Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Consultation

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 Food2(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 Economics126, 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

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