Survival strategies of producers involved in short food supply chains following the outbreak of COVID‐19 pandemic: A Hungarian case‐study

Abstract

The outbreak of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused unprecedented disruption to the global food distribution network (Barrett, 2020; Hobbs, 2020; Torero, 2020). Although the major impact, with the exception of those who suffered from medical issues, appeared to be economic (Béné, 2020; Laborde et al., 2020), the spread of COVID intensified existing concerns regarding the (un)sustainability of the global food system, potential threats to food security (of the poor, mostly) and to the resilience of local food system actors (Béné, 2020; Laborde et al., 2020; Swinnen, 2020; Volpato et al., 2020). Many authors consider the COVID-related situation as a real-time experiment concerning the sustainability transition (Bodenheimer & Leidenberger, 2020; Cohen, 2020), with a special focus on local food systems and short food supply chains (SFSCs). These alternative systems may fulfil a number of roles and functions and include a diversity of actors as well as marketing channels, making them reliable elements of the food system in terms of maintaining operations, compared to the relatively small number of transnational agro-food enterprises (Hendrickson, 2015; Lamine, 2015; Tendall et al., 2015). A consensus seems to be evolving about their importance during COVID (Blay-Palmer et al., 2020; Boons et al., 2020; Cummins et al., 2020; Swinnen, 2020). Individuals and local networks are hypothesised to be able to adapt more easily and rapidly to changing conditions than larger ones (Cabell & Oelofse, 2012). On the other hand, heterogeneous responses were reported by the grey literature and the media, and concerns have been formulated by many authors that many SFSC producers faced challenges accessing the market due to lockdown measures and social distancing and/or labour shortages (Holden, 2020; Torero, 2020). In fact, solid empirical evidence about the actual strategies, opportunities and responses of small-scale producers employed to take advantage of the current situation (or at least moderate its impacts) is still lacking. The aim of this article is to document early, first-wave COVID-19 impacts experienced by small-scale food producers in Hungary and to differentiate some of their early responses. In presenting empirical data, this work contributes to filling a knowledge gap about the actual reaction of small-scale farmers to the market-related disruptions caused by the pandemic, not only in terms of economic outcomes, but also in relation to strategic decision-making and behavioural-attitudinal transformations. The concept of resilience was used to build a framework. The related literature is reviewed in the following section. The multifaceted nature of local food systems, alternative food networks and SFSCs has prevented the formulation of an academic consensus about definitions (Michel-Villarreal et al., 2019; Schmutz et al., 2018). In this article, with consideration to the core concepts specified by Gruchmann et al. (2019), Schmutz et al. (2018) and others, the focus was on those small-scale producers who offered their products to spatially proximate costumers directly or through a limited number (ideally zero) of intermediaries. Defining resilience is similarly challenging (Tendall et al., 2015). According to Schipanski et al. (2016), resilience applied to agriculture is ‘the capacity of food systems, including the actors within them … to cope with interacting and cumulative forces that undermine food access and equity’ (p. 600). Béné (2020) developed a model of resilience pathways to study the resilience of local food system actors (e.g., farm households) in the context of COVID. Although the model was originally proposed for the study of the COVID experience in low and middle income countries, it offers generalisable conceptual resources. In this model, resilience resulted from a set of capacities, meaning a combination of assets and other resources. Béné (2020) emphasised the role of financial assets and, to a lesser extent, social capital during COVID, while the latter was also found to be exceptionally important by many others (e.g., Paganini et al., 2020; Thilmany et al., 2021; Tittonell et al., 2021). The role of human capital in the COVID context was also validated (Darnhofer, 2021; Tittonell et al., 2021). In his model, Béné (2020) stressed that farm households might use these assets, or forms of capital (understood as ‘inputs’ in the resilience process), to shape adequate strategies that created resilience per se or intermediary outcomes. Adequate strategies increased the chance of positive outcomes (e.g., an increase in income, more balanced cash and workflow as a result of changes, access to other suppliers etc.), or reduced the possibility of harmful consequences (such as selling productive assets, ceasing operation or reducing health-, education- or high-quality food-related expenses). In the model, intermediary outcomes (resilience) determine long-term outcomes (individual or household wellbeing). The focus of this article is on producers’ actual responses (the development of specific marketing strategies) that potentially helped them to better adapt or mitigate the impact of the shock caused by the pandemic. Recently, an emerging body of literature has focused on sources of resilience in the context of producers participating in SFSCs: the issue is particularly relevant in light of the pandemic. Smith et al. (2016) claimed that SFSC producers successfully coped with crisis in post-flood Australia due to their local production and sourcing of inputs, greater flexibility, lower level of dependence on modernised infrastructure (which could not be used on wet soil) and in-depth local knowledge in terms of social relations and infrastructure such as passable roads. Sources of resilience of producers selling at farmers’ markets were found to be the direct consumer–producer interactions that instantly conveyed preferences, as well as a diversity and abundance of customers (with diverse preferences) and producers (who offered a wide range of products). Spaces for direct interactions also provided opportunities for personal learning and knowledge exchange for all actors involved (King, 2008; Milestad et al., 2010). One strength of SFSC producers was found to be their reflexive character (being critically self-aware and willing to restructure their business in the face of challenges; Moore et al., 2014). According to Darnhofer et al. (2010b), resilience at the farm level can be built through adaptability and change when learning and innovation are explicitly targeted outcomes. The role of place-based experiential learning and networking appears to be particularly important (Darnhofer et al., 2016; Knickel et al., 2018; Šūmane et al., 2018). In an unpredictable economic environment, flexible farm organisation (i.e. remaining open to new activities) and diversification and risk-sharing strategies both in terms of production and marketing can enhance the adaptive capacity of farmers (Benedek et al., 2021; Darnhofer et al., 2010a; de Roest et al., 2018). Furthermore, the ability to reorganize to respond to an unforeseen event was shown to be ensured by strategies that enable bricolage and tinkering, or in other words, that make reconfiguration and reorganisation possible (Darnhofer, 2021; Zagata et al., 2020). Based on the findings presented above, the pathway model of Béné (2020) was extended. Some specific sources of resilience appear to have been important in the COVID context, while others have been irrelevant (Figure 1). Direct consumer–producer interactions (forms of social capital) represent the core of SFSCs–these enable preferences to be conveyed; in the context of COVID, an increase in demand for (fresh) products (Butu et al., 2020; Kolodinsky et al., 2020) and potentially a rise in home delivery services. A redundancy (abundance and replication of system components and procedures that guarantee operational continuity in the case of shocks) and a diversity of actors (not labelled as a resilience capacity in the Béné model) ensured that some producers emerged to respond to new demands in spite of challenges. A redundancy of facilities (a combination of financial assets and social capital, such as stocks themselves, as well as cooperating to share cooling or delivery capacity, as described by Smith et al. (2016) in a post-flood context) might be less important in situations of increased isolation. The reflexivity of producers (human capital) was supported by individual learning mechanisms. The role of producer interactions and cooperation (another form of social capital) was questionable during the pandemic due to the need for social distancing, although evidence exists that marketing channels based on the cooperation of producers, such as box schemes and consumer purchase groups, experienced unprecedented growth (Diesner, 2020; Nemes et al., 2020; Wheeler, 2020). To the best of our knowledge, the role of agricultural knowledge systems (universities, extension services, etc., also understood as factors of social capital) in promoting the resilience of small-scale producers has not been studied before. However, to acknowledge their potential importance in the transition of agro-food systems to sustainability (Mapiye et al., 2021; Van Oost & Vagnozzi, 2020), and particularly in the face of unexpected turbulence et al., 2020), are in but not in The of the article the empirical that was to and the responses of small-scale is to (Béné, 2020). the of this resilience was and the level of of an SFSC was or in the lockdown such a and to a and of early responses by the related short and (which was as farmers for due to the in spite of the it by the sources of marketing and channels were the focus of The empirical was based on The important local measures and through SFSCs in Hungary are The of in was in an increase in demand for and home delivery services. that not or including offered food for The operation of markets was explicitly by the of many of them as local not to take or other A markets to on a on only of of to or markets and the of farmers’ experienced a in et al., 2020). were through a set of a of and open that were and when measures were in producers were by of specified networks who been in with the related farmers for a these networks on small-scale producers and local food systems, in and from were within the for purchase groups, and to the character of these (e.g., were concerning ensured the of farmers to respond during a of and caused by the of of the provided through to the of the to other on producers involved in is not The were with an in-depth of an (a were through during the of and at the of the of and the other such from the a was based on their to a The a as it involved a level of at of from the (e.g., related to a of to the (e.g., a of customers could be from to individual through diverse marketing the the producers were in was Based on in due to COVID-related a in was that a producer experienced a change or an increase in an was for the that all other of were to the importance of the marketing channels used both and during COVID to the income these channels A was not use this this marketing is important in terms of is to the used for in was easily understood by for the specific channels, the was used for through the of a producer or an The number of channels producers used was a this all the channels that were importance was as at least A was to and use of for the of or use of such at all were also concerning the of were and a the the of production were is are some not related to emerged in relation to the outbreak of COVID. In a COVID-related were The strength of this was that it the of their as well as the of producers, from the of in the importance of marketing channels were and their was with as that farmers might have strategies to the COVID-related were applied to farmers based on their with the aim of marketing strategies were through were to be the that SFSCs the potential to the economic of small-scale producers the outbreak of and based on the important elements of strategies of small-scale The number of was through & of and were the of more might have been in relation to the relatively small The of provided the Although all the and less producers, a that involved home delivery and not personal with customers the and by social distancing to resilience the importance during the of COVID was reported to or were involved in the was in the following to the the concerning that were not involved in the but used to marketing and farm were by with to better the the of the are reported with the of the in One and small-scale producers in our In terms of of the were in the are in in as in terms of diversity increased the of the of producers experienced or in to the level of many of these that this a of their marketing were able to take advantage of the situation by of them are and to the of at to the and our have producers by an income of were to have experienced an increase in These were in terms of production capacity to use marketing strategies (of in terms of able to adapt but were small to be able to respond to the used marketing channels on in the the in the importance of the important marketing channels from the shown in The channels and channels based on were relatively the pandemic, while channels in the outbreak of COVID, markets the important marketing also in with findings (Benedek et al., 2018; The in was experienced in relation to and by lockdown as well as only that offered and home delivery were able to and markets not only by a in consumer due to social distancing, but the on for are a personal of in customers in is in of the farm to the of The importance of this due to the need for social distancing, but the personal nature of the related prevented a major (Benedek et al., 2020). The role of the outbreak of the pandemic. These small not home delivery and, similarly to suffered economic due to the increased and the of Many of these to in spite of the that them to The that the importance of consumer purchase was and not during the pandemic, might need some In consumer purchase and box schemes to be the of the pandemic (Diesner, 2020; Nemes et al., 2020; Wheeler, 2020), but producers in our from such schemes are more in the context, and it appears that the of our producers could not take advantage of this in are shown in the of the outbreak of COVID. at of suffered while a for a small number of producers this was more important as a the with COVID-related to the of production and were less during COVID, this is not in The importance of the is shown in (the latter not to for producers more than and were that were an that is not shown in Some are with from producers Many of the the producers are ones that also to all actors in the food However, many in in appear to be specific to producers involved in is the latter direct with their and at of was by the Furthermore, due to the small these producers could to the new situation rapidly by changing their production new such as by the outbreak of COVID in the of or making home to of or changing consumer to the related to the of the social or changes, to strategies was more to in the case of and agricultural In the the of the are The of the of the The the of with that were not involved in the that to be from the of other based on the are shown in are shown in in the The of the the that small-scale farmers may be based on their marketing strategies during the pandemic. include and less strategies regarding the use of specific marketing channels described by resulted in a of an increase in all the have been have to the to may home but it it to their products in productive assets, this producer to mitigate Béné (2020) in his resilience pathway model as harmful to those who a the the market to their through only have it was to have been more challenging with more direct due to the but the of our are products of are selling many of and other these through our not before. Many of our customers are or special are of their them home delivery services, for market in to in with are to them about has resulted in a more personal with customers many of them on but it a of our at the market our increased as some that offered social increased their who have in marketing and with customers can easily them and more as demand have a on of all our products on a have created a delivery A at the channels compared to of other and and the more use of home that these producers stressed the importance of maintaining direct that et al. (2020) to the of the COVID in spite of the challenges by social distancing The level of the that these producers used this was least for The importance of for these producers was also in the Although was not many producers from of were in the a were of the local system of developed by the local The of the producers in this were to consumer purchase all were used to and cooperating for the of to to in other & et al., 2018; et al., is low small-scale farmers et al., open to cooperation is a of them (Benedek et al., 2018). To the to the of the of might have strategic of the role of and the importance that was on social the related literature is to in the the importance of the of social capital in the context of food systems during COVID has been stressed by Thilmany et al. Darnhofer Darnhofer and and of more specified by an increase in the importance of home delivery the were in this of the that to to their of However, rapidly to related to of production might have created unexpected in others, and an to in To on the importance of and strategies that enable bricolage (Darnhofer, and also to for all the work and that supported the of a marketing (the of a set of marketing and of diverse resilience (Béné, 2020) within a short of the of an SFSC is presented in the following (the is as in the an and was used to the and and not for marketing to in the (which during and in the capital, some a local farmers’ market to cash the crisis developed a new business model that focused on individual customers from the farmers’ through home delivery services. also his to a of through his was able to to a number of new customers in the more than individual but such from through production to form was many customers through or by to be and a of The system with as more about and and by the of the the system was well set and as consumer demand his with a with the of an involved the of for customers could and were to However, the to only the purchase of were on the an and was also based on a many a of as originally not to for to with social However, as the new business model an unexpected to some and to a delivery was not an as this have the of and was not possible during the of the of the on was used to experiential learning and to small in his to and use when their from and to used were to build a system, but was to to in was but also to a and marketing that The was also of and early was of used to make for all the and with the increased that was to the marketing involved work during the and on at a farmers’ with less work from The new business model offered the potential for more balanced and workflow and created a of for the of innovation and and of social networks and was also to the of the of a of from his not only to the when to work but also in relation to the used such as and to for the business when Furthermore, used and to social and to new importance on not only with his customers but to their changing To flexible and character the business with innovation and learning (human the use of a and network capital) and a of However, not all producers were as and as as was by the described Although case is not it the by the that at the farm on the of a specific combination of resilience capacities, including strategic The following the in the light of sources of Although the aim was to for and diverse marketing strategies, the of the use of specific of marketing channels also to the importance of forms of social The importance of direct was although the in many as the role of and increased with social crisis the use of social for but also to in with customers to direct in Furthermore, the greater of producers as a on might be a Although in SFSCs has potential for resilience (Michel-Villarreal et al., 2021; et al., 2020), a may be a of resilience small-scale producers et al., 2020; et al., 2021). The importance of diversity and redundancy as sources of resilience is as a number of producers were able to major the of A diversity of production and marketing strategies for and Although a of and delivery capacity redundancy many from crisis others were able to this by other A redundancy of and facilities to be important when was challenging or procedures (such as specific and bricolage To in SFSCs for to during the of COVID that producers were able to resilience the of a producer in social such as and a to maintaining (or with customers and other forms of social financial assets were also the of human capital in and an to was of the outbreak of the pandemic. One of this work is its of may have been at the of the conditions that potentially the development of the of in the Although our aim was to of crisis and the of factors that were were in the may be with as a of farm and food system and of change the findings described are specific to the context or (e.g., to other countries, or at a is a for article has described and the strategies developed by small-scale producers that emerged in to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. important COVID and other of such as and is that social relations were due to the need for and on while infrastructure and a of food was not a for specific the a resilience was with special on the strategic decision-making of small-scale producers concerning the distribution of A was applied to individual as well as The evidence provided that the of producers to disruptions was could on the to of but in other to in and on the of resilience involved in SFSCs were able to respond rapidly and to many producers who been in direct faced challenges when channels in The to was the strategic of marketing channels through the adaptive use of a heterogeneous set of this of other of production or the of business The of SFSCs (e.g., low that of the latter be limited 2020; Smith et al., as strategies at the individual study evidence that many producers their reflexive as only On the other hand, as of COVID (or are be to an increase in actual marketing channels might on context (the of home to be during the of a marketing that to more channels might be an important of economic human capital (e.g., greater to take the etc.), as well as the of the of producers in social and networks might also be The individual of producers to and respond is but resilience could be through knowledge exchange networks and services. and Nemes the and Nemes to the data, including the for the the that were by and Nemes the and provided for the framework. the in the with the of Nemes and authors the and to the the The authors their to the producers who in the and to the of for producers, for for the social of of of and of of and of and and the for their during the of The of with is to for The authors that is of study was supported by the and in the form of Nemes procedures in human were in with the of the and/or and with the and its or in our was and their personal were are in the article The is not for the or of by the than be to the for the

Topics & Concepts