Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Consultation
contributions:
59

Building resilient food systems - HLPE-FSN consultation on the scope of the report

During its 51st plenary session (23-27 October 2023), the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) adopted its four-year Programme of Work (MYPOW 2024-2027), which includes a request to its High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE-FSN) to produce a report on “Building resilient food systems” to be presented at the 53rd plenary session of the CFS in October 2025.

The text of the CFS request, as included in the MYPOW, is as follows: 

Global challenges to food security and nutrition, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, conflicts, extreme weather events due to climate change, natural disasters, loss of biodiversity and land degradation, reveal structural vulnerabilities of agriculture and food systems. These shocks and stresses may disrupt food value chains and, when combined with other factors such as financial or economic crises, may lead to unaffordability and/or unavailability of healthy food. There are also deep inequalities and unsustainable practices in the current food distribution and marketing systems. There is wide recognition of the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of agriculture and food systems, and growing calls to improve their functioning so that they are able to respond to current and future challenges, seeking to diversify sources of inputs, production, markets, supply chain and actors, supporting the creation of small and medium-sized companies, cooperatives, consortiums  and other groups to maintain diversity in the agriculture and food value chains. Given the increased frequency of shocks to agriculture and food systems in recent years and the growing risks from a range of sources, it is imperative to explore more deeply how they can be made more resilient – that is, more capable of recovering, adapting and transforming in the face of shocks – as well as more equitable and sustainable, so that they are able to support all dimensions of food security. Understanding the different types of vulnerabilities of agriculture and food systems, and their implications for the different actors involved, will enable CFS to provide a space for exchange and convergence on the policy measures needed to enhance the resilience of local, regional and global food supply chains, including consideration of inclusive and equitable employment opportunities, the role of trade, environmental sustainability, access to healthy diets and human rights. 

Objectives and expected outcomes: The objective of the workstream is to create a set of focused, action-oriented policy recommendations on “Building resilient food systems” as a key means of achieving the CFS vision, SDG2, and an array of other SDGs, including SDGs SDG 8, 10, 12, 14 and 15, as a result of the contribution that agriculture and food systems make to livelihoods and natural systems. The workstream will benefit from the findings and recommendations of an HLPE-FSN report on the topic.

To respond to the CFS request, the HLPE-FSN will develop the report “Building resilient food systems”, which will provide recommendations to the CFS workstream of the same title under the focus area: “Fostering resilience of agriculture and food systems to shocks and stresses”. The HLPE-FSN has drafted the scope of the report and seek for the feedback from stakeholders. 

Draft scope of the HLPE-FSN report

Food systems have become increasingly complex in recent decades, characterized by growing cross-border trade in food products organized along “just-in-time” distribution systems and the reliance on millions of food system workers to supply inputs and produce, process, move, market and prepare food along the way to its ultimate destination. Different components of food systems have different degrees of vulnerability and resilience to different types of shocks, depending on their characteristics. For example, food supply chains depend on well-functioning transportation networks (Colon et al., 2021), require vast quantities of land, water and fossil fuel energy (Taherzadeh et al., 2021), and rely on regulations to ensure safety and quality (Machado Nardi et al., 2020). In the case of globally oriented food supply chains, these rely on predictable channels of international trade, enabled by globally agreed  rules. Domestic food supply chains require robust local and regional infrastructure for inputs, production, stockholding, processing, distribution and marketing. Food supply chains can become strained when any one of the multiple and interconnected factors required for their proper operation is affected negatively. The risks associated with disruptions and existing inequities in these systems can be multiplied when food supply chains rigidly rely exclusively on global or local supplies and labour, or when there are multiple shocks affecting food systems simultaneously (FAO, 2021a). It is important to recognize that food supply chain dynamics are also highly context specific, with unique structures and organization in different regions and countries (Nchanji and Lutomia, 2021).

According to the HLPE-FSN 3rd Note on critical, emerging and enduring issues (2022), these types of shocks have the potential to negatively impact multiple dimensions of food security and nutrition. The 2020 HLPE-FSN report states that we must urgently seize the moment to fundamentally transform food systems and to rebalance priorities to ensure that all people are food secure at all times. The call to action of the United Nations Food Systems Summit (2021) focused on five objectives, one of which is building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks[1] and stresses[2].

This growing awareness of the impact of shocks on food systems and FSN, and the need to enhance resilience of food systems needs stronger conceptual framing and actionable policy recommendations. The HLPE-FSN report will propose a framework for better understanding resilience in the context of food systems and FSN, and consequently for approaching resilience planning. It will review countries’ experiences in creating more resilient food systems, especially with the objective to identify  innovations that can enhance resilience and the policies needed to realize this potential.

This report “Building resilient food systems” will be framed by conceptual understandings and analysis of previous HLPE-FSN reports, especially concerning food systems, the focus on the right to food, and the six dimensions of food security. The report will consider shocks of multiple origins that hit countries often already structurally affected by climate change and other stressing social, political or economic factors. In such contexts, the report will identify how a country can best prepare to unforeseen shocks, while preserving sustainability. The report will identify the food systems’ activities, actors and population groups particularly at risk in protracted crises, whilst prioritizing food security and nutrition outcomes.

Resilience is a systemic and complex topic. It varies across regions, changes according to scale, and may involve trade-offs where the same policies that create resilience in one dimension (e.g. environmental) may have shortcomings in another (e.g. access to food).

The HLPE-FSN reports will investigate numerous dimensions of resilience, including the extent to which individual and household food security and nutrition are resilient based on human and financial resources. Families with abundant human and financial resources may be better able to maintain nutritious diets despite shocks(Stringer et al., 2019), but wealth does not always translate in better nutrition, as access, education and awareness have a great impact on consumers’ choices (Popkin, B. M., 2002) 

Second, the resilience of food production must also be evaluated based on agroecological factors at the primary production level. Farms, animal production, fisheries and other agricultural production with abundant biodiversity, healthy soils, water, and landscape heterogeneity are often more resilient than intensive systems during shocks and crises, such as droughts or pest outbreaks. The literature suggests that such systems can recover faster after a shock. Therefore, interventions  supporting agronomic practices that boost agroecological health can build resiliency.  

A third key element of resilience that should be considered is community resilience, which can be enhanced by social capital and networks, civil society and infrastructure. Communities with well-developed social networks and inclusive infrastructure, functioning civil society organizations, lower crime rates, higher participation in public life and decision making, and better access to services may mobilize collective responses to shocks and thus maintain integrity of food systems even during crises (Fraser, E.D., 2006).   

Fourth, the resilience of food supply chains in their entirety must be considered (Davis et al., 2021).  Efficient and smooth-running supply chains are a vital part of a functioning food system, yet they can easily get disrupted at the onset of a shock, as it has happened in conjunction with COVID-19 and the restrictive policies enforced to contain the pandemic. In addition, food transportation, processing, packaging and retail are a vital source of economic opportunity and livelihoods for millions. Understanding the resilience of supply chains, therefore, is a critical aspect of understanding food system resilience.  

A fifth important element in any resilience framework is linked to the institutional resilience of state/local governments. States, local authorities and other institutions that can provide safety nets, early warning systems and good governance offer greater resilience to citizens and are better able to timely implement effective responses when crises emerge. 

In the face of the growing frequency and intensity of shocks, making food systems more resilient, as well as more equitable and sustainable, is essential for FSN. Potential measures to improve the functioning of the supply chain include: encouraging greater diversity at all stages of food production, processing, trade and retail, allowing for a better balance between food supply chains at global, regional and local levels, to reduce overreliance on a single food supply channel; promoting shorter supply chains that support local producers; making supply chains more inclusive by creating more equitable employment and income opportunities; finding innovative means of connecting input suppliers to producers and producers to processors and traders, including through widely accessible digital technologies; instituting more effective measures to ensure environmental sustainability at all points along food systems from production to consumption; increasing the transparency of input and output markets and developing international agricultural trade rules that support resilient food systems; strengthening infrastructure to support supply chains at multiple scales, including the local and regional level; strengthening food environments so that they become more resilient and can play a role in mitigating the impact of shocks on access to food; and adopting more coherent policies that support measures for improving food systems’ resilience.

Understanding the different types of vulnerabilities of agriculture and food systems, and their implications for the different actors involved, will set the stage for the CFS to be a catalyst for exchange and convergence on the policy measures needed to enhance the resilience of local, regional and global food systems, including adequate consideration of inclusive and just employment opportunities, the role of trade, environmental sustainability, access to affordable healthy diets and equitable food environments, underpinned by the realization of human rights.  

QUESTIONS TO GUIDE THE E-CONSULTATION 

ON THE SCOPE OF THE HLPE-FSN REPORT

Based on this framing, in this consultation we seek inputs to the following thematic areas:  

  1.  

Different ways of defining resilience :

  • How do different groups define resilience (e.g. Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations, the scientific / peer reviewed literature, other key rights holders)?  

  • What are the main types of vulnerabilities facing food supply chains and what are the potential consequences for food system actors (including input suppliers, food producers, traders, food system workers and consumers), considering different kinds of potential shocks?

  • What kind of inequities and power imbalances are present in food systems and how do they affect resilient FSN and especially for those groups facing multidimensional and intersectional aspects of inequality and vulnerability?

  • What resilience frameworks are there that should be explored? 

  • What are the determinants, assets and skills that lead to resilience at different scales (household, community, national, regional)? 

  • How can resilience be evaluated and/or measured at different scales (household, community, national, regional)? 

  • What indicators would measure that food systems are resilient across their different components (e.g. consumption, supply chains, retail and production)?

  • Which and where are the weak points in global food systems in terms of ensuring the resilience of food security and nutrition? 

  • What evidence bases are there to measure resilience and the effectiveness of interventions?
2.

Understanding what we must be prepared for – the nature of shocks:

  • What types of shock are more relevant to food systems and which ones are more likely to affect FSN? What type of shocks have been under-researched, especially regarding their impact on FSN and food systems? 

  • How might different kinds of shocks (e.g. climatic, social, financial or political) affect different regions and different aspects of the food system (e.g. production, processing or distribution)? 

  • How to balance preparing for short-term shocks (e.g. droughts and floods) versus the need to ensure food systems fit within planetary boundaries and long-term sustainability of systems? 

  • Are there ways of enhancing resilience to unknown and unforeseen shocks? 
3. 

Understanding and mitigating trade-offs:

  • Are there trade-offs between increasing adaptation to one type of shock and creating other types of fragility? 

  • What is the impact on resilience programming of different understandings of food security and nutrition (e.g. focus on nutrition, the four pillars, the six dimensions of food security, etc)?
4.

Existing programmes and policies to promote resilience – a gap analysis of current strategies and recommendations:

  • How are countries preparing for food systems resilience today?  What are the main policies and documents that can provide information on these national level plans?

  • Are there current or recent partnerships / initiatives proven to contribute to building resilience? What are the lessons learned? 

  • Could you provide success stories and best practices examples that can be applied to other locations?

  • Is the currently portfolio of resilience programming well aligned to different types of foreseen and unforeseen shocks, scales, or parts of the food system? 

  • What gaps are there in the current portfolio of country adaptation / resilience policies? 

  • What types of policy changes are needed to enhance the resilience of local, regional and global food systems, including with respect to global trading rules and considering inclusive and equitable employment opportunities, environmental sustainability, access to healthy diets and human rights?

  • What is the role of states in building more resilient food systems, including with respect to providing infrastructure, regulatory measures, international policy coordination and policy coherence?

  • What measures are necessary to incentivize private sector strategies and investments that promote supply chain resilience?
5. Share recent literature, case studies and data that could help answer the questions listed above.

 

The results of this consultation will be used by the HLPE-FSN to elaborate the report, which will then be made public in its V0 draft for e-consultation, and later submitted to peer review, before finalization and approval by the HLPE-FSN drafting team and the Steering Committee.

We thank in advance all the contributors for reading, commenting and providing inputs on the scope of this HLPE-FSN report. The comments are welcome in English, French and Spanish languages.

This e-consultation is open until 25 June 2024.

The HLPE-FSN looks forward to a rich consultation!

Co-facilitators:

Paola Termine, HLPE-FSN Coordinator ad interim, HLPE-FSN Secretariat 

Silvia Meiattini, Communications and outreach specialist, HLPE-FSN Secretariat  

Please note that in parallel to this scoping consultation, the HLPE-FSN is calling for interested experts to candidate to the drafting team for this report. The call for candidature is open until 12 June 2024. Read more here

References 
Colon, C., Hallegate, S. & Rozenberg, J. 2021. Criticality analysis of a country’s transport network via an agent-based supply chain model. Nature Sustainability, 4: 209-215.

Committee on World Food Security (CFS) (2023). CFS Multi-Year Programme of Work 2024-2027. CFS 2023/51/7.

Davis, K. F., Downs, S., & Gephart, J. A. (2021). Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nature Food, 2(1), 54-65.

FAO. 2021a. The State of Food and Agriculture 2021. Making agrifood systems more resilient to shocks and stresses. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ cb4476en

Fraser, E. D. (2006). Food system vulnerability: Using past famines to help understand how food systems.

HLPE. 2022. Critical, emerging and enduring issues for food security and nutrition. A note by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome.

Machado Nardi, V. A., Auler, D. P., & Teixeira, R. 2020. Food safety in global supply chains: A literature review. Journal of Food Science, 85(4): 883-891.

Matsushita, K., Yamane, F., & Asano, K. (2016). Linkage between crop diversity and agro-ecosystem resilience: Nonmonotonic agricultural response under alternate regimes. Ecological Economics, 126, 23-31.

Nchanji, E.B. & Lutomia, C.K. 2021. Sustainability of the agri-food supply chain amidst the pandemic: Diversification, local input production, and consumer behaviour. In: Cohen, M.J., ed. Advances in Food Security and Sustainability, 6: 1-288. https:// hdl.handle.net/10568/115941

Popkin, B. M. (2002). The dynamics of the dietary transition in the developing world. In The Nutrition Transition (pp. 111-128). Academic Press.

Stringer, L., Fraser, E., Harris, D., Lyon, C., Pereira, L., Ward, C., & Simelton, E. (2019). Adaptation and development pathways for different types of farmers: key messages.

Taherzadeh, O., Bithell, M. & Richards, K. 2021. Water, energy and land insecurity in global supply chains. Global Environmental Change, 67: 102158.

United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021. Secretary-General’s Chair Summary and Statement of Action on the UN Food Systems Summit https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/making-food-systems-work-people-planet-and-prosperity

 

[1] FAO defines Shocks as “Short-term deviations from long-term trends that have substantial negative effects on a system, people’s state of well-being, assets, livelihoods, safety and ability to withstand future shocks. Shocks impacting on food systems include disasters, extreme climate events, biological and technological events, surges in plant and animal diseases and pests, socio-economic crises and conflicts. Shocks may be covariate or idiosyncratic.” SOFA 2021, https://www.fao.org/3/cb4476en/cb4476en.pdf

[2] FAO defines Stresses as Long-term trends or pressures that undermine the stability of a system and increase vulnerability within it. Stresses can result from natural resource degradation, urbanization, demographic pressure, climate variability, political instability or economic decline. SOFA 2021, https://www.fao.org/3/cb4476en/cb4476en.pdf

Topics

This activity is now closed. Please contact [email protected] for any further information.

* Click on the name to read all comments posted by the member and contact him/her directly
  • Read 59 contributions
  • Expand all

 Different ways of defining resilience

Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations:

Holistic Balance: Resilience is defined in a holistic manner, focusing on the balance between people, the environment, and cultural practices. It emphasizes sustainability, community solidarity, traditional knowledge, and the ability to adapt to environmental changes while maintaining cultural identity.

 Other key rights holders:

 Human rights and equity focus: For human rights organizations, resilience includes ensuring equitable access to resources and opportunities, protecting human rights, and reducing vulnerabilities across different population segments.

Types of vulnerabilities facing food supply chains

  • Climate change and extreme weather events
  • Economic and financial crises
  • Social and political instability
  • Pandemics and health crises:

Inequities and power imbalances in food systems; Large corporations often dominate food production and distribution, marginalizing small-scale farmers and producers. In addition, inequities in access to land, water, and financing disproportionately affect smallholder farmers, women, and marginalized communities. To add on workers in the food system, especially in developing countries, often face poor working conditions and low wages.

 Resilience frameworks to explore

1. Socio-ecological resilience framework focuses on the interplay between social systems and ecological systems, emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and community-based resource management.

2. Community resilience framework highlights the role of social networks, inclusive infrastructure, and civil society organizations in building resilience at the community level.

3. Food system resilience framework addresses the entire food supply chain, from production to consumption, considering diverse factors like environmental sustainability, economic viability, and social equity.

Weak points in global food systems include;

  • Over-reliance on single supply channels
  • Lack of local infrastructure hinders the ability to support local production and distribution.
  • Inequitable access to resources disproportionately affects marginalized groups, reducing overall resilience.

 Understanding and mitigating trade-offs in shocks

1. Adaptation vs. Fragility; Enhancing resilience to one type of shock (e.g., droughts) may create vulnerabilities to another (e.g., floods). Balance and holistic approaches are needed.

2. Impact on resilience programming; Different understandings of food security (e.g., focusing on nutrition vs. the four pillars) can influence the design and effectiveness of resilience programs.

 

When we talk about food security and resilience, we need to focus on climate change in different dimensions. So in this atmosphere all definitions and actions would be meaningful.
https://researchportal.murdoch.edu.au/esploro/fulltext/journalArticle/How-much-land-based-greenhouse-gas-mitigation/991005544501007891?repId=12136417270007891&mId=13137057580007891&institution=61MUN_INST
How much land‐based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?
 
http://lfccsandclimatechange.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/140099415/Book%20Chapter1_%20CC%20%26%20FS.pdf
Climate Change and Food Security: a Glance at Principles and a Strategic Road Map

Important, Yet Overlooked Theme: The Vital Role of Small-Scale Farmers in Developing Countries in Building Resilient Food Systems 

Small-scale farmers in developing countries are crucial to building resilient food systems. As primary food producers globally, they paradoxically suffer from poverty and food insecurity. Conventional agriculture has failed to meet their needs, but promising alternatives are available. For instance, a comprehensive study on small-scale farmers and organic farming in developing countries demonstrates that organic farming, which is based on natural systems, can significantly increase resilience in both farming practices and the livelihoods of smallholders who are vulnerable to food insecurity.

Given the pivotal role that small-scale farmers play, it is crucial to recognize and address their unique challenges and opportunities. This thematic area deserves specific focus in the current draft as it highlights an often-overlooked segment of the agricultural community that holds the key to sustainable and resilient food systems. Without targeted attention to small-scale farmers, efforts to create robust food systems may fall short, perpetuating cycles of poverty and food insecurity. 

Therefore, incorporating a dedicated section on the small-scale farmers will not only enhance the comprehensiveness of the draft but also align with global goals of sustainability and equitable development, ensuring that no one is left behind.

Regarding mainly these two questions: 

"What are the main types of vulnerabilities facing food supply chains and what are the potential consequences for food system actors (including input suppliers, food producers, traders, food system workers and consumers), considering different kinds of potential shocks? 

What kind of inequities and power imbalances are present in food systems and how do they affect resilient FSN and especially for those groups facing multidimensional and intersectional aspects of inequality and vulnerability?"

I would like to raise the topic of gender differences in food systems. Differences related to gender (but most times in intersection with other axes of possible discrimination) have been found in all stages of the food system, and I believe it is relevant to mention them explicitly to make sure they don't remain invisible. 

Gender disaggregated data should be collected to make such differences more visible, but after data is available, a further step to operationalize actions that address them is needed. This step is however impossible without the data.

It is also very relevant to act in a twofold way on gender equality: from one side, women have traditionally been more in charge of household nutrition and often their education and empowerment is related to a more food secure household. From the other side, though, it is important to implement a process of co-responsabilization to make sure this task (which is unpaid and often unrecognized, but still a type of work) stops weighting so disproportionately on women's shoulders, and that the objective of more food secure households does not become (or remain) a mostly feminine responsibility.

 

Literature on this is vast, I will only cite some examples:

P. Allen, and C. Sachs. 2007. “Women and Food Chains: The Gendered Politics of Food.” International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 1–23. 

A. V. Avakian, B. Haber, Feminist Food Studies: A Brief History, 2005.
 

C. Bergonzini, "Just food transition: For a gender mainstreaming approach in urban food policies. A review of 20 cities", Cities, 148, 2024.
 

M. L. DeVault, Feeding the Family: The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered Work, University of Chicago Press, 1994.

J. Halliday, D. Joshi, L. Young, and R. van Veenhuizen. 2020. "Gender in Urban Food Systems". 37. Urban Agriculture Magazine. RUAF.

OECD (2022) Gender and food systems: overcoming evidence gaps. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/publications/gender-and-food-systems-355ba4ee-en.h…;
 

 

Need to address the local scale

The scale matters. The resilience of Agriculture and Food systems looks very different if we compare household, community or national level, as the socio-economic and political and cultural-historic realities are very different according to the perspective taken. 

I miss the local level, as being situated between the community and national level. This local scale, including local governments (communes), indigenous peoples and cultures, local authorities and leadership, concrete agroecological settings, knowledgeable private sector knowing the concrete business opportunities, local markets and its (untapped) potentials, infrastructures and particularly concrete agency with concrete and interlinked actors (both individual and collective) could be the most relevant scale if it comes to resilience building (but also when dealing with developing potentials and increasing system performance related to food systems).

This missing perspective looking at the local scale as defined here (between communities and national scale) is one of the weakest points in the current global food system. Whenever shocks happen, they are always local (and only sometimes national and beyond). The lack of local perspectives, plans and budgets are may be the biggest gap in the current portfolio of country adaptation / resilience policies.

I plead to reconsider the local level understood as including communities, local governments and landscape-agroecological context including local culture, history and agency.

Households become more resilient when they develop a ''Savings Culture''. This would be even more effective when women exercise full ''control'' of such resources.... While flexible micro-credit programmes (following Grameen Bank model) have been advocated for in many contexts of developing countries, women tend to be more reluctant to fully participate and apply for credit (even when such services are available nearby, and easily accessible) if they are NOT sure of having control of their hard earned income from credit-financed business, and when more ''trust'' is not promoted among couples.

Such opportunities to earning more income for women, especially in drought-affected areas could be supported through encouraging diversification to off-farm incomes. For example, with appropriate support programmes, women often proved to be effective local traders, delivering agricultural products (e.g crops, livstocks, etc) to urban and semi-urban areas, and in turn availing ''industrial'' products to rural people (e.g soup, edible oil, salt, clothes, etc) -- thus satisfying demands for such commodities, but (often) also creating new demands (and propmoting aspirations for more hard work to earn income to acquiring such goods).... When rural-urban roads are deficient, women manage this by travelling long distances by foot.... CARE, CRS and others have been supporting such efforts through ''micofranchise women programmes'' in some East African countries (Tanzania, Ethiopia, Uganda....??)

Regards, Getaneh

See the attachments:

I find one combined question missing. Given the well-known objections of public interest CSOs and social movements to the Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and the Food Systems Summit, how are the contents and recommendations in both, in a way, not contributing to resilience with shy approaches to the primacy of agroecology and the total ignoring of food sovereignty? To me, the 'turnkey' to resilience lies in these two.

Claudio

Resilience is a multifaceted concept defined differently across cultures and disciplines:

Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations: Resilience is seen as an innate determination to succeed, intertwined with spirituality, culture, healing, and land connection1. It’s about community success and well-being, not just overcoming adversity.

Scientific Literature: Resilience is the capacity to adapt and maintain mental health despite adversity. It involves personal, biological, and environmental factors interacting dynamically throughout one’s life.

Key Rights Holders: They view resilience as the ability to prepare for, react to, and sustain identity and culture in the face of stressors.

Each perspective emphasizes resilience as a process of adaptation and growth, influenced by individual and collective strengths and experiences.

Food supply chains are complex networks that involve the production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food. They are susceptible to various types of vulnerabilities that can have significant consequences for all actors involved. Below is an overview of the main types of vulnerabilities and potential consequences for food system actors:

Types of Vulnerabilities:

Environmental Risks: Climate change, extreme weather events, and natural disasters can disrupt production and supply routes, leading to shortages and loss of crops.

Economic Risks: Price volatility, inflation, and economic downturns can affect the affordability and availability of food, as well as the financial stability of all actors in the supply chain.

Geopolitical Risks: Conflicts, trade disputes, and policy changes can lead to trade restrictions, sanctions, and loss of market access, impacting the flow of food commodities.

Technological Risks: Cybersecurity threats and technological failures can disrupt logistics and information systems, leading to inefficiencies and loss of data.

Health Risks: Pandemics and animal diseases can lead to labor shortages, closure of production facilities, and restrictions on trade, affecting food safety and availability.

Social Risks: Labor issues, such as strikes or lack of skilled workers, can impact production and distribution capabilities.

Kindly find attached, the full input

BUILDING RESILIENT FOOD SYSTEMS: KAMASA DOROTHY, GHANA

Resilience is a multifaceted concept defined differently across cultures and disciplines:

Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations: Resilience is seen as an innate determination to succeed, intertwined with spirituality, culture, healing, and land connection1. It’s about community success and well-being, not just overcoming adversity.

Scientific Literature: Resilience is the capacity to adapt and maintain mental health despite adversity. It involves personal, biological, and environmental factors interacting dynamically throughout one’s life.

Key Rights Holders: They view resilience as the ability to prepare for, react to, and sustain identity and culture in the face of stressors.

Each perspective emphasizes resilience as a process of adaptation and growth, influenced by individual and collective strengths and experiences.

Food supply chains are complex networks that involve the production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food. They are susceptible to various types of vulnerabilities that can have significant consequences for all actors involved. Below is an overview of the main types of vulnerabilities and potential consequences for food system actors:

Types of Vulnerabilities:

  • Environmental Risks: Climate change, extreme weather events, and natural disasters can disrupt production and supply routes, leading to shortages and loss of crops.
  • Economic Risks: Price volatility, inflation, and economic downturns can affect the affordability and availability of food, as well as the financial stability of all actors in the supply chain.
  • Geopolitical Risks: Conflicts, trade disputes, and policy changes can lead to trade restrictions, sanctions, and loss of market access, impacting the flow of food commodities.
  • Technological Risks: Cybersecurity threats and technological failures can disrupt logistics and information systems, leading to inefficiencies and loss of data.
  • Health Risks: Pandemics and animal diseases can lead to labor shortages, closure of production facilities, and restrictions on trade, affecting food safety and availability.
  • Social Risks: Labor issues, such as strikes or lack of skilled workers, can impact production and distribution capabilities.

Potential Consequences for Food System Actors:

  • Input Suppliers: Shortages of seeds, fertilizers, and other inputs can lead to reduced production capacity and increased costs.
  • Food Producers: Crop failures, livestock diseases, and reduced access to markets can result in financial losses and reduced output.
  • Traders: Trade restrictions and market volatility can lead to decreased trading opportunities and financial risks.
  • Food System Workers: Health risks and labor shortages can lead to job insecurity and health concerns.
  • Consumers: Reduced availability and increased prices of food can lead to food insecurity and reduced dietary diversity.
  • Shocks and Their Impacts:
  • Natural Shocks: Droughts, floods, and other natural events can cause immediate and long-term damage to agricultural productivity and infrastructure.
  • Economic Shocks: Sudden economic crises can lead to rapid changes in demand and supply, affecting prices and food security.
  • Social Shocks: Political instability and social unrest can disrupt food systems, leading to food shortages and humanitarian crises.
  • Health Shocks: Disease outbreaks can lead to widespread disruption of food production and distribution, as well as changes in consumer behavior.

To mitigate these vulnerabilities, food system actors need to develop resilience strategies, such as diversifying supply sources, investing in technology, and enhancing coordination and communication within the supply chain. By doing so, they can better prepare for and respond to potential shocks, ensuring the stability and sustainability of food systems.

For a detailed analysis of risks and vulnerabilities in the EU food supply chain, you can refer to the study “Mapping the Risks and Vulnerabilities in the EU Food Supply Chain” and other resources that provide insights into the challenges and strategies for enhancing food system resilience. Additionally, exploring global food system shocks, scenarios, and outcomes can offer a broader perspective on systemic risks and their implications.

Inequities and power imbalances in food systems are significant factors that affect Food Security and Nutrition (FSN), particularly for vulnerable and marginalized groups. Here are some key points:

Inequities in Food Systems:

  • Imbalances in food systems are major drivers of dietary and nutrition inequities, which can restrict access to healthy diets or promote low-quality diets1.
  • The dominance of cereal production over diverse crops like fruits, vegetables, nuts, and whole grains leads to a lack of availability of healthy foods1.
  • Food environments, where consumers make decisions about what to eat, are often inequitable in terms of physical access, affordability, targeting of advertising, marketing, and quality of foods1.
  • Power imbalances need to be addressed by amplifying the voice of those excluded and holding the powerful accountable.

Impact on Resilient FSN: 

  • Inequalities in FSN diminish people’s life chances, hamper productivity, perpetuate poverty, and impede economic growth.
  • Unequal food security and nutrition outcomes can lead to political unrest, protests, and food riots.
  • Vulnerable groups such as women, farmworkers, informal workers, migrants, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and chronic illnesses, elderly people, and youth are systematically disadvantaged and excluded.

Addressing the Issue: 

  • A systemic approach is required to tackle these inequities, which involves an integrated response at global, national, and local levels.
  • Policies should aim for structural change towards equity, considering the cumulative effects of multiple interacting inequalities on marginalized peoples.

To build resilient FSN, it’s crucial to develop pathways that tackle these inequities and create food systems that are equitable, sustainable, and capable of supporting all dimensions of food security. This includes addressing the systemic drivers of FSN inequalities and advocating for actions in favor of equity and equality.

Resilience frameworks that are relevant for food systems:

  1. Food System Resilience Measurement Framework:
  • This framework focuses on assessing the resilience of food systems at the local level. It is structured around three components:  
  • Mapping of the actors and the local food system.
  • Assessment of the resilience of these actors and the food system itself.
  • Outcomes of this resilience, are assessed in terms of the local population’s food security.
  1. Social-Ecological Resilience Framework for Food Systems:
  • This framework adapts social-ecological resilience thinking to food systems, aiming to define factors that help achieve food security for all and at all scales. It emphasizes the importance of functional and response diversity within food systems to maintain resilience against shocks and uncertainties.
  1. The Local and Regional Food Systems (LRFS) Resilience Playbook:
  • Developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Resilience Playbook provides frameworks, strategies, and real-life examples to support LRFS leaders in creating equitable resilience approaches for short-, mid-, and long-term planning.
  1. RFS Food Systems Conceptual Framework by USAID: 
  • Designed by the Bureau for Resilience and Food Security, this framework articulates the contribution of USAID to strengthening food systems. It provides high-level operational guidance to staff globally, aligning with the strategy to build more resilient communities and sustainably reduce hunger, malnutrition, and poverty.

These frameworks offer a structured approach to understanding and enhancing the resilience of food systems, ensuring they can withstand and recover from disruptions while maintaining their capacity to provide food security and other essential functions.

The resilience of food systems at various scales, from household to regional, is influenced by a combination of determinants, assets, and skills. Here’s a summary of key factors:

Determinants:  

  • Diversity of production and partners.
  • Redundancy of activities and networks.
  • System thinking through science and communication.
  • Buffering strategies to manage shocks and disruptions.

Assets:

  • Natural assets: Access to land, water, and biodiversity.
  • Physical assets: Infrastructure for storage, processing, and transportation.
  • Human assets: Education, health, and nutrition status of individuals.
  • Social assets: Community networks, social cohesion, and mutual support systems.
  • Financial assets: Savings, credits, and insurance to invest in food system activities.

Skills:

  • Adaptive capacity: Ability to adjust practices, processes, and structures in response to changes.
  • Management skills: Efficiently organizing resources and making strategic decisions.
  • Technical skills: Knowledge of agricultural practices, food processing, and marketing.
  • Collaborative skills: Working with different stakeholders, from farmers to policymakers.

At the household level, resilience is often about diversification of income sources and access to resources like land and livestock. At the community level, it involves collective action and local knowledge systems. Nationally and regionally, it’s about policy support, infrastructure, and market stability.

Evaluating and measuring food systems resilience can be complex due to the multifaceted nature of food systems and the different scales at which they operate. 

The general approach to assessing resilience at various scales:

Household Scale:

  • Mapping of Actors: Identify all members involved in the household’s food system.
  • Resilience Capacities: Assess the adaptive, absorptive, and transformative capacities of the household to withstand shocks.
  • Food Security Outcomes: Evaluate the household’s access to food, utilization, and stability over time.

Community Scale:

  • Local Food System Context: Understand the community’s food sources, distribution channels, and consumption patterns.
  • Actor Typology: Categorize different groups within the community based on their role in the food system.
  • Emergent Properties: Analyze community-level characteristics that contribute to resilience, such as diversity of food sources and social networks.

National Scale:

  • Policy Analysis: Review government policies and programs that support food system resilience.
  • Infrastructure Assessment: Evaluate the robustness of national food storage, transportation, and market systems.
  • Economic Indicators: Monitor economic factors like food prices, trade balances, and employment rates in food-related sectors.

Regional Scale:

  • Cross-Border Collaboration: Assess the level of cooperation between countries in the region for food security initiatives.
  • Climate Adaptation Strategies: Examine regional plans for dealing with climate change impacts on food systems.
  • Supply Chain Analysis: Study the interconnectivity of regional food supply chains and their vulnerability to disruptions.

For each scale, it’s important to use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to gather data. This can include surveys, interviews, focus groups, and the analysis of secondary data. Indicators might include the diversity of food sources, the stability of food access, the response to food price volatility, and the presence of social safety nets.

Frameworks and tools such as the Food Security Information Network (FSIN) guide on selecting appropriate indicators and methodologies for resilience measurement. Additionally, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer a global benchmark for assessing progress towards more resilient food systems.

It’s also crucial to consider the specific context of each scale, as resilience can manifest differently depending on local, national, or regional circumstances. The goal is to identify vulnerabilities and strengths within each system to inform strategies that enhance resilience against future shocks.

Resilience in food systems is a complex concept that involves various components working together to withstand and recover from disruptions. 

Key indicators that can measure the resilience of food systems across different components:

Consumption:

  • Diversity of diet: A variety of food sources can indicate resilience against supply shocks.
  • Nutrition sensitivity: The ability of the system to maintain nutritional quality under stress.

Supply Chains:

  • Robustness of primary production: The capacity of production systems to withstand shocks.
  • Redundancy: Having multiple sources for critical supplies to avoid disruption in case one source fails.

Retail:

  • Accessibility: The physical and economic access to food, ensuring that food remains available and affordable during crises.
  • Buffering strategies: The presence of stockpiles or reserves to buffer against supply fluctuations.

Production:

  • Diversity of production: A range of agricultural products can buffer against the failure of any single crop or livestock.
  • Adaptive capacity: The ability of production systems to adjust practices in response to changing conditions.

These indicators can help assess the capacity of national agri-food systems to absorb shocks and stresses, which is a key aspect of resilience. The FAO and other research articles provide frameworks and further details on how to measure these indicators.

The weak points in global food systems that impact the resilience of food security and nutrition are multifaceted. 

Key vulnerabilities: 

  • Supply Chain Concentration: The global supply chain of food is concentrated in the hands of fewer companies, making it susceptible to disruptions.
  • Climate Change: Increasing desertification, disrupted rainfall patterns, and rising sea levels stress food production.
  • Economic Inequality: Disparities contribute to a system where many are hungry, suffer from hidden hunger, or overconsume, leading to health epidemics.
  • Unsustainable Practices: Overfishing, soil erosion, and aquifer depletion threaten food security, alongside climate change impacts like droughts and extreme weather events.

To measure resilience and the effectiveness of interventions, various evidence bases are used  

  • Resilience Assessment Frameworks: These frameworks evaluate the resilience of food systems at local levels, considering both individual actors and the system’s emergent properties.
  • Empirical Evidence: Studies often use multivariate techniques to quantify resilience, finding that higher resilience capacity tends to correlate with better food security outcomes5.
  • Systematic Reviews: These reviews synthesize academic studies to understand the evolution of food system resilience assessment and identify the need for comprehensive frameworks and granular metrics.

These points highlight the complexity of global food systems and the importance of robust measures to ensure their resilience. For more detailed information, you can refer to the full articles and studies linked in the citations.

Understanding the nature of shocks and their impact on food systems and food security and nutrition (FSN) is crucial for preparedness and resilience. 

Types of Shocks Relevant to Food Systems:  

  • Climatic shocks like droughts, floods, and extreme weather events.
  • Economic shocks such as market volatility and price spikes.
  • Political shocks, including policy changes and instability.
  • Social shocks like pandemics or mass migration.

Under-Researched Shocks Impacting FSN:

  • The interplay between multiple shocks and their compounded effects on food systems.
  • Long-term impacts of recurring minor shocks that may not be immediately devastating but erode resilience over time.

Effects of Different Shocks on Food Systems:

  • Climatic shocks can disrupt production, leading to food shortages.
  • Social shocks may affect labor availability in agriculture and processing.
  • Financial shocks can impact investment in food systems, affecting all stages from production to distribution.
  • Political shocks can lead to trade restrictions, affecting food distribution and access.

Balancing Short-Term Shocks and Long-Term Sustainability:

  • Building resilient food systems that can withstand immediate shocks while maintaining the capacity for long-term sustainability.
  • Implementing adaptive management practices that can adjust to changing conditions.
  • Encouraging diversification in crops, livestock, and income sources to spread risk.

Enhancing Resilience to Unknown Shocks:

  • Strengthening local food systems to reduce reliance on global supply chains.
  • Investing in research and development to anticipate and mitigate the effects of potential shocks.
  • Creating buffer stocks and emergency reserves.
  • Develop early warning systems and risk assessment tools to detect and respond to emerging threats.

It’s important to note that enhancing resilience is not just about preparing for known risks but also about creating systems that are flexible and robust enough to adapt to new and unforeseen challenges. Collaborative efforts across sectors and scales, from local to global, are essential to achieve this goal.

Understanding and mitigating trade-offs in adaptation strategies is indeed a complex issue. Increasing adaptation to one type of shock can inadvertently create vulnerabilities to other types of shocks or stresses. For example, in agriculture, adaptation decisions can lead to trade-offs between crop yield and profitability, farm economy, pest and weed robustness, and soil quality. These trade-offs involve balancing various socio-ecological system aspects that are different and have different functions.

When it comes to resilience programming, different understandings of food security and nutrition can significantly impact the approach and outcomes. The concept of resilience is closely linked with food security and nutrition; good nutrition is both an essential input for resilience and an outcome of it. For instance, a focus on nutrition can bring to resilience programming a more nuanced understanding of the multiple causes of malnutrition and the role of agriculture in addressing them. This can lead to more effective programming that not only aims to improve immediate food availability but also considers long-term nutritional outcomes.

The four pillars of food security: availability, access, utilization, and stability along with the six dimensions, which include aspects like food safety and agency, provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and addressing food security. When resilience programming incorporates these pillars and dimensions, it can more effectively address the multifaceted nature of food security and nutrition challenges. This comprehensive approach can help ensure that resilience-building efforts are not only robust in the face of shocks but also contribute to sustained improvements in food security and nutrition outcomes.

In summary, while trade-offs are an inherent part of adaptation and resilience programming, a thorough understanding of the interconnections between food security, nutrition, and resilience can help mitigate these trade-offs and enhance the overall effectiveness of such programs.

Countries are actively working to enhance food systems resilience through a variety of strategies and policies. 

National Level Plans for Food Systems Resilience

Countries are preparing for food systems resilience by:

  • Mapping actors and local food systems.
  • Assessing the resilience of these actors and the food system.
  • Analyzing outcomes in terms of the local population’s food security.

Main Policies and Documents

Key documents include:

  • Food Security and Nutrition frameworks2.
  • Climate Change Adaptation Plans.
  • Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aligned strategies.

Partnerships and Initiatives

Successful partnerships/initiatives:

  • Public-private partnerships (PPPs) for sustainable food production.
  • Global Alliance for the Future of Food, sharing best practices.

Lessons Learned

Important lessons include:

  • The necessity of diversity and redundancy in food systems.
  • The importance of stakeholder engagement and capacity building.

Success Stories and Best Practices

Examples of success stories:

  • Zero Budget Natural Farming in India, promoting resilience through traditional farming.
  • Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO) in Zambia, transforming poachers into farmers.

Alignment with Shocks and Scales

Current resilience programming is increasingly aligned with various shocks and scales by:

  • Incorporating climate-smart agriculture practices.
  • Enhancing supply chain diversification.

Gaps in Current Policies

Gaps identified include:

  • Insufficient integration of digital technologies.
  • Limited focus on smallholder farmers.

Policy Changes Needed

To enhance resilience, policy changes needed are:

  • Repurposing agricultural support to address climate change.
  • Trade reforms to ensure food security and sustainability.

Role of States

States play a crucial role by:

  • Providing infrastructure and regulatory measures.
  • Coordinating international policies for coherence.

Incentivizing Private Sector

Measures to incentivize the private sector include:

  • Infrastructure investments.
  • Regulatory flexibility to adapt to new technologies.

These strategies, policies, and initiatives collectively contribute to building more resilient food systems capable of withstanding various shocks and stresses, ensuring food security, and promoting sustainable development.

Recent Literature on Food Systems Resilience  

  • Food System Resilience Measurement: A framework to assess resilience at the local level, considering both individual actors and the ‘emergent properties’ of food systems.
  • Exploring Resilience Concepts: A systematic review of regional food systems, identifying strategies and challenges for resilience.

Case Studies on Food Systems Resilience

  • Fiji - Climate Resilient Food Systems Alliance: A case study focusing on increasing adaptive capacity, resource use efficiency, and resilience against climate events.
  • Equity and Resilience in Urban Food Systems: A U.S. case study examining equity and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Data on Food Systems Resilience

  • Ontology Development for Food System Resilience: Discusses the challenges in reaching a unified conceptualization of food system resilience.
  • Data-Driven Food Systems for Crisis Resiliency: Highlights opportunities for data to enable better decision-making and empower stakeholders.

Defining Food Systems Resilience

  • Food System Resilience UK: Discusses the ability of food systems to deliver acceptable outcomes before or following disruption.
  • Center for a Livable Future: Defines a resilient food system as one that can withstand and recover from disruptions.

Nature of Shocks in Food Systems

  • Food Shocks and How to Avoid Them: Addresses the problem of sudden food scarcity in cities and how to mitigate food shocks.

Mitigating Trade-offs in Food Systems Resilience

  • The ABCD of Food Systems Resilience: Offers a practical assessment framework to support policymakers in strengthening food systems’ resilience.

Existing Programmes and Policies Promoting Food Systems Resilience  

  • Food and Nutrition Security Resilience Programme (FNS-REPRO): Focuses on increasing fodder and feed productivity and actions against desertification.

Gap Analysis of Current Strategies for Food Systems Resilience

  • Supply Chain Resilience Capability Factors: A study employing a multi-method approach within China’s agri-food supply chain to fill research gaps.

 

See the attachments: