News From Theses to Insights: A Lively Supply Chain Dialogue on the Future of Local Niche Crops

During the seminar “Beyond the Harvest: From Cultivation to Raw Material” on June 18, 2026, farmers, researchers, processors, post-harvest experts, policymakers, and retailers engaged in a discussion about several thought-provoking propositions regarding new protein and niche crops and local value chains. What followed was not a traditional debate with winners and losers, but an open and sometimes surprising dialogue that clearly highlighted the complexity of supply chain development.

Contract Farming: A Necessary Starting Point or a Constraint for Entrepreneurs?

There was a striking degree of consensus on contract farming. Although most participants acknowledged that contracts do not always work in the farmer’s favor, they did view contract farming as an important lever for getting new crops started. For farmers, contracts offer sales security; for processors, they provide insight into volumes and quality. At the same time, it was emphasized that contracts are only sustainable when risks and benefits are fairly shared.

The discussion also made it clear that a Belgian soybean supply chain needs more than just good will. Quality requirements, adapted varieties, homogeneous batches, processing, and pricing all pose challenges. Nevertheless, optimism prevailed: with sufficient demand, fair contracts, and strong partnerships, contract farming can be a stepping stone toward a more mature market.

How much guidance should come from policymakers?

The second proposition highlighted a classic tension: should the government set the direction, or should the market take the lead?

Many participants were convinced that new crops struggle to move beyond the experimental phase without a clear long-term vision. After all, farmers make long-term investments and need stability. Researchers and processors also highlighted the importance of policy frameworks, incentive measures, and support during the start-up phase.

At the same time, an important nuance was raised. Representatives from the retail and business sectors emphasized that policy can create opportunities but cannot force the market. Ultimately, consumers and entrepreneurs play a role in determining which crops will be successful. The discussion therefore did not end with a choice between the market and the government, but with the conclusion that both need each other. Policy can accelerate progress, but sustainable supply chains only emerge when the market and consumers move in the same direction.

Retail: Follower of the Consumer or Driver of Change?

Few topics sparked as much debate as the role of retail. Should supermarkets take a leading role in promoting local crops?

Farmers and processors emphasized that long-term commitments from retailers can create investment certainty. After all, without clear sales prospects, it remains difficult for many farmers to take risks. Moreover, retail influences visibility, positioning, and communication with consumers.

On the other hand, retail representatives pointed out that supermarkets find it difficult to continue promoting products that consumers do not buy. In their view, consumer demand is ultimately the deciding factor. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. Retail cannot force consumers, but it can influence their choices. Consumers set the direction, but retailers help chart the course.

Post-harvest: joint investment or individual initiative?

The discussion on post-harvest infrastructure also did not yield a black-and-white answer. Virtually everyone agreed that investments in drying, cleaning, sorting, and storage are often expensive and technically challenging. This poses a significant barrier, especially for new crops.

Nevertheless, profitability was found to depend heavily on scale, crop type, and business model. Cooperative systems were seen by many as a logical solution for sharing risks and costs, especially during the start-up phase. At the same time, other models were also put forward: contract farming, infrastructure leasing, joint investments, or specialized entrepreneurs offering services to other farmers.

The conclusion was clear: cooperatives can be a powerful tool, but they should not be the only solution. Flexibility and customization seem more important than a single preferred model.

What are the take-home messages?

The supply chain dialogue made it clear that the challenges facing local crops do not rest with any single stakeholder. Farmers seek profitable crops and guaranteed markets, while processors need volume and quality. Retailers, in turn, focus primarily on consumer preferences. Governments are looking for ways to support innovation, and research aims to expand knowledge and reduce risks.

Perhaps most striking of all was the broad consensus that collaboration is essential. Contracts, policy measures, retail commitments, or cooperatives are not ends in themselves, but potential building blocks of a larger puzzle.

Local supply chains do not emerge on their own. They require pioneers, mutual trust, and a willingness to share both risks and opportunities. It was precisely this shared responsibility that served as the common thread throughout the entire supply chain dialogue.

Want to work with the Plant and Soil Living Lab?

Contact us right away. We guarantee that all of your questions will be handled confidentially.