8

interaction (Renting et al. 2002). The typical means

through which these interactions take place include
farmers markets, roadside sales, farm shops and
pick-your-own. As Renting et al. note, box schemes,
mail order and the growing area of online sales offer
possibilities to extend the geographical reach of
these direct links.
2. Proximate SFSCs A second category of SFSCs
extends beyond direct interaction and involves a
range of local institutions which act as intermediaries
in some way between the consumer and producer.
One set of examples would be local shops and
butchers but also more specialised retailers such
as whole-food shops, gourmet shops, etc. Another
important set of intermediaries and one of signicant
importance in terms of championing local
producers and acting as tastemakers are restaurants,
hotels, and cafes etc. which develop relationships
with and feature local producers (Duram and
Cawley, 2012). Another important type of proximate
SFSC which is receiving increased attention is the
small scale producers group or cooperative which
allows farmers to brand their products collectively
under a unique and authentic local brand. Irish
examples include the Ring of Kerry Quality Lamb
Group and Leitrim Organic Farmers Co-op. Because
of their cooperative structure, Country Markets
can also be classied as proximate SFSCs. It is these
intermediaries producers coops, restaurants etc.
which take over the role of guaranteeing product
authenticity.
3. Extended SFSCs A third category further enlarges
the reach of SFSCs to extended relations in time
and space. Here, products are sold to consumers
outside the region of production who may have no
personal experience of that locality. In most cases
products are exported from the region to national
markets, but some extended SFSCs may span large
distances covering the globe. Examples of these are
well-known regional specialities like Parma Ham or
Parmigiano Reggiano cheese but also `fairtrade
products like coffee and tea. These kinds of networks
are still `short food supply chains: it is not the
distance over which a product is transported that is
critical, but the fact that it is embedded with value-
laden information when it reaches the consumer, for
example, printed on packaging or communicated at
the point of retail. This enables the consumer to make
connections with the place/space of production
and, potentially, with the values of the people
involved and production methods employed. The Irish
food industry is at a relatively early stage of exploiting
the potential of this type of SFSC.
1.4 Current Interest in SFSCs Amongst
Irish Farmers
Despite a growing local food sector, the great majority
of Irish farmers have not engaged with this dynamic and
remain price-takers in commodity markets rather than
price-setters in short food supply chains (Macken-Walsh,
2009). Recent gures (Meredith, 2011) suggest that just
4.1% of Irish farmers have diversied and out of these,
only 0.4% have gone into adding value to food. National
Farm Survey data from 2008 demonstrates clearly the
very limited extent to which the notion of direct selling
has penetrated the consciousness or behaviour of the
Irish farming population. Of (849) farmers surveyed, only
5% said they would even consider producing a product
or selling existing products in a farmers market or farm
shop
10
.
A variety of reasons have been put forward for this
apparent estrangement of conventional indigenous
farmers from the value-added or differentiated food
sector. The dominance and (qualied) success of
the commodity-based and export-oriented model of
agriculture is perhaps also one of the strongest, though
most underappreciated barriers to the development
of a more vibrant and inclusive local foods sector.
Quite simply, the great majority of what is produced
in Ireland does not readily nor easily lend itself to
direct selling, demanding as it does some level of
processing, refrigeration, etc. (Macken-Walsh, 2009).
Further, substantial nancial and other investments
have been made in existing farm systems, sometimes
over generations of farm operators, investments which
cannot easily or blithely be overturned (Hennessy and
Thorne, 2005). In their study of farmer engagement
with the Rural Development Programme (2007-2013)
Heanue and Macken-Walsh (2010) also suggest that
a range of bureaucratic and nancial obstacles, such
as compliance with LEADER eligibility criteria, match-
funding requirements, etc. have acted as barriers to
greater engagement by farmers in entrepreneurial
10
Of those who said they would not, the most common reasons given were; not interested (35%), followed by no suitable products (15%), no time (22%), too old (13%),
enterprise mix unsuitable (7%) and not proftable (2%). The responses were more or less consistent across all farm-types.