Abstract
ContextThere is growing recognition that food systems must adapt to become more sustainable and equitable. Consequently, in developing country contexts, there is increasing momentum away from traditional producer-facing value chain upgrades towards efforts to increase both the availability and affordability of nutritious foods at the consumer level. However, such goals must navigate the inherent complexities of agricultural value chains, which involve multiple interactions, feedbacks and unintended consequences, including important but often surprising trade-offs between producers and consumers. Objective and methodsBased around the 'Loop' horticultural aggregation scheme of Digital Green in Bihar, India, we develop a system dynamics modelling framework to survey the value chain trade-offs emerging from upgrades that aim to improve the availability of fruits and vegetables in small retail-oriented markets. We model the processes of horticultural production, aggregation, marketing, and retailing – searching for futures that are ‘win-win-win’ for: (i) the availability of fruits and vegetables in small retail markets, (ii) the profits of farmers participating in aggregation, and (iii) the sustainability of the initial scheme for Digital Green as an organisation. We simulate two internal upgrades to aggregation and two upgrades to the wider enabling environment through a series of 5000 Monte Carlo trajectories – designed to explore the plausible future dynamics of the three outcome dimensions relative to the baseline. ResultsWe find that ‘win-win-win’ futures cannot be achieved by internal changes to the aggregation scheme alone, emerging under a narrow range of scenarios that boost supplies to the small retail market whilst simultaneously supporting the financial takeaways of farmers. In contrast, undesirable producer versus consumer trade-offs emerge as unintended consequences of scaling-up aggregation and the introduction of market-based cold storage. SignificanceThis approach furthers ongoing efforts to capture complex value chain processes, outcomes and upgrades within system dynamics modelling frameworks, before scanning the horizon of plausible external scenarios, internal dynamics and unintended trade-offs to identify ‘win-win-win’ futures for all.
Highlights
It is increasingly acknowledged that aspirational futures, such as the United Nations’ second Sustainable Development Goal to end all forms of malnutrition by 2030, may only be achieved by providing nutritious diets in an equitable and sustainable manner (Dangour et al, 2017; FAO, 2014)
We develop our approach around the ‘Loop’ aggregation scheme (Digital Green, 2017), which aggregates fruits and vegetables (F&V) at the village level, before transporting supplies to markets across Bihar, India
Loop farmer profits increase in 56% of all simulations, but 75% of these are associated with weakened cumulative F&V purchases relative to the baseline
Summary
It is increasingly acknowledged that aspirational futures, such as the United Nations’ second Sustainable Development Goal to end all forms of malnutrition by 2030, may only be achieved by providing nutritious diets in an equitable and sustainable manner (Dangour et al, 2017; FAO, 2014). Horticultural value chains, which supply fruits and vegetables (F&V) vital in the combat of chronic diseases and micro nutrient deficiencies (Afshin et al, 2019), are frequently characterised by seasonal and perishable supplies, erratic prices, outdated distribution systems and insufficient awareness around the importance of F&V consumption (Maestre et al, 2017). With only 18% of individuals in low and medium income countries consuming the World Health Organisa tion’s (WHO) recommended 400 g/day of F&V (Frank et al, 2019), there is growing recognition around the importance of intervening in value chains and their markets to improve connectivity between pro ducers and consumers (Elliot et al, 2008; Gillespie et al, 2019). Despite F&V production tripling since the mid-1990s (Var adharajan et al, 2013), retail prices have not responded proportionately (Rahman, 2012) and wastage rates between farm and fork remain 30–40% of total production (Minocha et al, 2018)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
