A Regional Imperative: The Case for Regional Food Systems
A foundational text published by the Lyson Center

‘Regional food systems’ appears with increasing frequency in scholarly works and among food system practitioners. Yet regional food systems are understudied and undervalued. Much more attention to regionalism and regional food systems is necessary to create more sustainable, equitable, and resilient food systems for all. Building from the authors’ 2010 paper, “It takes a region… Exploring a regional food systems approach: A working paper,” this greatly expanded report explores the concepts, practices, challenges, and promise of regional food systems. The report’s focus is on the Northeast U.S., a laboratory for regional food systems thinking and action, but it also describes and gives examples of regional food systems development across the country. The arguments in favor of regional approaches and explorations apply to all regions and embracing them could not be more imperative to address contemporary conditions.

 

Regions are geographic places whose features and functions can be described. Regionalism, or “thinking regionally,” is an approach—a strategic framework based on scale, geography, and systems thinking applied to food system change. Both place and approach are essential. That said, many food system issues transcend regionalism: a regionally focused food system is not inherently more socially just or ecologically principled. The report focuses on how structural food system issues manifest at the regional scale and how regionalism can contribute to positive food system change.

 

The report was prepared during the COVID-19 pandemic and heightened attention to the Black Lives Matter movement. Each has shined a glaring light on the vulnerabilities and inequities of food systems at all scales, and of the deeply embedded structural oppression that marginalized communities face. Both force new examination of how and by whom food is produced, processed, transported, and purchased, and of the gaping flaws in food access and security.

 

Closely examining the regional scale does not slight the importance of ‘local.’ Yet, as interest in regional food systems has increased, the conflation of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ food and food systems is a continuing problem. The differences are important, because ‘local’ and ‘regional’ are not the same. Conflating or confusing the terms prevents analysts and advocates from touting ‘local’ on its own merits, and from making the case for ‘regional’ food systems as strong as it could be. Furthermore, ‘local’ has many positive connotations (not all of which are grounded in fact), and significant cachet in the marketplace, while ‘regional’ resonates to a lesser degree. If the terms continue to be confused or perceived as identical, and regional is not seen as a legitimate and necessary food systems framework, it will lose its potential to achieve a regional food systems vision, and to implement the numerous practical strategies and benefits it offers.

 

In food systems, ‘regional’ is larger geographically than ‘local,’ and also larger in terms of functions: volume, variety, supply chains, markets, food needs, land use, governance, and policy. A regional food system operates at various scales and geographies toward greater self-reliance. Thinking regionally provides the opportunity to frame food production, needs, and economies in a larger context—within locales and regions, and across state borders, as well as among and across regions, however they may be described and bounded.

 

Like ‘local,’ regions can be described in many ways, including by their natural resources, land uses, and sociocultural, economic and political dimensions. Regions are composed of multiple ‘locals,’ but are more than the sum of them. Regions overlap; they “nest.” Their boundaries are fluid. Agri-food systems are characterized by fixed geographic factors such as climate conditions, topography, soil types, suitable farmland, water, and other natural resources. Land and other input costs, farm scale, and crop options play out at the regional level. Regional differences, for example, in transportation, processing, and distribution infrastructure; local, domestic, and international market access; as well as food preferences, security, and access shape a region’s comparative food system advantages and challenges.

 

The report details many characteristics of the Northeast region, made up of twelve states and the District of Columbia. With less land to feed more people than other regions, the Northeast and its subregions have both advantages and challenges to building more sustainable and resilient food systems. The report focuses on land-based food production, while noting the significant contributions to and from the region, from marine and freshwater fisheries, as well as from fiber, nursery, and other nonfood agricultural products. This report acknowledges the Northeast region’s particular history of exploitation and dispossession, and contributes to confronting the contemporary challenges around systemic racism in the Northeast’s food systems.

 

This report posits the attributes of ideal regional food systems, including that they:

 

• Produce a volume and variety of foods to meet as many of the dietary needs and preferences of the population as possible within the resource capacity of the region.

• Lead to self-reliance, but not self-sufficiency.

• Go “beyond local,” providing more volume, variety, and market options than local.

• Build regionally relevant solutions around equity, justice, and stewardship.

• Exhibit attributes of both conventional and alternative systems.

• Connect with both local and national and global levels.

• Reject one-size-fits-all agriculture and food policies.

• Consider scale, markets, and values, not just geography.

• Provide more affordable, appropriate, good food options to mainstream markets.

• Encourage decentralization in markets, infrastructure, and governance.

• Develop new institutions and forms of governance.

 

Diversity, resilience, and sustainability—fundamental to systems thinking—are the core of a complex regional food systems framework. Regions must determine which resilience characteristics already exist and which need development. Social justice—broadly referring to the fair and equitable distribution of political, economic and social rights, benefits, power and opportunity in a society—is a central value and another core concern in regional food systems development.

 

These overarching and unifying themes are reflected in six dimensions that describe the current conditions, salient elements, and potential of regional food systems. These six dimensions are:

​

• Food needs and supply

• Natural resources

• Economic development

• Infrastructure

• Social justice

• Human and political capacity