Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

 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.

 

In my opinion, advancing the economic and social regeneration theory and practice could have a role on the resilience. Therefore, this report should eye on it.

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. 

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:

 

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

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.