Introduction: the need for the (re)territorialization of food systems

The process of deterritorialization in the global food system is a key alteration that enables food products to travel to all corners of the planet but has also contributed to a fracturing between production and consumption, the removal of food from its place of origin, and the overall disassembling of the food chain (Ilbery and Kneafsey 2000; Wiskerke 2009; Dansero and Pettenati 2018). Deterritorialization has contributed to a variety of issues in current food systems in the European Union (EU), including but not limited to climate change, biodiversity loss, inefficient use of land, pollution, slim margins, and problematic working conditions for farm workers, particularly migrant workers (Dudley and Alexander 2017; Read et al. 2022; González-Abraham et al. 2023; Karlsson and Röös 2019; Springmann et al. 2018; Rosenzweig et al. 2020; Jarzębowski et al. 2020; Recanati et al. 2019; Bolokan 2023). These negative externalities become even more pressing when considered from the planetary boundary perspective (Rockström et al. 2009; Gerten et al. 2020). To respond to these challenges, a transformation of the food system is required. The United Nation’s (UN) High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) report in 2019 found that incremental changes are not sufficient to facilitate a sustainable food system transformation and that innovations need to include inclusive and participatory forms of governance, the co-production and sharing of knowledge in communities, and address social issues (HLPE 2019). Sustainable food system transformations can potentially remedy the situation (Rockström et al. 2020; Tanzer et al. 2022) but transforming the system to address the myriad of issues appears to be extremely difficult due in part to the lock-in effects from the current political–economic regime. The following factors have been identified that cause agri-food systems to be resistant to change: embedded nature of technologies, misaligned institutional settings, individual attitudes, political economy factors, infrastructural rigidities, and research and innovation priorities (Conti et al. 2021).

Agroecology is one such concept that can address these food system issues in the EU and foster a sustainable transition in the food system while also fostering (re)territorialization. Agroecology is defined simultaneously as a science, a set of practices, and a social movement (Wezel et al. 2009). Agroecology further integrates multiple disciplines into a broad, holistic approach and has shown significant effectiveness in supporting ecosystem services while also providing social benefits (Wezel et al. 2009; Gliessman 2018; Palomo-Campesino et al. 2018). Various examples of agroecological initiatives worldwide demonstrate the potential of agroecology in addressing food system challenges (Nicholls and Altieri 2018). Moreover, when agroecology is applied through integrated and participatory territorial processes, agroecology can support (re)territorialization by challenging the conventional agri-food hegemony and focusing on local social and political empowerment (Levidow et al. 2021; de Sartre et al. 2019). Nevertheless, current agroecological enterprises are often limited to smallholder agriculture, representing only 30% of the global agricultural area (Graeub et al. 2016; Lowder et al. 2019). Therefore, a critical hurdle for agroecology as a legitimate alternative to the current food system is how agroecology can be amplified or scaled out (Augenstein et al. 2020) to facilitate sustainable food transformations. One approach that can potentially scale up agroecology to effectively enact (re)territorialization is through environmental stewardship applied at a regional level. Environmental stewardship can be defined as actions taken by key stakeholders to consider the environment in pursuit of beneficial environmental and social outcomes from a social–ecological context (Mathevet et al. 2018). Understood as a governance approach that specifically builds up on the relationship between humans and specific places, it could foster an upscaling, copying, and embedding of innovations coming from agroecology into wider society (Ehnert et al. 2018).

The concepts of agroecology and environmental stewardship have begun to be applied in various contexts to facilitate sustainability transitions. For example, agroecology has been applied in Brazil to facilitate a successful agroecological transition (Tittonell 2020), and environmental stewardship has been shown to help guide local communities toward a sustainable transition in Australia (Bonney and Reeves 2023). While frameworks for environmental stewardship and agroecology exist, an integrated regional agroecological stewardship framework that can allow for regional systems to be systematically analyzed, evaluated, and supported to become more sustainable, resilient, and (re)territorialized is lacking. To fill this gap, we developed a framework by investigating the key conditions to fulfill agroecological stewardship at a regional level. The combination of these two concepts could help to expand agroecological initiatives beyond individual operations as well as clarify the way sustainable food system transitions can be governed at a regional scale (Clancy and Ruhf 2010). Specifically, the paper sought to answer the following research questions:

Q1

What are the key components that can define a regional agroecological stewardship framework for the (re)territorialization of food systems in the EU?

Q2

How can this framework be operationalized and applied for empirical work in regions?

In the second section, we describe the methodology we used to develop the framework and how the framework was applied in an illustrative case of the Free State of Saxony (hereafter referred to as Saxony) in Germany. In the third section, we present the analytical framework for regional agroecological stewardship in the EU that can help guide empirical research and regional governance in developing an integrated approach to assess regional stewardship supporting (re)territorialization. Then, we present the results of the application of the framework on the case study in the fourth section. Finally, we discuss our results, limitations, and areas of further investigation in the fifth section and we present our conclusions in the sixth section.

Methodology

To develop the framework, we conducted a scoping literature review (Munn et al. 2018) on the literature related to the following key concepts and scientific debates: agroecology and how it is defined, agroecology and food system transition, agroecological principles, agroecology and (re)territorialization, local and regional environmental stewardship, and community and stakeholder engagement. The articles analyzed were retrieved from the following databases: Scopus, Springer, and Google Scholar. Articles were selected based on whether they included conceptual contributions to the concepts of agroecology or stewardship, whether they related agroecology to governance to consider wider agroecological practices beyond a strict farm management approach, and whether territory was considered. Following the literature review, content analysis was conducted (Gerbic and Stacey 2005) and a relational concept-mapping approach (Conceição et al. 2017) was used to determine the essential elements of regional agroecological stewardship. The concept map developed from the literature review was further elaborated to produce an analytical framework by defining actors, the stewardship network and stewardship actions from stewardship and transition concepts, agroecological activities from agroecological principles and agroecological research agendas, and (re)territorialization by considering territorialization spatial configurations.

To test the framework, we chose a single-case study which allows, according to Yin (2018), to gain a deep insight into its feasibility, help refine the framework, and also identify gaps and limitations in the framework. In addition, practical insights into the complexities and challenges of regional agroecological stewardship can be revealed and help to establish best practices and potential solutions that can also be integrated into the framework. To evaluate the framework on what conditions are the most important and what governance practices should be adjusted, the Free State of Saxony, Germany (hereafter referred to as “Saxony”), was selected to serve as an illustrative case study to investigate and validate which conditions are the most relevant for the framework. Saxony was selected as the case study for several reasons. Importantly, its agricultural structure shares many similarities when compared to the country as a whole while also having a diverse range of stakeholders in the food system. From a multi-level perspective (MLP) as developed by Geels and Schot (2007), the presence of food councils, community-support agriculture (CSA), and other niche actors indicate that there are initiatives that are seeking to alter the socio-technical regime (Morrissey et al. 2014). In addition, the recent elections in Saxony saw Green party member, Wolfram Günther, become the minister for energy, climate protection, environment, and agriculture which also drew interest toward how state institutions are pursuing more sustainable policies (SMEKUL 2023d). Lastly, as a part of East Germany, Saxony can serve as a useful representation of how food systems in the reunification regions are reintegrated and what challenges such regions are facing due to lock-in effects and path dependencies (Batáry et al. 2017).

To apply the framework to the case study region, we conducted interviews with relevant stakeholders to ensure that key actors (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007) could inform the current status of regional agroecological stewardship in the region while also helping to validate and refine the analytical RAS Framework. Balancing the range of different stakeholders, we interviewed 1 CSA, 2 sustainable producers, 1 local food council, 1 civil society organization, 2 state institutions, and 1 agroecology expert. The full list and details of interview participants can be found in Appendix 1. We led semi-structured interviews with these participants where they were asked about the agroecological activities they performed as well as how stewardship and governance from the regional level can support agroecological practices. In total, eight in-depth interviews were conducted. The guiding questions for the interviews can be found in Appendix 2.

Regional agroecological stewardship (RAS) framework

Building on the results of the literature review, we defined regional agroecological stewardship as a continuous process that gathers key local and regional stakeholders to align their motivations and capacity to enable the governance of agroecological activities and the (re)territorialization of food systems in a regional context. The results of the literature review were also used to construct a concept mapping which was in turn used to develop an analytical framework. Specifically, we identified four key components in the concept-mapping phase that were used to construct the analytical framework: (1) the social–ecological context, (2) actors, motivations, and capacity, (3) the stewardship network, and (4) outcomes. The fourth component is further separated into two key outcomes: (1) agroecological activities and (2) (re)territorialization. Ultimately, the analytical framework proposes an integrated approach that can be adapted to local conditions, considers social interactions between stakeholders, clarifies the concept of agroecology, considers temporal dynamics, and includes a participatory bottom-up approach, meeting the five key requirements to assess agroecological transitions according to Darmaun et al. (2023).

Component 1: the social–ecological context

The first component of the RAS Framework focuses on the social–ecological context both within the region of interest and outside the region that can influence what shape regional agroecological stewardship can take. The identification of the social–ecological context is critical for understanding the lock-in effects and path dependencies that can prevent a sustainable food system transition based on agroecological stewardship (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014; Schlüter et al. 2014). Conti et al. (2021) identified the factors that cause agri-food systems to be resistant to change (cf. “Introduction”). It was important that the framework consider these factors and addresses them through the design features.Using the context elements of the socio-ecological system (SES) framework as the basis for the context of the RAS Framework, social and ecological feedbacks can be assessed and interactions over different time scales can be determined as advised by Binder et al. (2013).

To analytically define the context of the framework, the contextual factors from the framework were used as the social–ecological context dictates which stewardship actions are feasible, appropriate, and effective when considered through a social, cultural, and political lens (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2009). Specifically, the social–ecological context component of the RAS Framework was defined by the biophysical, policy, and socio-economic conditions of the region (Anderies and Janssen 2016). Biophysical conditions in the context of regional agroecological stewardship focus on soil and climate conditions, ecotype, and water access (Jones et al. 2014). The policy conditions range from the EU level to national, regional, state, and local levels and also include trade agreements and policy and market feedbacks (Daugbjerg 2003; Heyl et al. 2021). The socio-economic conditions include the agriculture sector scale and culture, market access and autonomy, social and environmental equity, regional land use, and regional economic health. Through the evaluation of the biophysical, policy, and socio-economic conditions, lock-in effects and path dependencies that can prevent and limit changes to the regional food system can be identified.

Component 2: actors, motivations, and capacity

The second component focuses on the various potential actors that are relevant to regional stewardship. According to Bennett et al. (2018) and Kapeller et al. (2022), regional and local environmental stewardship heavily depends on the actors that can influence such governance. They further identify that the motivations and capacities of actors are critical for determining whether actors take on a stewardship role. The framework incorporates and defines actors, motivations, and capacity in relation to regional agroecological stewardship. Actors can be individuals, networks, and organizations (Bodin 2017). While actors have the potential to be stewards, it is important to consider whether they have the motivations to perform such a role. Motivations can be divided into two categories, intrinsic and extrinsic where intrinsic motivations are related to psychological needs such as feelings of competence, self-acceptance, autonomy, and belonging (Ryan and Deci 2020; Tabernero and Hernández 2011) and extrinsic motivations are related to separable outcomes or outcomes that can be separated from the self (Ryan et al. 2003).

Actors must also have the capacity to steward. Two central factors that affect the capacity of actors are: (1) local community assets and (2) broader governance factors. Local community assets are described as the resources and capabilities that can be used to take action, such as infrastructure, technology, financing, knowledge, rights, wealth, or the lack thereof (Chapin et al. 2010; Gutiérrez et al. 2011). According to Bennett et al. (2012), local community assets can be separated into six subcategories: (1) social capital (i.e., relationships, trust, and networks), (2) cultural capital (i.e., connections to place, traditions, knowledge, and practices), (3) financial capital (i.e., income, credit, and debt), (4) physical capital (i.e., infrastructure and technology), (5) human capital (i.e., education, skills, and demographics), and (6) institutional capital (i.e., empowerment, agency, and options). Governance factors can also limit or enable actors’ agency, options, and capacity. These include institutions such as formal and informal laws and organizations and structural processes related to power such as economic inequality and discrimination (McLaughlin and Dietz 2008; Lockwood et al. 2010).

Component 3: stewardship network

The stewardship network component of the framework focuses on coordinated actors that are aligned in terms of their respective motivations and capacities. The stewardship network is a critical component of the framework as its actions can demonstrate how relevant actors strive to influence the social–technical regime through coordinated action and grow niche initiatives (Ehnert et al. 2022). While Duff et al. (2017) developed a capacity-building stewardship model to improve regional agroecosystem sustainability where they identified a stewardship network as a key component to develop certified products, they did not identify generalized actions and functions for a stewardship network. Based on environmental stewardship literature that is explicitly regional (i.e., Lidskog et al. 2011; Miller et al. 2022; McKinney 2008), we synthesized that stewardship networks and their actions can vary based on the network’s heterogeneity and formalization.

In terms of the heterogeneity of a stewardship network, actors are typically arranged in hybrid networks or multi-stakeholder partnerships that include public and civil society organizations, NGOs, and local actors (Connolly et al. 2014; Finkbeiner and Basurto 2015; Romolini et al. 2016). Diverse stakeholders within the stewardship network are critical, as diversity among stakeholders has a higher likelihood of altering social norms which can reinforce cooperative behavior and support stewardship (Levin 2006). The level of formalization of the stewardship network influences the ability to have a formal organizational structure, setting agendas, public funding opportunities, and the circulation of formal knowledge (Šūmane et al. 2018; Asprooth et al. 2023). Increased collaboration for stewardship can lead to the stewardship network becoming more formalized and even institutionalized (Österblom and Folke 2013). Depending on the specific arrangement and formalization of the network, stewardship networks can vary in the actions they can perform. Stewardship actions can include identifying regional challenges and priorities, information sharing, deliberation, networking, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), advocacy, outreach, and training (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014; Duff et al. 2017; Turnbull et al. 2020). The RAS Framework can also be applied through a participatory approach such as through workshops through the stewardship network component where a more heterogeneous, formalized, network can be more explicitly future-thinking by considering scenario development and transition pathway designs, constructing shared visions of the future, backcasting, and iterative governance management (Duru et al. 2015; Mermet et al. 2005; Kajikawa 2008; Mahmoud et al. 2009; Therond et al. 2009; Mitter et al. 2020; Biggs et al. 2012; Vergragt and Quist 2011; Armitage et al. 2008).

Component 4: outcomes

The fourth component of the framework focuses on the outcomes of regional agroecological stewardship and in particular, two clear outcomes of interest which are agroecological activities and (re)territorialization.

Component 4.1: agroecological activities

The first outcome of interest in the RAS Framework is agroecological activities which were defined from the results of the literature review on agroecological principles, scaling, research agendas, and agroecological food system transformation (Wezel et al. 2018a, b, 2020; Gliessman 2016; Gascuel-Odoux et al. 2022; Tittonell et al. 2020; Toffolini et al. 2019). To understand the agroecological activities, we first summarized the relevant findings from the literature review.

The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition report on agroecology (HLPE 2019) consolidated agroecological principles to generate change toward sustainable food system transformations: (1) recycling; (2) input reduction; (3) soil health; (4) animal health; (5) biodiversity; (6) synergy; (7) economic diversification; (8) co-creation of knowledge; (9) social values and diets; (10) fairness; (11) connectivity; (12) land and natural resource governance; and (13) participation. Principles 1–7 relate to the agroecosystem scale and are incremental changes that lead to a transformation at the farming system level, and principles 9–13 affect the greater food system with a particular focus on the co-creation of knowledge across scales (Wezel et al. 2020). Gliessman (2016) also applied a multi-level perspective, where there are five levels in a sustainable agroecological transition: (1) input reduction in inputs and increased recycling, (2) substituting alternative practices to promote co-existing biota (Singh et al. 2018), (3) redesigned farming systems, (4) closer relationships between producers and consumers, and (5) a new global, sustainable food system (HLPE 2019). Gascuel-Odoux et al. (2022) developed a research agenda to scale up agroecology in Europe where they identified key themes including exploring the landscape spatial and temporal levels to improve to agroecosystem services and integration of agroecology into food systems. Tittonell et al. (2020) also developed a research agenda that focused on agroecological transitions for large-scale producers in the EU and found relevant domains such as breeding for diversity (Kell 2011; Wayman et al. 2017), scaling up complexity management (Brummer et al. 2011; Botreau et al. 2014), and co-innovation with farmers, value chains and policy makers (Lacombe et al. 2018).

Based on the agroecological principles, transition levels, and research agendas described above, we elaborated five categories of agroecological activities that could be performed at a regional level. The five categories are: (i) efficient use of resources and input reduction, (ii) scaling up management complexity, (iii) redesigned farming systems, (iv) integration of agroecology into food systems, and (v) co-innovation. Importantly, the five agroecological activities were developed to allow for the activities to be clearly defined and assessed. A key point to note is that the order of the agroecological activities does not imply a chronological order of progression but rather the nature of transition in terms of the spatial scale and involvement of stakeholders. The agroecological activities are presented in detail in Table 1.

Table 1 Possible agroecological activities
Full size table

Component 4.2: (re)territorialization

Within the framework, (re)territorialization is defined as the second critical outcome which considers the spatial dimension of agroecological activities and stewardship actions. We prioritized (re)territorialization as a key outcome because it directly addresses the issues of deterritorialization. We operationalized (re)territorialization through three spatial configurations with varying levels of territoriality. The first spatial configuration that (re)territorialization can take is re-localism where the local food system is defined from a spatial perspective and then the “local” is determined from what is produced from the interlinkages between people, places, and resources (Hendrickson and Heffernan 2002; Kremer and DeLiberty 2011; Sonnino and Marsden 2006). The second configuration is re-regionalism where the local food system is defined based on where food should come from and focuses on the disparate local actors that work together on a larger, more comprehensive scale that conceptually forms a region (Donald et al. 2010). This would accept the notion of how different “local” areas are interconnected within a region to form a complex, territorialized food system (Clancy and Ruhf 2010). Re-regionalism also confronts sustainability and justice as only fixating on localism does not automatically lead to a more sustainable or resilient food system (Morgan and Sonnino 2010). Lastly, re-embeddedness is the last spatial configuration where food is re-embedded into places, local ecologies, and social networks. Re-embeddedness would reflect a food system where the many layers of the food system are changed and would support re-localism and re-regionalism (Sonnino and Marsden 2006). In particular, re-embeddedness would see the proliferation of CSAs, as they rely on immediacy where producers and consumers can physically engage, often develop local products that carry location-specific cultural value, and engage social relations through face-to-face interactions and through trust and transparency in their operations (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007; Basile and Cavallo 2020).

To assess (re)territorialization and its potential spatial configurations, one approach that can be considered is territory relations. There are three types of territory relations: (1) spatial relations, (2) resource relations, and (3) social relations. Spatial relations can be understood as how actors can be physically close or apart, from direct producer–consumer engagement to great distances involving global trade. Assessing spatial relations can help support re-localism by defining the local boundary and determining what issues affect the local region, particularly related to socio-spatial injustice, and what resources are available (DuPuis and Goodman 2005; Allen 2010). The second relation is resource relations, both material and immaterial, that are available to the territory. Resources can range from very specific location-based resources that carry traditional or cultural meanings and values to standardized resources that adhere to certain principles of sustainability. The last relation is social relations which focus on actors engaging in relationships that enhance territory resources and pursue strategic objectives (Bagliani et al. 2010; Dansero and Puttilli 2014). Assessing the social relations of territory can help address the spatial configuration of re-regionalism as the configuration emphasizes actions that focus on the social relations of territory, where diverse stakeholders are involved to make a more inclusive food system.

Another approach to assess (re)territorialization is using the concept of proximity which considers how distance can mediate the functioning of society through physical space, networks, and values (Harvey 2006). According to Dansero and Pettenati (2018), proximity can be divided into three distinct dimensions: (1) spatial proximity which would see the physical reconstruction of a local food system, (2) cognitive proximity which would reflect a food system that is based on shared values, and (3) network proximity where more diverse groups and networks are involved to make a more inclusive food system. Spatial proximity can be used to assess re-localism where physical distance is the most important consideration for understanding the local food system. Focusing on cognitive and network proximity, re-regionalism can be achieved when actors can engage through a foundation of shared values and engage in coordinated efforts to make regulatory changes and promote greater authority to local officials (de Sartre et al. 2019). Finally, supporting actions that consider all aspects of territory relations and proximity would support re-embeddedness where unique elements are emphasized. This can emerge as an alternative food network (AFN) or as a unique food assemblage (Blanco et al. 2017).

Interrelations between the components

How the components are linked is particularly relevant in understanding how regional agroecological stewardship functions as a reflexive process. Critically, the social–ecological context influences actors and their respective motivations and capacities which affects the broader stewardship actions and outcomes. The outcomes impact the social–ecological context of the region which in turn affects the regional agroecological stewardship. Within the framework itself, there are three key feedback loops: (1) network sustainment between actors and the stewardship network (Connolly et al. 2014), (2) situation analysis between the stewardship network and the social–ecological context (Ostrom 2011; McGinnis and Ostrom 2014), and (3) iterative engagement between the stewardship network and the outcomes (Kliskey et al. 2021).

The actors, motivations, and capacity interact with the stewardship network through the network sustainment feedback loop when actors become active participants in regional agroecological stewardship. This feedback loop helps to determine how diverse, formalized, and coordinated the stewardship network is, particularly as the stewardship network develops over time. The stewardship network can improve its capacity and resources by continued interaction with network participants as well as by reaching out and gaining new members with shared motivations (Duff et al. 2017). The stewardship network interacts with the social–ecological context through the situation analysis feedback loop where the stewardship network continuously identifies region-specific issues and challenges (Mermet et al. 2005; Kajikawa 2008). This includes identifying the lock-in effects and path dependencies that exist in the region and allows the RAS Framework to be adapted to local conditions. The iterative engagement feedback loop allows for the stewardship network to test, validate, refine, and expand upon the stewardship outcomes, helping to shape future actions (Dale et al. 2019). M&E conducted by the stewardship network supports the iterative engagement feedback and is critical for any actions taken to consider their effectiveness, understand outcomes, and communicate with the public (Kliskey et al. 2021). Stewardship goals can often vary in their timelines, typically requiring longer timeframes for successful change to emerge and be apparent (Kapeller et al. 2022). By persisting in engagement with stakeholders and conducting M&E, stewardship actions can become more strategic and reduce unintended consequences.

This reflexive engagement is important in ensuring that actors are continually testing, refining, validating, and expanding their performance of agroecological activities and territorial relations. Through these feedback loops, the stewardship network is able to understand the entire effect of regional agroecological stewardship, from the intended as well as the unintended consequences of stewardship actions, the potential indirect benefits and amplifying effects that occur beyond the stewardship scheme, the resulting distribution of costs and benefits between different stakeholders, and the different timeframes for certain outcomes to develop (Larrosa et al. 2016; Courtney et al. 2013; Pascual et al. 2014; Kapeller et al. 2022) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Analytical framework for regional agroecological stewardship in the EU. The social–ecological context (biophysical, policy, and socio-economic conditions) determines the relevant actors and their respective motivations and capacities. In turn, actors can form a stewardship network based on aligned motivations to enhance their capacity and to perform coordinated stewardship actions. In the stewardship network, actors evaluate the situation and determine the regional challenges. The arrangement and formality of the network influence what actions are possible. In performing stewardship actions to support positive outcomes related to agroecological activities and (re)territorialization, the network can iteratively engage with the region based on these outcomes and feedbacks to these outcomes

Full size image

Results of the application of the framework

The analytical framework was used to evaluate regional agroecological stewardship in Saxony. The results revealed several key insights for the framework and its potential.

The social–ecological context

Agriculture is an important sector of Saxony’s economy, with 54% of the total area in the state devoted to agriculture. The agricultural sector is dominated by few, large farms. While farms with an agricultural area (AA) of up to 50 ha constitute 62% of all farms in Saxony, they cultivate only 6% of the total AA. Agricultural land prices have steeply increased due to increasing demand for agricultural land even as agricultural land becomes scarcer (SMEKUL 2023c). In terms of self-sufficiency, Saxony has higher levels compared to the whole of Germany for plant products including cereals, rape and turnip rape, potatoes, and fruit. In contrast, the state is lacking in the production of vegetables, with less than 10% of its vegetable consumption coming from the state compared to approximately 35% for the country (SMEKUL 2022). Regarding the biophysical characteristics of the state, the soil is predominantly sandy in the north, fertile in the center, and soil from the weathering of solid rock in the south (SMEKUL 2023b). Since 2013, due to the effects of climate change, the region has had higher temperatures, increased drought occurrences, increased flooding risk from short-term precipitation surpluses, and longer term precipitation deficits (SMEKUL 2023a). Regarding the policy conditions, the Green Party entered the governing coalition in 2019 and Green Party member, Wolfram Günther, became the minister for energy, climate protection, environment, and agriculture (SMEKUL 2023d). The state institutions, the Saxon State Ministry for Energy, Climate Protection, Environment, and Agriculture (SMEKUL) and the State Office for the Environment, Agriculture, and Geology (LfULG), have seen an increased focus on sustainable agriculture since the new minister entered their role.

Actors, motivations, and capacity

The identification of actors in Saxony and their motivations and capacity revealed which actors could participate in the stewardship network. The state institutions, SMEKUL and LfULG, each reflected significant capital capacity but were limited by their institutional capital and their motivations as neutral state institutions to take on an active stewardship role for agroecology. In contrast to the state institutions, the Leipzig Food Council (LFC) was one organization that had the motivation and capacity to take on a central stewardship role. As a newly created organization, they were interested in supporting and increasing coordination in the Leipzig food system. Allmende Taucha was another institution that demonstrated how to act as a catalyst for sustainable production in Leipzig and the surrounding region. Their capacity within stewardship came primarily from social, human, and institutional capital, where they focused on helping to establish and maintain networks between sustainable producers and other relevant stakeholders in the local and regional food system. Their motivations were also clear in that they were explicit that they were working toward a more sustainable food system and sought to work with sustainable partners. The producers—Gemüsekooperative Rote Beete (GRB), Hof Mahlitzsch, and Biobauernhof Bohne—shared similar motivations where sustainable production and direct marketing were key priorities in their respective operations. All three producers participated in some way in agricultural networks or associations, enhancing their institutional capacity (organizations and networks) to take active stewardship roles. In particular, Hof Mahlitzsch participated in the Demeter brand movement and GRB was a member of the Solidarity Agriculture Network (SoLawi), a network of producer groups that practice community-supported agriculture (CSA).

Stewardship network

A stewardship network in Leipzig and the surrounding region was identified. The network was composed of the LFC, Allmende Taucha, and eight SoLawis with a particular concentration in the region of Taucha (including GRB). While the heterogeneity of the stewardship network was not particularly diverse, it was particularly focused on supporting the SoLawis, which can contribute to agroecological activities and (re)territorialization. Stewardship actions demonstrated by the network include the identification of regional challenges, information sharing, networking, and outreach. The SoLawis were loosely coordinated through reoccurring meetings and on occasion, through coordinated political demonstrations. The LFC supported the SoLawis by hosting a working group where the SoLawis were able to have their recurring meetings to discuss issues and coordinate actions. In addition, the LFC was in the process of adapting the public procurement plans in the city to provide more nutritious food and promote procurement from local producers. They also recently developed a bio-region model for Leipzig and the surrounding area. This was a critical action from a stewardship perspective in determining the boundary of stewardship and spatial relevance of relevant stakeholders in the region’s food system. Allmende Taucha was another group playing a significant role in supporting the stewardship in Leipzig and the region. They worked closely in previous projects with the SoLawi members around Leipzig and recently started a new project to work with all the established CSAs in the state to potentially establish a new association to help the CSAs approach local authorities and address the issues that they have faced due to their statuses as alternative legal entities. Nevertheless, we did not see clear signs of transition or pathway design from the stewardship network. This was not unexpected as such actions require a high level of network heterogeneity, formalization, and coordination.

The state institutions contributed to the regional situation analysis and understanding of regional challenges. SMEKUL recognized that issues of farm succession have exacerbated land-grabbing issues in the region, leading to land concentration and the perpetuation of conventional farming approaches where few employees can manage large tracts of agricultural land. Stewardship input from state institutions was also vital for setting priorities and providing resources to key stewardship initiatives. SMEKUL was in the process of developing a report on agricultural self-sufficiency in the region to determine the strategic targets and goals that should be prioritized. The state recognized that vegetable production is lacking in the state compared to other food products. For the stewardship network, this lack of vegetables could be a key focus and target while also allowing greater access to state resources. As an example, the SoLawi cluster surrounding Leipzig was focused on vegetable and fruit production which could address the self-sufficiency dearth if the SoLawi vegetable production was amplified with greater access to resources.

Outcome: agroecological activities

Many of the agroecological activities 1 and 2 referenced in Table 1 were performed by the interviewed producers. All three producers noted that they did not use chemical inputs, produced a variety of crops to increase biodiversity and nutrient cycling, ensured soil coverage, adjusted to site-specific issues, and integrated animals into the production process when possible. All three also procured their seeds from sustainable manufacturers that were either based in Germany or Europe. All three producers used machinery such as tractors for seeding and harvesting but Biobauernhof Bohne minimized the use of the tractor and instead used horses for tilling to reduce soil compaction. All three producers considered site-specific issues and adjusted their processes accordingly. For example, GRB had two main fields and they grew wind-resistant plants on the field with stronger wind conditions. Both Hof Mahlitzsch and Biobauernhof Bohne had some form of animal integration in their production process, where they utilized animals to provide natural fertilizer on their fields. Certain actions in agroecological activity 3 referenced in Table 1 were also performed by the interviewed producers. Crop rotation was performed through multi-year plans by all three producers to support nutrient cycle and soil health. However, other farm redesign actions were difficult to achieve. All producers interviewed commented that they were interested in landscape changes such as agroforestry (all three producers integrated fruit trees but did not have systems that resemble agroforestry where trees are integrated into the crop system) but were facing or faced challenges due to landscape regulations. Due to state and federal laws on changes to rented land at the landscape level, producers need to restore land to its original condition when vacating. Hof Mahlitzsch specified as a producer using rented land, they were reluctant to make landscape-level changes due to the high costs. Biobauernhof Bohne also did not plant hedges initially as renters and planted hedges only when they purchased the land. In contrast, GRB had a strong relationship with the owner of the land, the Protestant Church, who was open to larger changes proposed by the cooperative.

In terms of agroecological activity 4 referenced in Table 1, all the producers interviewed had either farm shops with delivery options or distribution stations where consumers could directly obtain their food products. This was particularly important during the COVID-19 pandemic when global supply chains were disrupted and the producers with direct marketing saw increased sales and engagement with the local community. In contrast, the Russia–Ukraine War increased input costs which resulted in increased prices and reduced demand. All three producers held events with their respective communities and provided training opportunities to their workers and employees and the LFC publicized food-related events around the city and surrounding region. The LFC also focused on changing public food procurement in Leipzig to prioritize healthier and local options. The LfULG provided educational workshops for producers to gain experience in new practices, tools, and technologies with some workshops focused on sustainable practices. Interestingly, GRB did not use a brand for certification but instead argued from the perspective of the SoLawi Network that transparency and mutual trust within the network and the respective members can serve as an alternative approach to compliance with social and ecological standards. Lastly, the agroecological activity 5 of co-innovation referenced in Table 1 was limited. The LfULG researched and developed local and adapted breeds but there did not appear to be collaboration in the process. The state institutions were interested in the development and understanding of agroecology but their engagement with other relevant stakeholders regarding agroecology was limited. The agroecology expert from the UFZ reported that research had been conducted on the SoLawis surrounding Leipzig and also on food self-sufficiency of the state, but not specifically focused on regional agroecological stewardship.

Outcome: (re)territorialization

In terms of assessing the outcomes based on (re)territorialization, Saxony did not reflect a region where the spatial dimensions of agroecology were fully met. Re-localism was in progress but still limited. The LFC had recently developed a bio-region model for Leipzig and the surrounding area as the key coordination focus for developing a more sustainable food system. However, at the framework application, the model was still in an early phase and required further coordination to develop regional value chains. In addition to organizing their own events including educational workshops and youth outreach, the LFC advertised events hosted by local sustainable producers including the SoLawis in the region, food processors, restaurants, and other stakeholders in the region’s food system. As previously noted, the interviewed producers had direct points of sales with consumers even during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating how re-localism can increase local food system resilience. However, the interview participants also remarked how the Russia–Ukraine War increased energy costs and produce prices, demonstrating how global crises can also affect smaller producers and limit re-localism. In addition, producers held events where they could interact and engage with consumers directly, provided workshops and educational tours to youth and other groups, and training opportunities for their workers.

In the case of re-regionalism, the interview participants referenced certain regulatory challenges. Actors connected to the SoLawi network, Allmende Taucha and GRB, indicated that SoLawi members faced issues with local authorities that made the establishment of alternative forms of agricultural organization difficult. Legal issues in establishing such organizations were further exacerbated by financial challenges to obtain funding. Sourcing from conventional methods such as bank loans proved difficult as financial institutions were often unfamiliar with the organizational structure of solidarity agriculture. To overcome these challenges, Allmende Taucha hoped to help CSAs in the region to establish a new association that would approach the local and state authorities and address the similar issues that they all have faced due to their respective statuses as alternative legal entities. Another policy that was limited was public procurement. The LFC was in the process of adapting the public procurement plans in the city to provide more nutritious food and promote procurement from local producers. However, SMEKUL noted that deterritorialization had caused a wide majority of public institutions to abandon having kitchens in their respective canteens and instead use catering to provide food for their residents, limiting the potential impact of public procurement for agroecology until more kitchens are brought back.

Saxony did not reflect a food system where re-embeddedness was met. However, the SoLawi network demonstrated a certain level of re-embeddedness with its approach to certification. Specifically, GRB stated they did not use a brand for certification but instead took the position that transparency and mutual trust within the network and the respective members can serve as an alternative approach to compliance with social and ecological standards. They believed that the network’s approach of a participative guarantee system can functionally act as a locally focused quality assurance system where trust in their organization is developed through transparency, personal contact, and observation.

Discussion

This paper presented an analytical framework to analyze regional agroecological stewardship. Specifically, the framework can be applied in a region to evaluate the performance of stewardship actions and agroecological activities, the level of (re)territorialization, and diagnosis challenges. The application of the framework in Saxony revealed key regional challenges limiting regional agroecological stewardship, the identification of a stewardship network taking action to promote outcomes related to agroecology and (re)territorialization, and how agroecology and (re)territorialization can be mutually reinforcing through place-based certification. The results also revealed new insights for the RAS Framework and a way forward to further develop the framework to include a methodological guide that uses a mixed-methods approach that can be used to steer agroecological transitions.

The application of the framework in Saxony revealed a number of regional challenges that are limiting agroecological stewardship in the region. In particular, rising land prices and differences between renting and ownership of land have contributed to an agricultural structure where land has become increasingly scarce and makes transitioning toward agroecology more difficult (Rotz et al. 2019). In addition, the downsizing of state responsibilities and functions from the implementation of CAP and the preference toward market forces to determine agricultural shifts has led to lower support for smallholder farmers and hard-to-reach farmers, which are the recipients that are most in need (Labarthe et al. 2022; Labarthe and Laurent 2013; Labarthe and Beck 2022). For sustainable farmers, limitations on landscape changes have prevented more transformational changes for farms at the landscape level which could provide greater benefits toward biodiversity (Migliorini and Wezel 2017). CSAs have faced challenges with local authorities unfamiliar with their unique legal structure and logistical challenges for distribution (Sulistyowati et al. 2023).

One insight from the application of the RAS Framework was how agroecology and (re)territorialization can be mutually reinforcing. In particular, the results showed how place-based certification approaches can fulfill the desired outcomes of both agroecology and (re)territorialization and be a key target for stewardship actions. By developing a certification based on trust and transparency, the CSAs present a different approach to how certifications can contribute to (re)territorialization. Applying the territory relation of resources, certifications such as fair trade or organic from various brands are not typically concerned with the territorial implications of the origin of the food (Getz and Shreck 2006). In the case of the CSAs in the SoLawi network, their alternative approach reveals a promising strategy to scale up agroecology while stressing the placeness of the region and understanding place as a brand (Kajima et al. 2017). This alternative approach to certification allows the CSAs to de-commodify their products, and ensure that the food cannot be realized without the relationship between the producer and the territory (Matacena and Corvo 2020). By addressing not only environmental sustainability but also socio-economic issues in food systems (Vicente-Vicente et al. 2023; Espelt 2020; Hvitsand 2016), the innovation of place-based certifications from CSAs reveals how agroecology and (re)territorialization can go hand in hand and offers a potential direction for further research into the combination of these distinct concepts.

The application of the framework to the case study identified a stewardship network in one large city in Saxony (Leipzig) and the surrounding region and the performance of actions toward outcomes of agroecology and (re)territorialization. However, we did not see significant interaction between the stewardship network with state institutions or with other stewardship networks at different, potentially overlapping spatial levels in Saxony. The application of the framework in a region where the stewardship network interacts with state institutions and across spatial levels could provide new insights. Notably, interventions from the public sector can be precarious for bottom-up stewardship approaches. Agroecology, particularly its social movement elements, is often subverted when interacting with public policy and institutionalization (Giraldo and McCune 2019). Funding cycles and payment schemes from public sources can generate a dependence on funds that can be altered and shifted when political regimes change and alter community relations that may previously have valued other principles to fixate on a monetary logic (Timmermann and Félix 2015). It would also be useful to investigate further how stewardship network interaction can happen across spatial levels and how it can affect overall regional agroecological stewardship. Considering adaptive collaborative governance (Westerink et al. 2017) and nested governance approaches (Wyborn and Bixler 2013) may be potential ways to further develop the stewardship network component to consider spatial coordination and cross-scale interaction.

To investigate the case study, we used interviews to apply the framework to gain nuanced insights into key stakeholder perspectives as recommended by D’Annolfo et al. (2017) to the regional agroecological stewardship in Saxony. However, as highlighted by Tavory and Timmermans (2014), we recognize that interview responses can be subjective and potentially introduce misattribution of motivations and actions through abductive reasoning to fit the narrative. We recommend applying the framework multiple times to improve the validity of the analysis and to capture the temporal dynamics of regional agroecological stewardship. As a future direction, the framework could be enhanced through the development of a methodological guide to help further operationalize the framework. Such a methodological approach should incorporate a mixed-methods approach where quantitative methods are used to identify causal relationships and key regional patterns and the qualitative approach is expanded to include participatory approaches and stakeholder workshops which would increase the robustness of the findings of the framework (Creswell and Clark 2017). The development of a methodological guide could allow the RAS Framework to be expanded to address another purpose of facilitating the creation of strategic goals to align and conduct stewardship actions to achieve desired outcomes of agroecology and (re)territorialization. This could also allow the stewardship network component to be expanded to include participatory foresight elements (Rosa et al. 2021; Hebinck et al. 2018; Chaib et al. 2023) to deepen the participatory bottom-up approach (Binder et al. 2010). The re-application of the RAS Framework with a methodological guide for further operationalization in Saxony could help inform the stewardship network on how to address the previously mentioned regional challenges while also providing new insights for the regional agroecological stewardship concept.

Conclusion

Punctuated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the energy crisis due to the Russia–Ukraine War, the EU requires new approaches to increase the resiliency of its regional food production. The RAS Framework addresses this need by providing an approach to evaluate local and regional food systems that can make regions more resilient to global crises while also empowering these regions to develop cultural and place-based food. To advance the RAS Framework further, future research should investigate how stewardship networks can interact with state institutions without losing focus on key outcomes related to agroecology and (re)territorialization. We also recommend clarifying how stewardship networks work across spatial levels and how place-based certifications can enhance agroecology and (re)territorialization. A methodological guide could also be useful to further operationalize the framework and improve its findings. Moreover, the framework should further be applied in other regions with differing contexts to assess whether the key concepts and their interconnections are still applicable and whether new insights can be learned. The merging of these concepts will still require further consideration, and the development of the RAS Framework should be the start of more exploration on how these concepts can support the regions in the EU to directly rebuild and (re)territorialize their respective food systems.

Appendix 1: Interview participants

Actor

Description

SMEKUL—Saxon State Ministry for Energy, Climate Protection, Environment, and Agriculture (Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Energie, Klimaschutz, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft)

The state ministry is responsible for state policy related to agriculture, forestry, hunting and the environment. With a broad scope, the organization has certain tasks devoted to agriculture (SMEKUL 2023a, b, c, d)

LfULG—Saxon State Office for the Environment, Agriculture and Geology (Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie)

LfULG advises SMEKUL on technical matters including agriculture. The LfULG is responsible for the implementation of agricultural and food law and is the main interface with producers (LfULG 2022)

Gemüsekooperative Rote Beete eG (GRB)

They are a community-supported agriculture (CSA) cooperative located in Taucha northeast of Leipzig and a member of the Solidarity Agriculture network (SoLawi), a transparent and solidary producer and consumer network that is independent of the market (Gemüsekooperative Rote Beete eG 2023)

Hof Mahlitzsch

A sustainable farm based in the region of Lommatzscher Pflege in the southeast of Leipzig and is focused on Demeter-brand farming which provides guidance on certain sustainable agricultural practices such as biodynamic farming methods (Hof Mahlitzsch 2023)

Biobauernhof Bohne

An organic farm founded in 1994 and located in the district of Mittelsachsen. They are part of the Gää e.V. organic association which certifies organically produced raw materials and food (Biobauernhof Bohne 2023)

Leipzig Food Council (Ernährungsrat Leipzig)

A civil society organization founded in 2019 to foster nutrition and ensuring the sustainable supply of regional, seasonal, and healthy food in the long term to Leipzig. They are an association that includes civil society groups, farmers, processors, distributors, restaurants, and municipal representatives from Leipzig and the region (Ernährungsrat Leipzig 2023)

Allmende Taucha e.V.

The organization was founded as a non-profit organization in 2019 and aims to develop a local and jointly organized food supply for the Taucha area, the Delitzscher land, and the city of Leipzig (Allmende Taucha 2023)

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ (Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH UFZ)

As an environmental research center based in Leipzig, the UFZ focuses on various topics including agriculture, land use, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and sustainable management (UFZ 2023)

Appendix 2: Guiding questions

1. Farm questions

Introduction and farm background

What is your name?

Where do you work?

What does the farm produce?

Is livestock raised on the farm?

What crops/produce are produced on the farm?

How large is the farm?

How many members does the farm have?

What is your role on the farm?

Biophysical conditions

Could you describe the soil conditions at the farm?

How long is the growing period?

How much annual rainfall does your location receive?

Motivations and capacity

What area does the farm cover?

What are the goals of the organization?

In your opinion, what are the current, most important issues for farmers?

In your opinion, how important is environmental sustainability in food production?

Agroecological activities

How is the soil quality managed?

Does the farm use chemical fertilizers? What kind of fertilizer is used?

Does the farm want to reduce chemical fertilizer use?

Does the farm use hedges such as trees or bushes to separate fields?

Is the farm using local breeds or making their own breeds?

Does the farm breed its own crops?

Does the farm have animals or livestock?

If so, are they used to support crop production?

What kind of equipment or machinery is used?

Does the farm use resources from the region such as plant residues, compost, manure, or trees?

Does the farm use any species to improve the soil quality or plant growth?

Does the farm adjust its production to site-specific conditions?

Does the farm have any certifications? Could you explain more?

Agroecological design

Does the farm rotate crops on the same fields depending on the season?

Does the farm use agroforestry such as planting crops with trees?

If so, are multiple crop and tree species used?

Does the farm grow different crops in the same field at the same time?

Does the farm sell directly to customers through markets or something similar?

I see the farm offers a wide variety of products, are all the products produced on the farm? If not, where do the other products come from?

Is the farm involved in processing its products that need food processing?

Does the government/state provide any incentives for doing agroecology or sustainable agriculture?

Does the farm have any future plans for expansion/growth?

What problems or challenges does the farm have for expanding?

Does the farm cooperate or work with any other farms?

Governance

Does the farm receive any benefits/subsidies from the state to do sustainable agriculture?

Does the government or state help the farm in any way?

Does the government or state hurt the farm in any way?

What do you think the state or government should change to help the farm?

Engagement

Does the farm participate in any farmer associations or food councils?

Does the farm train employees or work with a school?

Are farmers taught any agroecological practices?

Does the government provide training?

Does the farm work with any organizations to produce more sustainably?

Does the farm participate or host any special events with consumers, other farmers, or any organizations?

M&E

What indicators does the farm track besides yields and profits?

How does the farm collect biological data?

Does the farm share any data with any farmer associations or government institutions?

Other

Have recent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the current energy crisis affected the farm? If so, how?

2. Food council questions

Introduction and background

What is your name?

Where do you work?

What is the name of the organization?

How many members are in the group?

Motivations and capacity

What area does the organization cover?

What are the goals of the organization?

In the organization’s opinion, what are the current, most important issues for farmers?

In the organization’s opinion, how important is environmental sustainability in food production?

Agroecology

What are the organization’s thoughts on agroecology?

Does the organization promote or support agroecology to its members? Why or why not?

How does the organization promote local food production?

How does the organization support farmers?

How does the organization support communication between farmers?

What kind of training or advice does the organization provide to farmers?

How does the organization connect producers and consumers?

Does the organization work with farmers to develop bio products? If so, how?

Does the organization work with farmers to obtain sustainable certifications? If so, how?

Does the organization conduct research?

Governance

Does the organization think the state’s agricultural system benefits from subsidies or are they harmful? Why?

What are the largest barriers to more sustainable agriculture?

How does the government support local food production?

How does the government limit local food production?

What do you think the government should do to change the farming industry?

Have you seen a change in government involvement with agriculture and food policy in Saxony?

Engagement

What are some events the association has organized?

How have the association’s events helped farmers?

Does the organization have communication with the state or local government?

Does the organization work with the state or local government to support food production?

Does the organization work with any other groups? If so, who and why?

Does the organization work with any training or knowledge learning programs or schools?

Does the organization collect any biological or agricultural data? If so, how?

3. State institution questions

Introduction and background

What is your name?

Where do you work?

What is your specialization in the state office?

How many members are in your research/focus group?

Motivations and capacity

What are the stated goals of the state office related to agriculture?

In the office’s opinion, what are the current, most important issues for farmers?

In the office’s opinion, how important is environmental sustainability in food production?

Are there topics related to agriculture or food that the state office is not responsible for?

Agroecology

What are the state office’s thoughts on agroecology?

Does the state office promote or support agroecology to its members? Why or why not?

How does the state office promote local food production?

How does the state office support farmers if they wish to adopt more sustainable practices?

How does the state office support communication between farmers?

How does the state office connect producers and consumers?

Does the state office work with farmers to develop bio products? If so, how?

Does the state office work with farmers to obtain sustainable certifications? If so, how?

Does the state office develop computer models on agriculture? Do any of the models focus on agricultural transitions?

Does the state office have or developed any breeding programs?

Does the state office develop any tools or equipment for monitoring or adopting more sustainable production practices? Remote sensing, digital agriculture, etc.?

Governance

What are the largest barriers to more sustainable agriculture?

Does the state office promote alternative forms of agriculture?

Does the state office have specific policies to support smaller producers in expanding their operations?

Does the state office have specific policies to encourage sustainable food production?

Does the state office provide financial incentives to pursue sustainable practices for producers?

Does the state office think the EU CAP helps local producers be sustainable with subsidies? Why or why not?

Is the state office involved in the public procurement of food?

What is the state policy on requiring hedges and other landscape fixtures for agriculture?

Does the state office find regional self-sufficiency in food production a viable possibility?

Is the state’s self-sufficiency a policy goal or target?

What policies that influence producers are outside of the scope of the state office?

Engagement

What resources or knowledge does the state office provide to producers?

How does the state office receive and integrate feedback from local and regional producers?

How does the state office communicate developments in sustainable practices such as agroecology, organic farming to producers?

Does the state office conduct site assessments?

Does the state office interact with or support any farmer associations or food councils?

Does the institute provide training toward sustainable methods/approaches to production?

Does the office receive many farmers in its workshops?

Does the state office work with any training or knowledge learning programs or schools?

Does the state office provide ways for local and regional producers to increase their market access and autonomy?

Does the state office collect any biological or agricultural data? If so, how?

Does the state office provide any data to producers?

NGO questions

Introduction and background

What is your name?

Where do you work?

What is the name of the organization?

How many members are in the group?

Motivations and capacity

What area does the organization cover?

What are the goals of the organization?

Agroecology

Does the organization provide advice or support to farmers?

Does the organization talk with farmers about their practices/sustainability?

Does the organization focus on specific types of sustainable agriculture such as agroecology?

Does the organization work with conventional farmers to become more sustainable?

Does the organization connect SoLawis?

How does the organization connect producers and consumers?

Does the organization do direct marketing with farmers?

How does the organization differentiate/distinguish products from farmers?

Does the organization work with farmers to obtain sustainable certifications? If so, how?

How did the concept of the distribution station develop?

Who participates or is involved with the distribution stations?

How many distribution stations are there? Does the number vary seasonally? Have they increased over the years?

Are the farmers who participate in the distribution stations practicing sustainable farming?

Are there any limitations in the types of products that are available? Seasonal differences? Certain lack of nutrition?

Does the organization provide strategic communication to farmers about what products consumers are interested in/have a higher demand for?

Is the organization interested in creating new markets for farmers? Public procurement?

Can you describe some of the connections that have developed between producers and consumers from the distribution stations?

Does the organization conduct research?

Does the organization plan to expand?

Are there any specific challenges that the organization is facing?

How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the organization?

Engagement

What are some events the association has organized? Events such as workshops, seminars, demos, parties, and camps.

How have the association’s events helped farmers?

Does the organization have communication with the state or local government?

Does the organization work with any other groups? If so, who and why?

Does the organization work with any training or knowledge learning programs or schools?

Does the organization collect any biological or agricultural data? If so, how?

Governance

In the organization’s opinion, what are the current, most important issues for farmers?

Are there specific ways you think the local, state, or regional government can do to address these issues?

In the organization’s opinion, what are the largest barriers to more sustainable agriculture? Are there ways the local or state government can address these issues?

Does the organization think the state’s agricultural system benefits from EU subsidies or are they harmful? Why?

Are there specific ways the government can support, improve, or expand the operations of the organization?

Have you seen a change in government involvement with agriculture and food policy in Saxony?

Research institution questions

Introduction and background

What is your name?

Where do you work?

What is the name of the organization?

Can you tell me a bit about the projects you are currently involved in regarding Saxony and its food system?

What are the goals of the projects?

How many members are in the group?

Agroecology

In your opinion, what are the current, most important issues for farmers in Saxony? Are there specific ways you think the local, state, or regional government can do to address these issues?

In your opinion, what are the largest barriers to more sustainable agriculture? Are there ways the local or state government can address these issues?

Is coordination between relevant stakeholders an issue in Saxony?

What are the limitations to how Saxony can focus on regional or state self-sufficiency?

Are there changes at the national or EU level that could help Saxony become more viable as a steward to promote local and regional food production?

Are you working or consulting farmers about sustainable food system transitions?

Do you currently see the state or a region in Saxony as a steward for more sustainable agriculture? Why or why not?

In Saxony and in Germany in general, the focus for sustainable agriculture is organic. Should other types of sustainable agriculture such as agroecology also be a focus?

Would pursuing agroecology be more successful for achieving a more sustainable food system in Saxony?

Do you see any limitations to pursuing regional agroecological stewardship for Saxony?

In your opinion, do you find regional self-sufficiency in food production a viable possibility?

Should the state or region have food self-sufficiency as a policy goal or target?

Would more comprehensive agroecological changes at the landscape level such as agroforestry and diversified cropping limit the region’s ability to be more self-sufficient?

Are there any new innovations that can help Saxony have a more sustainable food system?

How do researchers communicate developments in sustainable practices such as agroecology, organic farming to producers?

Regional food self-sufficiency can be useful in some crises and difficult in others, how should the region or state balance the different types of possible crises?

Reterritorialization

Should local breeding and breeding programs be a priority for the state for the region’s sustainable food transition?

Which actors do you believe are the most important for regional agroecological stewardship?

What are the most significant barriers to achieving sustainable food transitions in Saxony?

How can existing land-use practices be modified to support agroecological stewardship in Saxony?

Should social–economic outcomes be a priority for the state?

Do you have communication with the state or local government about sustainable food system transitions?

Do you work with any other groups focused on sustainable food transitions? If so, who and why?

Many initiatives are launched but are only temporary. Are there key initiatives or innovations that should be permanent to help Saxony have a more sustainable food system?

M&E

After speaking with producers, agricultural and biological was rarely collected. Are there specific data that would help Saxony act as a steward for more sustainable agriculture/food system?

Are there data limitations for agriculture in Saxony?

And are data gaps a big issue that is limiting sustainable agriculture in Saxony?

Are there any models being developed on sustainable food transitions for Saxony? Do any of the models focus on or can be adapted for regional agroecological stewardship?

Do you find recommendations are answered by politicians?

Governance

In your opinion, what are the current, most important issues for farmers? Are there specific ways you think the local, state, or regional government can do to address these issues?

In your opinion, what are the largest barriers to more sustainable agriculture? Are there ways the local or state government can address these issues?

Is coordination between relevant stakeholders an issue in Saxony?

What are the limitations to how Saxony can focus on regional or state self-sufficiency?

Are there changes at the national or EU level that could help Saxony become more viable as a steward to promote local and regional food production?