4 (7), 651–657. Hermans, F., Sartas, M., Van Schagen, B., van Asten, P., Schut, M., 2017. Social network Rockenbauch, T., Sakdapolrak, P., Sterly, H., 2019. Do translocal networks matter for analysis of multi-stakeholder platforms in agricultural research for development: agricultural innovation? A case study on advice sharing in small-scale farming Opportunities and constraints for innovation and scaling. PloS One 12 (2), communities in Northeast Thailand. Agric. Hum. Values 36 (4), 685–702. e0169634. Rocker, S., Kropczynski, J., Hinrichs, C., 2022. Using social network analysis to Hermans, F., Stuiver, M., Beers, P.J., Kok, K., 2013a. The distribution of roles and understand and enhance local and regional food systems. In: Food Systems functions for upscaling and outscaling innovations in agricultural innovation Modelling. Academic Press, pp. 231–256. systems. Agric. Syst. 115, 117–128. Rossi, A., Bui, S., Marsden, T., 2019. Redefining power relations in agrifood systems. Hermans, F., van Apeldoorn, D., Stuiver, M., Kok, K., 2013b. Niches and networks: J. Rural Studies 68, 147–158. explaining network evolution through niche formation processes. Res. Policy 42 (3), Sabourin, E., Samper, M., Sotomayor, O. (Eds.), 2014. Políticas públicas y agriculturas 613–623. familiares en América Latina y el Caribe Balance, desafíos y perspectivas. Economic HLPE, 2017. Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Santiago. Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome, 152 Santacoloma, P., Zárate, E., 2021. How can policy environments enhance small-scale pp. farmers’ participation in institutional food procurement for school feeding? IPES-Food, 2015. The New Science of Sustainable Food Systems: Overcoming Barriers to emerging institutional innovations and challenges in Latin America. In: FAO, Food Systems Reform. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT and Editora da UFRGS. (2021). Public Available from: . Sartas, M., Schut, M., Hermans, F., Asten, P.V., Leeuwis, C., 2018. Effects of multi- IPES-Food, 2016. From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial stakeholder platforms on multi-stakeholder innovation networks: implications for agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. International Panel of Experts on research for development interventions targeting innovations at scale. PloS One 13 Sustainable Food Systems. Available from: . Schneider, S., Thies, V.F., Grisa, C., Belik, W., 2016. Potential of public purchases as Isaac, M.E., 2012. Agricultural information exchange and organizational ties: The effect markets for family farming: an analysis of Brazilian school feeding program between of network topology on managing agrodiversity. Agric. Syst. 109, 9–15. 2011 and 2014. In: Advances in Food Security and Sustainability 1. pp. 69–95. Kelly, S., Swensson, L.F.J., 2017. Leveraging institutional food procurement for linking Schreier, M., 2012. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Sage Publications. small farmers to markets: Findings from WFP’s Purchase for Progress initiative and Scott, J., 2013. Social Network Analysis, third ed. Sage Publications Ltd, London. Brazil’s food procurement programmes. FAO Agricultural Development Economics Sidaner, E., Balaban, D., Burlandy, L., 2013. The Brazilian school feeding programme: an Technical Study 1. Rome, FAO. 101 pp. example of an integrated programme in support of food and nutrition security. Kilelu, C.W., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2013. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms Public Health Nutr. 16 (6), 989–994. in supporting co-evolution of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a Simon, W.J., Krupnik, T.J., Aguilar-Gallegos, N., Halbherr, L., Groot, J.C.J., 2021. smallholder dairy development programme. Agric. Syst. 118, 65–77. Putting social networks to practical use: Improving last-mile dissemination systems for climate and market information services in developing countries. Clim. Serv. 23, 100248. 15 D. Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. Food Policy 111 (2022) 102325 Smith, A., Fressoli, M., Thomas, H., 2014. Grassroots innovation movements: challenges movement in Latin America–a rediscovery of food, farmers and collective action. and contributions. J. Cleaner Prod. 63, 114–124. Agric. Syst. 190, 103098. Spielman, D.J., Ekboir, J., Davis, K., 2009. The art and science of innovation systems Tommasino, H., Cortelezzi, A., Mondelli, M., Bervejillo, J., Carrazzone, S., 2014. inquiry: applications to Sub-Saharan African agriculture. Technol. Soc. 31 (4), Tipología de productores agropecuarios: caracterización a partir del Censo 399–405. Agropecuario 2011. In: Anuario 2014. OPYPA. Uruguay. pp. 491–508. Spielman, D.J., Davis, K., Negash, M., Ayele, G., 2011. Rural innovation systems and Trivette, S.A., 2019. The importance of food retailers: applying network analysis networks: findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders. Agric. Hum. Values 28 techniques to the study of local food systems. Agric. Hum. Values 36 (1), 77–90. (2), 195–212. Turner, J.A., Klerkx, L., White, T., Nelson, T., Everett-Hincks, J., Mackay, A., Botha, N., Swensson, L.F.J., Klug, I., 2017. Implementation of decentralised food procurement 2017. Unpacking systemic innovation capacity as strategic ambidexterity: how programmes and the impact of the policy, institutional and legal enabling projects dynamically configure capabilities for agricultural innovation. Land Use environment: The case of PRONAE and PAA Africa in Mozambique (No. 161). Policy 68, 503–523. Working Paper. Turner, J.A., Horita, A., Fielke, S., Klerkx, L., Blackett, P., Bewsell, D., Small, B., Swensson, L.F., Hunter, D., Schneider, S., Tartanac, F., 2021. Public food procurement as Boyce, W.M., 2020. Revealing power dynamics and staging conflicts in agricultural a game changer for food system transformation. Lancet Planetary Health 5 (8), system transitions: case studies of innovation platforms in New Zealand. J. Rural e495–e496. Studies 76, 152–162. Swensson, L.F.J., Tartanac, F., 2020. Public food procurement for sustainable diets and United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), 2020. Short food supply food systems: the role of the regulatory framework. Global Food Security 25, chains for promoting local food on local markets. Inclusive and sustainable industrial 100366. development. Available from: . farming through public food procurement: the case of home-grown school feeding Valencia, V., Wittman, H., Blesh, J., 2019. Structuring markets for resilient farming programmes. Working Paper, No. 177, International Policy Centre for Inclusive systems. Agron. Sustainable Dev. 39 (2), 25. Growth (IPC-IG), Brasilia. Wittman, H., Blesh, J., 2017. Food sovereignty and Fome Zero: connecting public food Therond, O., Duru, M., Roger-Estrade, J., Richard, G., 2017. A new analytical framework procurement programmes to sustainable rural development in Brazil. J. Agrarian of farming system and agriculture model diversities. A review. Agronomy Change 17, 81–105. Sustainable Dev. 37 (3), 1–24. Wittman, H., Chappell, M.J., Abson, D., Bezner Kerr, R., Blesh, J., Hanspach, J., Tittonell, P., Fernandez, M., El Mujtar, V.E., Preiss, P.V., Sarapura, S., Laborda, L., Perfecto, I., Fischer, J., 2016. A social–ecological perspective on harmonising food Mendonça, M.A., Alvarez, V.E., Fernandes, G.B., Petersen, P., Cardoso, I.M., 2021. security and biodiversity conservation. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1291. Emerging responses to the COVID-19 crisis from family farming and the agroecology 16