European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)

European Resilient ​ Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) Strengthening food security through Short Food Supply Chains during systemic disruptions This publication is part of the EU4Advice project, which has received funding from the European Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Program under Grant Agreement No 101059911.

Lead author: Hans Niemeijer Supporting author: Mark Frederiks​ ​

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Table of contents About this Framework​ Why was this framework developed?​ What is the European Resilient Food Systems Framework?​ Who is this framework for?​ How is the framework organised?​ What makes this framework different?​ A framework for continuous improvement​

7 7 7 7 8 8 9

This document is supported by:​ Introduction​ Methodology and Framework Development Process​ Systemic Vulnerabilities in European Food Security​

11 13 15 20

1. Infrastructure risks​ 2. Climate and environmental risks​ 3. Geopolitical and security risks​ 4. Societal risks​ 5. Economic risks​ 6. A layered resilience approach​ 7. Interconnectivity between governance layers​

20 21 22 23 24 26 29

The Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Food System Resilience​ 31 Executive Summary, Systemic Vulnerabilities and Foundational Insights for Food System Resilience in Europe​ 34 The Six Pillars of Food System Resilience​ 35 Pillar 1, Communication & Civic Coordination​ 35 The European Emergency Mesh Network (EEMN)​

Pillar 2, Distributed Food Production and Territorial Resilience​ Key Measures: Territorial resilience through distributed food capacity​

Pillar 3, Energy & Operational Continuity​

37

40 44

47

Why operational continuity matters​ Food-Critical Infrastructure​ Strategic Vulnerabilities within European Food Systems​

47 48 51

Infrastructure Interdependencies and Cascading Failure​

51

Structural Vulnerabilities​

52

Climate Change and Compound Risks​

52

Implications for the ERFSF​

53

Building Operational Resilience​

53

Energy Resilience​

54

Cold-Chain Continuity​

54

Water management and irrigation​

55

Logistics and Transport Networks​

55

Governance for Operational Continuity​

55

Multi-Level Governance​

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

56

​

4

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Regional capacity as everyday resilience​

57

Strategic Perspective​

57

Pillar 4, Governance & Multi-level Coordination​

58

Why Governance Matters​ A Multi-Level governance architecture for food system resilience​ Governance Functions Across Multiple Levels​

58 59 61

Municipal Governance: Local preparedness and immediate response​ Regional Governance: Operational coordination​

62 62

National Governance: Strategic leadership​

62

European Governance: Coordination across borders​

63

Cross-Cutting Governance Enablers​ Operational coordination and shared decision-making​ Operational stress testing and institutional learning​

63 64 65

Embedded regional capacity through Short Food Supply Chains​

Strategic Perspective​

66

67

Pillar 5, Knowledge, Skills & Social Capacity​

67

Why Adaptive Food Capacity matters​

68

An adaptive Food Capacity Ecosystem​

69

Developing Adaptive Food Capacity​

71

Enabling continuous learning and innovation​

73

Utilising Europe's existing food resources​

74

Institutional learning, continuous improvement and foresight​

75

Strategic perspective​

76

Pillar 6, Assessment, Monitoring & Continuous Improvement​ Why assessment and continuous improvement matter​

An Integrated Resilience Assessment Framework​ Measuring resilience across the six pillars​ From assessment to continuous improvement​ Integrating assessment across the Six Pillars​ Strategic Perspective​ Principles for Implementation​ Governance Roles and Responsibilities​ Phased Implementation Roadmap​ Financing the transition​ Monitoring, Evaluation and Continuous Learning​ Strategic Perspective​

Strategic Recommendations​

77 78

79 81 82 83 83 87 88 91 94 96 98

100

Establish Food-System Resilience as a Strategic European Policy Objective​ Establish a European Food System Resilience Assessment Framework​

100 103

Strategic Objective​

103

Recommended Actions​

103

Strengthen distributed and diversified regional food systems​

106

Strategic Objective​

106

Strategic Perspective​

107

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

5

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Strengthen Governance, Collaboration and Preparedness​

107

Strategic Objective​

107

Strategic Perspective​

108

Invest in Adaptive Food Capacity​

108

Strategic Objective​

109

Strategic Perspective​

109

Institutionalise resilience assessment, monitoring and continuous improvement​ 110 Strategic Objective​

110

Strategic Perspective​

110

Final overview of the recommendations​

Conclusion​

111

113

Reframing European Food-System Resilience​

113

The contribution of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework​

113

Implications for European Policy and Practice​

114

Looking Forward​

115

Limitations​

115

Bibliography​

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

117

​

6

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

About this Framework Why was this framework developed?

Food is something we all depend on every day. Most of the time, we hardly think about how it reaches our plate. Farmers produce it, companies process it, transport organisations move it across Europe and beyond, retailers make it available, and governments help ensure that food remains safe and accessible.

Over the past decades, this system has become increasingly efficient and interconnected. While this has brought many benefits, it has also made the food system more dependent on complex supply chains, critical infrastructure and global markets. Recent events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme weather, geopolitical tensions, cyberattacks and disruptions to international trade, have demonstrated that food systems are vulnerable to a wide range of risks. A disruption in one part of the system can quickly affect many others.

These developments raise an important question: How can Europe ensure that its food system continues to function when it is confronted with increasingly complex and interconnected challenges?

This framework has been developed to help answer that question.

What is the European Resilient Food Systems Framework?

The European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) is a practical framework that helps governments, organisations and stakeholders understand what makes a food system resilient and how resilience can be strengthened over time.

Rather than focusing on a single topic, such as agriculture, climate change, emergency management or food security, the framework brings these different perspectives together into one integrated approach. It recognises that resilient food systems depend on many interconnected elements working together. Reliable communication, diverse food production, resilient infrastructure, effective governance, knowledgeable people and continuous learning all contribute to the ability of food systems to continue functioning during periods of disruption.

The framework therefore does not propose a single solution. Instead, it provides a common structure that can be adapted to different regions, sectors and governance levels while maintaining a shared European vision of resilience.

Who is this framework for?

Although the framework has been developed from a European perspective, it has been written for a broad audience.

It may be useful for: ●​ European institutions developing future food and resilience policies.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

7

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

●​ National, regional and local governments responsible for food security, emergency preparedness and regional development. ●​ Farmers, fisheries, food producers, processors and logistics companies seeking to strengthen operational resilience. ●​ Critical infrastructure operators responsible for energy, water, transport and digital systems that support food supply. ●​ Universities and research institutions studying resilience, sustainability and food systems. ●​ Educational organisations, civil society and community initiatives working to strengthen local food resilience.

Readers do not need to work in every one of these areas. The framework is intended to provide a common language that helps different sectors collaborate more effectively.

How is the framework organised?

The document is organised in a logical sequence.

It begins by explaining why resilient food systems have become increasingly important and how resilience is understood within scientific literature and European policy.

Building on this foundation, the report introduces six interconnected pillars that together form the European Resilient Food Systems Framework. Each pillar focuses on a different aspect of resilience, while also showing how it connects to the others.

The second half of the document shifts from theory to practice. It explains how the framework can be implemented, how organisations and governments can gradually increase their resilience, and which strategic recommendations can help guide future action. The report concludes by reflecting on the broader implications of adopting a resilience-based approach to European food systems.

Readers may therefore choose to read the report from beginning to end, or consult individual chapters that are most relevant to their own work.

What makes this framework different?

Many existing studies examine individual aspects of food security, climate adaptation, emergency management or agricultural policy. This framework takes a broader perspective.

Its central idea is that resilience does not emerge from one policy, one organisation or one investment. Instead, resilience develops through the interaction of many interconnected components that reinforce one another over time.

The ERFSF therefore combines scientific research with practical implementation. It integrates communication, food production, infrastructure, governance, education and continuous improvement into one coherent framework that can support decision-making across different sectors and governance levels.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

8

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Rather than proposing entirely new institutions or legislation, the framework demonstrates how existing European policies and programmes can be better connected to strengthen overall resilience.

A framework for continuous improvement One of the key messages of this report is that resilience is never finished.

New technologies, changing climates, evolving risks and societal developments will continue to reshape Europe's food system. Strengthening resilience is therefore not a one-time project but an ongoing process of learning, collaboration and adaptation.

The European Resilient Food Systems Framework should therefore be seen as a practical guide that can evolve alongside future scientific knowledge, policy developments and implementation experiences. Its purpose is not to prescribe identical solutions for every region, but to provide a common direction that helps Europe build food systems capable of withstanding future uncertainty while continuing to provide safe, reliable and sustainable food for society.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

9

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Foreword​ HRH Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme

From One Mansholt to a Million​ REBUILDING OUR FOOD SYSTEMS. TOGETHER!

We live in a world in crisis. In such moments the opportunities to renew systems can emerge. After the Second World War and the Hunger Winter, when thousands in the Netherlands died of starvation, one promise was made: never again hunger. Sicco Mansholt turned that promise into action in four years. Through industrialisation, land consolidation, education and economic reform he built a level of food security Europe had never known.

That transformation carried a steep cost. Soils are depleted. Biodiversity and nutrient density have declined. Our connection to nature largely vanished. What began as a solution became part of the problem. Mansholt recognised this already in the 1970s: the system he helped create was turning the farmer into a victim of its own success. A reset is overdue.

We have done it before. We can do it again. This time not with one man but with thousands, perhaps millions, of little Mansholts: farmers, city dwellers, entrepreneurs, scientists, policymakers and citizens who see that a systemic problem requires a systemic solution. Collective intelligence, honest dialogue and courageous collaboration form the path.

Today we possess resources Mansholt never had: collaborative models, living labs, the capacity to create across borders, and a digitally literate generation with a shared language. Movements for short supply chains, nutrient-dense food and landscape restoration grow rapidly. Denmark converts nearly four hundred thousand hectares to agroecological and regenerative practices. China accelerates ecosystem restoration at scale. Africa is reshaping its food systems and governance at scale. Across the world short food chains, measurable food quality and restoration initiatives gain momentum toward regional economies at scale.

The task is clear. Reorganise the globalised food system toward greater regional resilience. Address nitrogen, synthetic fertilisers, climate change, social divides and economic viability together. Shift focus from confrontation to connection, from short-term extraction to long-term value creation, from polarisation to facts, dignity and shared purpose.

Food is the ultimate connector. Without food there is no peace. Without farmers there is no food. Without healthy soil there are no healthy people. This concerns more than production. It concerns building a new economy of value and worthiness in which regional systems regain strength, farmers stand again as respected stewards, cities and countryside work in partnership, and consumers trust what they eat.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

10

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Whether you are a farmer, entrepreneur, policymaker, scientist, investor or citizen, we need your Mansholt qualities. Your contribution to the million small and large decisions that will democratise and renew our food systems. Build bridges. Create value. Restore trust through transparency and results. Turn the crisis into the greatest opportunity of our generation.

The future of food is something we build. Together. This European Resilient Food Systems Framework guides us towards future abundance for all.

This document is supported by:

Partner

reviewed

support

participate

EU4Advice

x

x

x

COREnet

x

x

x

FoodCLIC

x

CULTIVATE

x

x

Province of Flevoland

x

x

x

CopaCogeca

x

x

x

Common Source

x

x

x

Compazz Foundation

x

x

x

x

x

VIV Worldwide Food Valley

x

x

x

ERIAFF

x

x

x

Dutch AKIS

x

x

Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery, Food Security and Nature

x

PASGR

x

x

Royal Jaarbeurs / VIV Worldwide

x

x

Goumbook

x

x

Dutch Fishery Assocation

x

Province of North Holland

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

x

x

x

​

x

11

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Partner

reviewed

support

participate

Province of North Brabant

x

x

x

Wageningen University

x

x

……

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

12

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Introduction Europe’s food system has been shaped over recent decades by increasing specialization, globalization, technological integration, and logistical efficiency. While this development has enabled high productivity and broad consumer access to affordable food, it has also created new systemic vulnerabilities. Climate-related disasters, geopolitical instability, cyber threats, infrastructure disruptions, pandemics, and energy crises have demonstrated that food security can no longer be viewed solely through the lens of agricultural production. Instead, food security must increasingly be understood as a question of societal resilience and continuity.

Recent crises across Europe and beyond have highlighted the fragility of highly interconnected systems. Flooding events, wildfires, prolonged droughts, energy shortages, disruptions to communication infrastructure, and geopolitical conflicts have shown how disturbances in one sector can cascade into broader disruptions affecting logistics, food distribution, public trust, and social stability. Failures in communication and coordination systems can accelerate panic, misinformation, and civilian unrest, even when food supplies remain physically available within a region.

At the same time, these crises have revealed the strategic value of Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs), regional cooperation networks, and decentralized production systems. During periods of disruption, local and regional food actors often demonstrate greater adaptability, shorter response times, and stronger social embeddedness than highly centralized systems. SFSCs can therefore contribute not only to sustainability objectives, but also to resilience, continuity, and strategic autonomy within the European Union.

Against this background, there is an increasing need for approaches that strengthen the resilience of food systems across multiple governance levels and sectors. Food security depends not only on food production and availability, but also on the functioning of supporting systems, including energy, transport, communication, governance, and emergency response capacities. As a result, resilience must be considered from a systemic perspective that recognizes the interdependencies between these domains.

This paper presents a framework intended to support municipalities, regions, provinces, Member States, and European institutions in assessing and strengthening food system resilience. The framework is designed to be applicable across a broad range of disruption scenarios, including natural hazards, infrastructure failures, cyber incidents, geopolitical crises, economic shocks, and prolonged supply chain disruptions.

Rather than proposing an alternative to existing global food systems, the framework adopts a layered resilience approach in which local, regional, national, and European capacities complement one another during periods of systemic stress. The aim is not to reduce efficiency, but to balance efficiency with resilience, adaptability, redundancy, and societal continuity.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

13

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

By providing a structured perspective on food system resilience, this framework seeks to contribute to the ongoing discussion on European civil protection, strategic autonomy, and long-term food security. The methodology used to develop the framework is described in the following chapter.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

14

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Methodology and Framework Development Process Research Design The European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) was developed using a qualitative, participatory, and iterative research approach. The objective was not to test a predefined hypothesis, but to develop a practical framework capable of supporting public authorities and food system actors in assessing and strengthening food system resilience during systemic disruptions.

The framework was informed by stakeholder workshops, expert interviews, case-study analysis, and desk research. These activities were undertaken to identify critical vulnerabilities, resilience capacities, governance challenges, and opportunities for strengthening food system continuity across multiple governance levels.

The framework development process followed an abductive research approach.

Rather than deriving conclusions solely from theory (deduction) or solely from empirical observations (induction), findings from stakeholder workshops, expert interviews, and case studies were iteratively compared with existing scientific literature and policy frameworks. Through this process, recurring themes, patterns, and interdependencies were identified and translated into the resilience framework presented in this paper.

The different evidence streams were subsequently synthesized into a coherent resilience model consisting of six interconnected pillars that together form the basis of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework.

Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder participation formed a central component of the framework development process. Recognizing that food system resilience spans multiple sectors, governance levels, and areas of expertise, input was sought from a diverse group of actors including representatives from public authorities, research institutions, agricultural organizations, advisory services, regional networks, food system practitioners, and policymakers.

ERIAFF Conference Workshop The first workshop was conducted during an ERIAFF conference and involved sixteen participants representing different European regions and institutions. The workshop explored the implications of systemic disruptions for food security and food system continuity.

Participants were invited to discuss critical infrastructure dependencies, potential cascading effects of infrastructure failures, governance responsibilities, lessons learned from previous crises, and the contribution of Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) to resilience. Discussions highlighted the interconnected nature of food systems and revealed concerns regarding communication continuity, energy

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

15

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

dependency, logistics vulnerabilities, regional coordination, local production capacity, knowledge retention, and cross-border cooperation.

Utrecht City Leading Food Productions, Resilience Workshop To further explore and validate the initial findings, a second workshop was organized in Utrecht involving thirty-six participants representing food system actors, governmental organizations, researchers, regional authorities, advisory services, and practitioners.

Building upon the themes identified during the ERIAFF workshop, participants were asked to reflect on essential functions of resilient food systems, governance arrangements, critical infrastructure dependencies, and possible measures for improving food system continuity during disruptions.

The workshops were not intended to achieve consensus. Instead, they served to identify recurring perspectives, shared concerns, and common resilience themes emerging across different stakeholder groups and governance levels.

Expert Interviews To complement the workshop findings, semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of the Ukrainian agricultural sector based in Brussels.

The ongoing war in Ukraine provides a unique case of food system operation under conditions of prolonged disruption. Interviewees were invited to share their experiences regarding food production, infrastructure damage, logistical challenges, export continuity, emergency adaptation measures, and governance coordination during wartime conditions.

These interviews provided practical insights into the resilience capacities required to maintain food system functioning under extreme circumstances and helped identify factors that may also be relevant in other crisis scenarios.

Case Study Analysis To ground the framework in real-world experiences, several recent disruption events were examined to understand how crises affect food system continuity and how actors respond under stress conditions.

COVID-19 Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic was analyzed as a large-scale systemic disruption affecting food production, processing, logistics, labour availability, consumer behaviour, and supply chain coordination.

Particular attention was given to the adaptive responses demonstrated by local and regional food systems, including direct marketing initiatives, decentralized distribution channels, and strengthening of local producer-consumer relationships.

The pandemic also highlighted vulnerabilities associated with highly optimized supply chains and revealed the importance of flexibility, redundancy, and local resilience capacity.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

16

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Flooding in the Valencia Region The flooding events in the Valencia region of Spain were examined as a case illustrating the impacts of climate-related disasters on food systems and supporting infrastructure.

The case provided insights into cascading effects arising from transport disruptions, infrastructure damage, communication challenges, and interruptions to regional economic activity. It further highlighted the importance of territorial resilience, infrastructure redundancy, emergency coordination, and adaptive governance during large-scale environmental shocks.

Desk Research A targeted desk review was conducted to complement stakeholder input and situate the framework within existing scientific and policy debates.

The review included scientific literature, resilience frameworks, policy reports, governmental publications, and crisis evaluations relating to: ●​ food system resilience ●​ disaster risk reduction ●​ critical infrastructure resilience ●​ climate adaptation ●​ crisis governance ●​ civil protection ●​ strategic autonomy ●​ supply chain resilience ●​ Short Food Supply Chains Attention was given to lessons emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and climate-related disruptions affecting food systems and critical infrastructure.

The desk research served two purposes. First, it provided theoretical foundations for understanding resilience within complex and interconnected systems. Second, it was used to validate and contextualize themes emerging from stakeholder engagement activities and case-study observations.

Evidence Base for Framework Development The framework was developed through the integration of multiple evidence sources.

This approach was chosen to combine practical experiences, stakeholder knowledge, policy perspectives, and scientific understanding of food system resilience.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

17

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Table 1. Evidence sources used in framework development

Evidence Source

Contribution to Framework Development

ERIAFF stakeholder workshop

Identification of vulnerabilities, dependencies, governance challenges, and resilience priorities

Utrecht stakeholder workshop

Validation and expansion of resilience themes and proposed interventions

Interviews with Ukrainian agricultural representatives

Practical lessons from maintaining food system continuity during wartime disruptions

COVID-19 case study

Insights into supply chain disruptions and adaptive responses

Valencia flooding case study

Insights into cascading infrastructure and logistics failures during climate-related disasters

Scientific literature

Conceptual foundations for food system resilience and systems thinking

European policy and resilience frameworks

Alignment with European governance, civil protection, and strategic resilience objectives

​ The combination of these evidence streams enabled the identification of recurring vulnerabilities, resilience capacities, governance challenges, and intervention areas across different contexts and scales.

Framework Development and Synthesis The final framework was developed through a process of qualitative synthesis conducted by the authors.

Information obtained from workshops, interviews, case studies, and desk research was systematically reviewed and compared. During this process, recurring themes were identified and grouped into broader resilience domains. Understanding the interdependencies between food systems and supporting systems such as energy, transport, communication, governance, infrastructure, and social capacity were focused on.

The analysis demonstrated that food security cannot be understood solely in terms of food production or availability. Rather, food security emerged as a systemic challenge involving multiple interconnected sectors and governance levels.

Through several rounds of iterative analysis and refinement, the identified themes were organized into six interconnected resilience pillars. Together, these pillars form the conceptual structure of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework.

The framework should therefore be understood as a conceptual and practice-oriented synthesis of insights from multiple evidence streams rather than as the outcome of a European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

18

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

single empirical dataset. Its purpose is to support resilience assessment, strategic planning, preparedness activities, and policy development across municipalities, regions, Member States, and European institutions.

Researcher Role The framework was developed and synthesized by H.J. Niemeijer and assisted by Mark Frederiks.

In this role, the authors functioned as workshop facilitator, researcher, interviewer, analyst, and framework designer. The author's task was to interpret the collected evidence, identify recurring patterns and interdependencies, and translate these insights into a coherent resilience framework.

Rather than deriving the framework from a predetermined theoretical model, the framework emerged through an iterative process of engagement with stakeholders, empirical observations, case-study analysis, and existing resilience literature. The resulting model represents a distillation of diverse perspectives and knowledge sources into a practical framework intended to support food system resilience planning within the European context.

Limitations Several limitations should be acknowledged.

First, the framework is primarily based on qualitative data and stakeholder perspectives. Although efforts were made to involve participants from diverse backgrounds and sectors, the findings may not fully represent all relevant stakeholder groups within Europe.

Second, the framework has not yet been validated through large-scale implementation across multiple regions or Member States.

Third, resilience is highly context-dependent. The relevance and applicability of specific measures may vary according to regional characteristics, governance structures, infrastructure systems, environmental conditions, and food system configurations.

Future research could strengthen the framework through pilot implementations, resilience stress-testing exercises, comparative regional assessments, scenario simulations, expert validation processes, and the development of quantitative resilience indicators.

Despite these limitations, the combination of stakeholder engagement, expert interviews, case-study analysis, and literature review provides a robust foundation for the development of a practical and adaptable framework for strengthening European food system resilience.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

19

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Systemic Vulnerabilities in European Food Security Europe’s food system operates through a highly interconnected network of production areas, logistics infrastructure, communication systems, energy networks, financial services, governance institutions, and international trade flows. While this interconnectedness has improved efficiency and market integration, it has also increased systemic vulnerability. Disruptions in one domain can rapidly cascade into multiple sectors, affecting food availability, accessibility, affordability, and public stability.

The contemporary risk landscape is characterized not by isolated incidents, but by compound and cascading crises. A flood can disrupt transport infrastructure and electricity supply; a cyberattack can disable communication systems and logistics coordination; geopolitical conflict can simultaneously affect energy markets, fertilizer access, and public trust. These disruptions often reinforce one another, creating systemic stress conditions that exceed the capacity of traditional emergency planning approaches.

Food security resilience therefore requires a layered governance and operational approach in which responsibilities, capabilities, and response mechanisms are distributed across multiple territorial and institutional levels. Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) play a critical role within this model by strengthening regional adaptability, reducing dependency on vulnerable long-distance supply systems, and enabling localized crisis response capacity.

This framework identifies five interconnected categories of systemic risk.

1. Infrastructure risks Modern food systems are critically dependent on functioning infrastructure networks.

Failures in these systems can rapidly interrupt production, storage, transport, and distribution capacities.

Key vulnerabilities include: ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​

large-scale electricity outages, failure of digital communication systems, cyberattacks on logistics or data infrastructure, fuel shortages, disruption of water management systems, failure of cold storage infrastructure, damage to ports, roads, rail, and bridges.

Modern food systems are increasingly dependent on digital communication infrastructure for logistics coordination, transport synchronization, financial transactions, emergency management, and information exchange between producers, distributors, authorities, and consumers. Disruptions to communication systems therefore represent not only an information challenge, but also a direct

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

20

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

operational risk to food system continuity (Bertolozzi-Caredio et al., 2023; Deconinck et al., 2023)

2. Climate and environmental risks Scientific evidence demonstrates that climate-related disruptions are increasing in frequency, intensity, duration, and geographic extent across Europe. According to the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Europe is experiencing rising risks from flooding, drought, wildfires, extreme heat events, water scarcity, soil degradation, and climate-induced agricultural stress (EEA, 2024; IPCC AR6, 2023).

These disruptions increasingly affect multiple agricultural regions simultaneously, reducing the buffering capacity and redundancy of the European food system. Recent climate events have shown that concurrent disruptions across several producing regions can significantly affect agricultural productivity, transport systems, water availability, and food market stability (European Commission JRC, 2023).

Climate change is also contributing to increased pest pressure and crop disease outbreaks due to changing temperatures, shifting ecosystems, and altered seasonal patterns. Research indicates that warming conditions are expanding the geographic spread and survival rates of agricultural pests and pathogens across Europe (FAO, 2022; IPCC AR6, 2023).

In addition, research on food system resilience highlights the vulnerability of highly specialized and geographically concentrated production systems. Concentration of strategic agricultural production, processing, or storage capacity within a limited number of regions can create systemic dependencies, increasing the risk that localized disruptions generate cascading impacts across wider national and international food systems (Bertolozzi-Caredio et al., 2023; FAO, 2023).

This is particularly relevant for specialized seed production, breeding systems, and critical agricultural inputs. Disruptions affecting concentrated production regions can have consequences far beyond the immediate area due to the interconnected nature of modern agricultural supply chains and international dependency on specific production hubs.

The increasing occurrence of compound and cascading climate events therefore highlights the need for distributed resilience strategies, regional diversification, and strengthened Short Food Supply Chains as part of Europe’s broader food security and strategic autonomy agenda.

“Highly specialized agricultural regions may create systemic concentration risks in which localized climate disruptions generate cascading impacts across wider European and global food systems.”

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

21

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

3. Geopolitical and security risks The European food system is deeply embedded within global trade networks, energy markets, digital infrastructure, and geopolitical supply chains. Scientific and policy research increasingly demonstrates that geopolitical instability can significantly affect food system continuity through disruptions to trade, logistics, energy access, transport corridors, communication infrastructure, and agricultural input markets (FAO, 2022; European Commission, 2023).

Recent crises have highlighted the vulnerability of globally interconnected food systems to: ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​

border closures, trade restrictions, sanctions, armed conflict, maritime disruption, cyberattacks, and infrastructure sabotage (OECD, 2023; World Bank, 2022).

​ Research further indicates that modern food systems are increasingly exposed to hybrid threats due to their dependence on digital coordination systems, energy infrastructure, satellite navigation, international logistics networks, and globally concentrated production chains (Dzerowicz, 2023; European Union Institute for Security Studies, 2024) Parts of this critical infrastructure: ●​ Ports ●​ Energy systems ●​ Communication networks ●​ Transport corridors ●​ Subsea communication cables They may generate cascading impacts across food production, processing, storage, distribution, and retail systems. These interdependencies increase the strategic importance of resilience planning and infrastructure redundancy within the European Union (European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2023).

Scientific literature and recent European policy analyses highlight the risks associated with strategic resource dependencies within food systems. The EU food system remains dependent on external suppliers for a range of critical inputs, including fertilizers, energy, animal feed, seeds, digital infrastructure, communication systems, and agricultural technologies. Disruptions affecting the availability, accessibility, or affordability of these inputs may generate significant cascading effects throughout food production, processing, logistics, and distribution systems (Loi et al., 2024; European Commission EFSCM, 2023).

As a result, food security is increasingly linked to broader discussions on European strategic autonomy, critical infrastructure resilience, and societal preparedness.

European institutions have recognized that maintaining food-system continuity

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

22

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

requires not only resilient agricultural production but also secure access to critical inputs, functioning supply chains, and effective crisis coordination mechanisms. The European Food Security Crisis Preparedness and Response Mechanism (EFSCM) was established specifically to strengthen preparedness for disruptions affecting food security and food supply continuity across the European Union This framework therefore recognizes food resilience as a strategic component of European civil protection, societal stability, and security preparedness.

“Strategic dependencies on external systems and globally concentrated supply chains may reduce Europe’s ability to maintain food system continuity during geopolitical crises.”

4. Societal risks Food crises are not solely logistical or agricultural events; they are also societal events that directly affect public behaviour, institutional trust, social stability, and community resilience. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) argues that modern crises increasingly manifest as systemic risks, where disruptions in one sector can cascade into others and amplify societal vulnerabilities. Likewise, the World Bank has highlighted the importance of social cohesion, trust, and community resilience in strengthening a society’s capacity to cope with shocks and disruptions.

Societal risks associated with food system disruptions include: ●​ panic behaviour and panic buying ●​ misinformation and disinformation ●​ migration from urban to rural areas ●​ labor force shortages ●​ weakening social cohesion ●​ declining practical food production knowledge ●​ unequal access to food resources ●​ unrest within vulnerable communities Research by the World Health Organization (WHO) demonstrates that uncertainty, reduced access to trusted information, and the spread of misinformation can significantly influence public behaviour during emergencies. Populations experiencing uncertainty are more likely to display panic purchasing, hoarding behaviour, distrust toward authorities, and reduced compliance with emergency measures. These dynamics may place additional pressure on already stressed food distribution systems and emergency governance structures.

Recent European and international crises have also demonstrated the importance of social cohesion and local community capacity during prolonged disruptions.

According to the OECD, resilient communities are often characterized by strong social networks, civic engagement, cooperation, and trust between citizens and institutions. The UNDRR similarly identifies social cohesion and community resilience as fundamental determinants of a society’s ability to absorb, adapt to, and recover

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

23

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

from crises and disasters. Communities with stronger local networks and higher levels of trust frequently demonstrate greater adaptive capacity during emergencies.

At the same time, modern societies have become increasingly disconnected from practical food production, storage, preservation, and preparation knowledge.

Research on food system resilience and preparedness suggests that declining practical food skills and reduced local food knowledge may weaken societal adaptability during prolonged disruptions affecting centralized food supply systems.

Reduced household and community self-sufficiency can increase dependence on external support and limit adaptive responses to shortages or supply chain disruptions.

Socio-economic inequalities may further intensify food insecurity during crises. Both the UNDRR and the World Bank have emphasized that disasters frequently exacerbate existing inequalities because vulnerable populations often have lower purchasing power, reduced mobility, weaker access to services, and fewer resources available for recovery. Food crises may therefore aggravate existing social vulnerabilities and contribute to broader societal instability.

Research in risk communication further demonstrates that failures in trusted communication systems can significantly amplify societal instability during emergencies. WHO Europe (2024) highlights that when official communication channels become unavailable, unreliable, or insufficiently trusted, populations increasingly depend on informal networks and unverified information sources. This can contribute to the spread of misinformation, declining institutional trust, panic behaviour, and weakened coordination between authorities and citizens. Research conducted by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) further shows that trust in institutions plays an important role in determining how citizens respond to information during periods of crisis and uncertainty.

Communication continuity should therefore be understood not only as a technical infrastructure requirement, but also as a critical component of societal resilience, democratic stability, and effective crisis governance. The ability of authorities to provide timely, transparent, and trusted information can significantly influence public behaviour, maintain institutional trust, and strengthen the effectiveness of emergency response measures.

The increasing interdependence between food systems, communication infrastructure, social cohesion, and public trust highlights the need for resilience strategies that integrate not only logistical and infrastructural preparedness, but also societal preparedness, civic engagement, community resilience, and effective communication mechanisms. Strengthening these social dimensions of resilience can improve society’s ability to withstand, adapt to, and recover from future food system disruptions.

5. Economic risks Food systems are highly sensitive to economic shocks due to their dependence on interconnected global markets, energy systems, transport networks, financial European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

24

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

services, labour availability, and agricultural input supply chains. In Towards Resilient Food Systems: Implications of Supply Chain Disruptions and Policy Responses, Deconinck et al. (2023) emphasize that food system resilience extends beyond food availability and affordability and must account for a broad range of economic, environmental, and social disruptions affecting the capacity of food systems to maintain continuity.

Potential economic risks include: ●​ inflation ●​ banking and financial disruptions ●​ market concentration ●​ supply price volatility ●​ transport cost increases ●​ disruptions in agricultural input markets ●​ labour shortages and labour-cost shocks Recent crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the energy market disruptions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and global supply chain disturbances, have demonstrated how rapidly economic instability can affect food systems across Europe and beyond. In Risks and Vulnerabilities in the EU Food Supply Chain, Bertolozzi-Caredio et al. (2023) identify energy availability, transport disruptions, labour shortages, input dependencies, and market volatility as important sources of vulnerability throughout the European food system.

Similarly, the European Parliament study The Dependency of the EU's Food System on Inputs and Their Sources (Loi et al., 2024) concludes that the European food system remains dependent on a number of critical imported inputs, including fertilizers, animal feed, energy resources, and agricultural raw materials. The authors note that recent crises exposed vulnerabilities associated with disruptions in international trade flows, input availability, and concentrated supplier markets.

Deconinck et al. (2023) further argue that food supply chains are often designed to maximize efficiency and economic performance under stable conditions. However, they note that resilience requires a broader perspective than efficiency alone, particularly when systems are exposed to prolonged disruptions, market shocks, or rapidly changing conditions. Food systems may experience significant impacts through increasing production costs, reduced affordability, logistical bottlenecks, trade restrictions, and disruptions to critical inputs.

The European Commission Joint Research Centre likewise concludes that vulnerabilities frequently arise from systemic dependencies and limited flexibility within food supply chains. Bertolozzi-Caredio et al. (2023) found that disruptions affecting transport systems, energy infrastructure, logistics networks, or important production regions can generate cascading effects throughout wider food systems and increase exposure to food supply risks.

Loi et al. (2024) explicitly warn that recent shocks have highlighted the risks of pursuing economic efficiency without adequately considering resilience. Their study concludes that reducing dependencies on externally sourced critical inputs,

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

25

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

diversifying supply sources, and increasing the adaptive capacity of food systems are important components of long-term food security and resilience.

For this reason, resilience-oriented food systems require: ●​ strategic redundancy ●​ distributed production capacity ●​ regional diversification ●​ decentralized storage and processing infrastructure ●​ diversified sourcing of critical inputs ●​ strengthened Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) Distributed and regionally diversified systems may improve adaptive capacity by reducing dependency on single suppliers, concentrated markets, vulnerable transport corridors, or geographically concentrated production systems. In this context, resilience should not be understood as the opposite of efficiency, but as the capacity of food systems to maintain continuity, adaptability, and societal stability under conditions of systemic stress.

Deconinck et al. (2023) summarize this broader perspective by stating: “Policy makers should therefore take a more complete systems-wide view of resilience.”

Building upon this perspective, strengthening economic resilience requires not only efficiency and competitiveness, but also diversification, adaptability, strategic reserve capacity, distributed production systems, and resilient regional food networks capable of maintaining continuity during periods of disruption. The challenge for future food policy is therefore not to replace efficiency with resilience, but to balance both within a food system capable of withstanding increasingly complex and interconnected risks.

6. A layered resilience approach Because food system risks are systemic and interconnected, resilience cannot be managed by a single governance level alone. Effective food security preparedness requires coordinated action across municipalities, regions, provinces, national governments, and European institutions.

The ERFSF therefore adopts a layered resilience approach in which responsibilities are distributed across governance levels according to their operational capabilities, while remaining interconnected through shared planning, communication, and coordination mechanisms.

Governance Roles within the Resilience Framework Municipal Level: Community continuity and immediate response Municipalities represent the first operational layer during a crisis because they are closest to citizens and local communities. Their primary responsibility is to ensure continued access to food and essential services for residents, particularly vulnerable groups.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

26

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Key responsibilities include: ●​ identifying vulnerable populations ●​ maintaining local emergency communication ●​ coordinating local food distribution ●​ supporting community networks and volunteers ●​ mapping local food actors and assets ●​ strengthening food literacy and preparedness Municipalities serve as the direct interface between resilience planning and citizens.

Regional Level: Operational coordination Food systems often operate at a regional scale rather than a municipal scale.

Regional authorities therefore play an important coordinating role between local actors and national structures.

Key responsibilities include: ●​ coordinating regional logistics and transportation ●​ supporting storage and processing capacity ●​ integrating producer and distribution networks ●​ coordinating emergency food redistribution ●​ supporting regional Short Food Supply Chains ●​ coordinating water and infrastructure operations during crises Regions act as operational hubs capable of mobilizing resources across multiple municipalities.

Provincial Level: Strategic infrastructure and spatial coordination Provincial authorities provide the connection between territorial planning, critical infrastructure, agricultural development, and resilience governance.

Key responsibilities include: ●​ resilience-oriented spatial planning ●​ protection of strategic agricultural areas ●​ oversight of critical infrastructure systems ●​ water management coordination ●​ identification of systemic vulnerabilities ●​ coordination between regional and national authorities At this level, strategic risks can be identified and addressed before they become operational failures. Examples include: ●​ concentrated agricultural production areas ●​ critical bridges and transport corridors ●​ energy bottlenecks ●​ flood-sensitive food infrastructure ●​ major storage and logistics hubs National Level: Strategic coordination and civil protection National governments provide the legal, financial, and institutional framework required to maintain food system continuity during large-scale crises.

Key responsibilities include:

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

27

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

●​ ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​

national emergency coordination civil protection management strategic food reserves emergency legislation military-civilian coordination border management and trade continuity critical infrastructure protection national communication protocols

National governments are also responsible for aligning actors across agriculture, infrastructure, health, defence, energy, communication, and economic affairs.

Food resilience therefore requires integrated cross-ministerial governance rather than isolated sectoral approaches.

European Union Level: Strategic autonomy and cross-border resilience Many food system risks extend beyond national borders. The European Union therefore provides the coordination layer necessary to address systemic risks affecting multiple Member States simultaneously.

Key responsibilities include: ●​ safeguarding internal market continuity ●​ maintaining green lanes for food transport ●​ coordinating emergency funding mechanisms ●​ developing common resilience standards ●​ facilitating cross-border data sharing ●​ supporting resilient communication infrastructure ●​ coordinating large-scale crisis response ●​ strengthening European strategic autonomy Importantly, the European Union should not replace local, regional, or national responsibilities. Instead, its role is to strengthen, connect, and support these governance levels through common frameworks, interoperability standards, investment mechanisms, and coordinated preparedness efforts.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

28

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

7. Interconnectivity between governance layers The effectiveness of this resilience framework depends on strong interconnectivity between governance levels.

The layered model functions through: ●​ vertical coordination between governance levels, ●​ horizontal cooperation between regions and Member States, ●​ public-private partnerships, ●​ integration of civil society and producer networks, ●​ shared communication systems, ●​ interoperable emergency protocols.

No single governance level can ensure food security independently.

Municipal preparedness depends on regional logistics.​ Regional coordination depends on national infrastructure continuity.​ National resilience depends on European cooperation.​ European stability depends on strong local implementation capacity.

This interdependence requires governance systems that are: ●​ ●​ ●​ ●​

distributed, cooperative, adaptive, redundant,

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

29

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

●​ and capable of operating under degraded conditions. ​ In this context, Short Food Supply Chains should be viewed not as isolated local initiatives, but as interconnected resilience layers embedded within the broader European food system.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

30

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

The Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Food System Resilience Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) have received increasing attention as a potential mechanism for strengthening food system resilience. However, their role remains subject to debate. While many researchers and policymakers highlight their contribution to regional resilience, stronger producer-consumer relationships, and local economic development, others point to challenges related to efficiency, scalability, affordability, and commercial viability.

Consequently, the key question is not whether SFSCs should replace existing food systems, but under which conditions they can complement larger food networks and contribute to resilience during periods of disruption.

Potential Benefits of Short Food Supply Chains SFSCs are generally characterized by shorter geographical distances, fewer intermediaries, and stronger connections between producers and consumers.

According to the European Food Security Crisis Preparedness and Response Mechanism (EFSCM), diversification of supply sources, including the strengthening of shorter food supply chains, can contribute to the resilience of food systems by reducing dependency on single channels and improving adaptability during crises.

Studies conducted during and after the COVID-19 pandemic found that local and regional food networks frequently demonstrated considerable flexibility in adapting to sudden market changes. Direct marketing initiatives, local food hubs, community-supported agriculture schemes, and regional distribution systems often responded rapidly to disruptions in conventional supply chains while maintaining access to food for local populations.

Potential resilience benefits include: ●​ shorter and potentially more adaptable supply chains ●​ stronger direct relationships between producers and consumers ●​ diversification of food sourcing channels ●​ stronger regional economic circulation ●​ enhanced local knowledge and community engagement ●​ reduced dependence on a limited number of dominant actors ●​ increased local crisis response capacity These characteristics can increase redundancy and adaptive capacity within food systems, both of which are widely recognized as important dimensions of resilience.

The OECD similarly emphasizes that resilience requires the ability to absorb, adapt to, and recover from disruptions rather than simply maximizing efficiency under normal conditions. ​ ​ ​ ​

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

31

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Limitations and Challenges of SFSCs At the same time, SFSCs are not without limitations.

Large-scale food supply chains frequently benefit from economies of scale, advanced logistics systems, specialized processing capacity, and highly efficient transportation networks. Such systems often provide food at lower costs and can maintain year-round availability of a broad range of products.

Research indicates that SFSCs may face challenges including: ●​ higher production and distribution costs ●​ limited market reach ●​ fragmented logistics systems ●​ seasonal product availability ●​ insufficient storage and processing capacity ●​ difficulties in achieving commercial scale ●​ dependence on local purchasing power The OECD warns against viewing resilience exclusively through a local lens.

International trade and larger supply chains also contribute to resilience by allowing countries and regions to draw on alternative sources of food when domestic production is affected by droughts, floods, disease outbreaks, or other disruptions.

Trade therefore functions as a form of risk pooling and diversification.

Existing research does not suggest that either local or global food systems are inherently more resilient. Rather, studies by the OECD and the European Commission indicate that resilience depends on diversity, adaptability, redundancy, and the ability to respond to disruptions across multiple scales. This suggests that local, regional, national, and international food systems should be viewed as complementary components of a resilient food architecture rather than competing alternatives.

Moving beyond the “Global versus Local” debate From a resilience perspective, framing the discussion as a choice between global supply chains and local food systems creates a false dilemma.

Global food systems provide significant advantages through efficiency, economies of scale, specialization, and product diversity. At the same time, recent disruptions including COVID-19, energy market instability, climate-related disasters, and the war in Ukraine have highlighted the importance of maintaining local and regional capacities that can operate when larger systems experience stress.

The European Parliament study The Dependency of the EU's Food System on Inputs and Their Sources concludes that food system resilience can be strengthened through diversification of supply sources and reduction of dependencies on critical inputs and vulnerable external suppliers.

From this perspective, SFSCs should be regarded as a complementary resilience layer rather than an alternative to global food systems.​ ​

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

32

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

In such a layered approach: ●​ global food systems provide efficiency, scale, and diversity ●​ national systems provide strategic coordination and reserves ●​ regional systems provide operational flexibility ●​ local systems provide adaptability, community capacity, and emergency continuity Increasing the Resilience and Viability of SFSCs The resilience contribution of SFSCs depends largely on how they are organized and integrated within wider food systems.

Several measures may strengthen both their resilience value and their commercial viability: ●​ regional food hubs and aggregation centres ●​ cooperative storage and processing facilities ●​ shared logistics networks ●​ digital marketplaces and coordination platforms ●​ public procurement programmes ●​ integration with municipal and regional emergency planning ●​ support for local processing capacity ●​ collaboration between SFSC actors and larger supply chains Such approaches can help overcome many of the scale and efficiency challenges often associated with local food systems while preserving their resilience benefits.

SFSCs as a complementary resilience layer Within the European Resilient Food Systems Framework, SFSCs are therefore viewed not as substitutes for existing supply chains, but as complementary resilience infrastructure.

Their principal value lies in increasing system diversity, reducing specific dependencies, strengthening regional capacity, and providing additional options during periods of disruption. When appropriately integrated into broader governance, infrastructure, and preparedness strategies, SFSCs can contribute to: ●​ food system adaptability ●​ regional economic resilience ●​ infrastructure redundancy ●​ community resilience and social cohesion ●​ continuity of essential food services during crises Strengthening SFSCs should therefore be considered part of a broader resilience strategy that seeks to balance efficiency with adaptability, redundancy, diversification, and regional capacity. This approach is consistent with the OECD's conclusion that resilient food systems require a broader systems perspective capable of anticipating, absorbing, and adapting to increasingly complex disruptions.

An important observation from the OECD is that: "Policy makers should therefore take a more complete systems-wide view of resilience."

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

33

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Executive Summary, Systemic Vulnerabilities and Foundational Insights for Food System Resilience in Europe Europe’s food system operates within a dense network of interdependent infrastructures: energy, transport, communication, water management, digital coordination systems, financial services, and international trade. This interconnectedness has enabled decades of efficiency and productivity, yet it also creates systemic vulnerabilities. Recent crises, including climate-related disasters, cyberattacks, geopolitical instability, pandemics, and disruptions in critical infrastructure, demonstrate how failures in one domain can rapidly cascade across the entire food system, affecting production, logistics, market stability, and societal trust.

The contemporary risk landscape is defined by compound and cascading disruptions.

A single infrastructure failure can simultaneously impact cold-chain continuity, logistics coordination, digital communication, and emergency response. Climate events increasingly affect multiple regions at once, reducing Europe’s natural redundancy. Geopolitical tensions influence access to fertilizers, energy, feed, seeds, and other critical inputs on which European agriculture depends. Social dynamics — such as misinformation, panic buying, labour shortages, and declining practical food knowledge — further amplify systemic stress during crises.

At the same time, recent disruptions have revealed the strategic value of Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs). Local and regional food networks demonstrate faster adaptation, stronger social embeddedness, and reduced dependency on vulnerable long-distance supply routes. SFSCs enhance territorial resilience, shorten response times, and strengthen regional autonomy during periods of systemic pressure.

These insights highlight that food security is no longer solely a matter of agricultural output. It is fundamentally a question of system continuity, requiring coordinated resilience across multiple governance levels, municipal, regional, national, and European. Effective governance, communication continuity, infrastructure redundancy, and adaptive capacity determine whether food systems can withstand and recover from disruptions.

The European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) translates these findings into six interconnected pillars that together form a comprehensive model for strengthening food system resilience. These pillars address communication and civic coordination, distributed production, operational continuity, multi-level governance, knowledge and skills, and economic resilience. Collectively, they provide a structured foundation for strategic planning, crisis preparedness, and long-term resilience across Europe’s food systems.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

34

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

The Six Pillars of Food System Resilience This framework proposes six interconnected pillars that together form the operational, territorial, societal, and economic foundation of resilient food systems within the European context.

Building on existing food system resilience literature (e.g., Tendall et al., 2015), Food system resilience is understood not only as the ability to maintain food production, but also as the capacity of societies, infrastructure systems, institutions, economies, and communities to preserve food continuity, adaptability, and stability during periods of disruption, crisis, or long-term systemic change.

by H.J. Niemeijer (2026) The six pillars are mutually interdependent and should therefore be approached through integrated governance, long-term preparedness, and multi-level coordination.

Pillar 1, Communication & Civic Coordination To ensure the continuity of trusted communication, coordination, and information exchange during crises affecting food security, critical infrastructure, and societal stability.

Communication is one of the most important enabling functions within a resilient food system. Modern food systems rely on continuous information exchange between food producers, processors, logistics operators, retailers, emergency services, public authorities, infrastructure providers, and citizens. Food availability alone does not guarantee food security; food systems also depend on the ability of actors to coordinate production, transport, storage, distribution, emergency response, and public communication.

Research by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) demonstrates that modern crises increasingly involve interconnected and cascading risks, where disruptions in one sector rapidly affect multiple others. Similarly, the World Health Organization (WHO) highlights the critical importance of trusted communication for maintaining public confidence, combating misinformation, and supporting effective crisis response. Communication resilience should therefore be considered a foundational component of food system resilience rather than merely a supporting function.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

35

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Communication failures as food system risks Modern food systems are increasingly dependent on digital communication and information infrastructure. Ordering systems, inventory management, transport scheduling, payment systems, emergency alerts, logistics coordination, and public information services all rely on digital connectivity.

As a result, communication disruptions can have consequences far beyond the loss of information itself. A failure of communication infrastructure may prevent food from being effectively coordinated, distributed, purchased, or accessed, even when physical food supplies remain available.

Communication failures can result from: ●​ cyberattacks ●​ prolonged electricity outages ●​ internet infrastructure failures ●​ disruptions to mobile communication networks ●​ failures of cloud services and data centres ●​ satellite disruptions ●​ sabotage of telecommunications infrastructure ●​ natural disasters affecting communication assets ●​ geopolitical disruptions affecting critical external service providers Recent crises have demonstrated the importance of communication continuity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, uncertainty and inconsistent information contributed to panic buying and hoarding behaviour despite adequate food availability. Flooding events, cyber incidents, and infrastructure disruptions across Europe have demonstrated how communication failures can reduce situational awareness, hinder logistics coordination, and weaken public trust. The ongoing war in Ukraine has further shown how attacks on energy and communication infrastructure can directly affect food distribution, emergency management, and societal resilience.

In highly digitalized societies, these risks are amplified because many critical functions depend on internet connectivity, cloud-based platforms, digital payment systems, satellite services, and centralized data infrastructure. When these underlying systems fail, multiple sectors can be affected simultaneously. Under such circumstances, misinformation, uncertainty, and coordination failures may become as disruptive as the original crisis itself.

Why existing communication systems may be insufficient Europe already possesses a wide range of emergency communication capabilities.

These include emergency alert systems, civil protection networks, dedicated communication systems for emergency services, emergency broadcasting mechanisms, satellite communication capabilities, and national crisis management platforms.​ ​

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

36

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

However, most existing systems share a common vulnerability: “they ultimately depend on functioning electricity networks, internet connectivity, telecommunications infrastructure, data centres, cloud services, and digital service providers.”

A prolonged power outage, large-scale cyberattack, disruption of satellite services, telecommunications failure, or compromise of critical internet infrastructure may therefore affect multiple communication channels simultaneously. Systems that normally operate independently may still fail because they rely on the same underlying infrastructure.

Modern societies have also become increasingly dependent on a relatively small number of communication platforms, cloud providers, digital service operators, and satellite systems. While these systems are highly effective under normal conditions, disruptions affecting these critical dependencies can significantly reduce communication resilience during crises.

From a resilience perspective, the challenge is therefore not simply protecting communication systems, but ensuring that communication remains possible when primary systems fail.

The European Emergency Mesh Network (EEMN) To address this challenge, the framework proposes the development of a European Emergency Mesh Network (EEMN).

The EEMN should not be understood as a new standalone communication network or as a replacement for existing emergency communication systems. Instead, it is conceived as an interoperable communication continuity framework designed to connect and support existing communication capabilities during periods of disruption.

The added value of the EEMN lies in its ability to reduce dependency on single communication technologies, single providers, and single infrastructure pathways.

Rather than relying on one communication channel, the EEMN would support a layered and resilient communication architecture that combines: ●​ terrestrial communication networks ●​ emergency radio systems ●​ satellite communication capabilities ●​ decentralized mesh-network technologies ●​ emergency broadcasting systems ●​ civil protection communication networks ●​ locally operated fallback communication mechanisms The objective is to ensure continuity of information exchange when one or more parts of the communication ecosystem become unavailable.

The EEMN is built around four key principles:

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

37

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Redundancy, ensuring multiple communication pathways remain available when primary systems fail.

Interoperability, enabling different actors, sectors, and governance levels to exchange information through compatible systems and protocols.

Decentralization, reducing reliance on single points of failure and enabling communication to continue when parts of a network become disconnected.

Continuity, ensuring essential communication functions remain operational during prolonged disruptions.

The EEMN would therefore function as a resilient coordination layer connecting municipalities, regional authorities, national governments, food producers, logistics operators, infrastructure providers, emergency services, civil protection agencies, and citizens.

Strategic Autonomy and Resilience An additional objective of the EEMN is to strengthen European strategic resilience.

Food security, civil protection, and crisis coordination increasingly depend on communication systems that operate across complex international technological ecosystems. While these systems provide important capabilities, excessive dependence on external providers, foreign-controlled infrastructure, or centralized digital platforms may create strategic vulnerabilities during periods of geopolitical tension or systemic disruption.

The objective is not to replace existing commercial or international communication systems. Rather, it is to ensure that Europe retains sufficient independent capability to maintain essential communication, coordination, and crisis management functions when external systems become unavailable, compromised, disrupted, or politically contested.

In this way, the EEMN contributes to broader European objectives relating to strategic autonomy, critical infrastructure protection, societal resilience, and food system continuity.

Governance Responsibilities Communication resilience requires coordinated action across all governance levels.

At the municipal level, the focus should be on maintaining trusted communication with citizens, vulnerable populations, community organizations, and local food actors. Municipalities serve as the primary interface between authorities and communities and play a critical role in maintaining public trust during crises.

At the regional and provincial levels, communication resilience supports operational coordination between municipalities, logistics operators, infrastructure providers, food system actors, and emergency services. These governance levels are particularly important because many food systems operate on a regional scale.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

38

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

At the national level, governments are responsible for protecting critical communication infrastructure, coordinating cyber resilience efforts, maintaining emergency communication capabilities, and ensuring interoperability across sectors and regions.

At the European level, communication resilience requires cross-border coordination, common standards, shared preparedness mechanisms, and investments in resilient communication infrastructure capable of supporting continuity during large-scale disruptions affecting multiple Member States.

Conclusion Communication failures have the potential to transform localized disruptions into broader societal crises. Food systems cannot function effectively without trusted information exchange, operational coordination, and communication infrastructure capable of functioning under degraded conditions.

Strengthening communication resilience is therefore not merely a technical objective.

It is a strategic investment in food security, crisis governance, societal stability, and public trust. The proposed European Emergency Mesh Network provides an additional resilience layer that connects existing communication systems, reduces dependence on single points of failure, and strengthens Europe's ability to maintain food system continuity during future crises and systemic disruptions.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

39

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Pillar 2, Distributed Food Production and Territorial Resilience To strengthen the resilience of European food systems by reducing strategic vulnerabilities associated with excessive concentration, strategic dependencies, and single points of failure, while increasing regional adaptability, distributed production capacity, and continuity during crises.

Food systems have become increasingly specialized, integrated, and optimized over recent decades. While this has generated important gains in productivity and efficiency, it has also increased dependency on a limited number of production regions, logistics corridors, processing facilities, infrastructure systems, and critical inputs.

Research by the OECD emphasizes that resilience requires more than efficiency alone.

Food systems must also be capable of anticipating, absorbing, adapting to, and recovering from disruptions. Likewise, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre identifies concentration, dependency, and exposure to external shocks as important sources of vulnerability within European food supply chains.

This pillar therefore recognizes that food system resilience depends not only on production capacity, but also on the geographical distribution of that capacity and the ability to maintain continuity when critical regions, infrastructures, or supply chains are disrupted.

Strategic vulnerabilities of concentrated food systems The workshops highlighted concerns regarding the concentration of critical food-system functions within a limited number of regions, actors, or infrastructures.

Examples include: ●​ specialized agricultural production regions ●​ large processing facilities ●​ centralized cold-storage infrastructure ●​ major transport corridors ●​ concentrated input supply networks ●​ highly specialized logistics systems A commonly cited example is the concentration of seed potato production in the Dutch province of Flevoland. Such concentration can generate significant economic efficiencies and international competitiveness. However, it also increases dependency on a specific region. Should that region experience flooding, plant disease outbreaks, infrastructure disruptions, energy shortages, or other crises, the effects may extend far beyond the local area.

This observation aligns closely with findings from the European Parliament study The Dependency of the EU's Food System on Inputs and Their Sources, which concludes that dependencies on limited suppliers, regions, and imported inputs can increase systemic vulnerability and reduce resilience during disruptions.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

40

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

The challenge is therefore not specialization itself, but excessive dependence on single points of failure.

Distributed redundancy as a resilience principle To address these vulnerabilities, the framework proposes Distributed Redundancy as a core principle of food system resilience.

Distributed redundancy refers to the intentional distribution of critical production, storage, processing, logistics, and distribution capacity across multiple regions and territories. The objective is to ensure that disruptions affecting one area do not lead to widespread failures across the wider food system.

This does not imply duplicating entire food systems or abandoning economic efficiency. Rather, it seeks to reduce excessive dependence on critical bottlenecks and increase the capacity of food systems to continue functioning under adverse conditions.

From a resilience perspective, redundancy should not be viewed as inefficiency.

Instead, it should be understood as strategic reserve capacity that increases continuity and adaptability during periods of disruption.

Practical examples include: ●​ geographically distributed production capacity ●​ multiple processing and storage locations ●​ diversified supply and distribution routes ●​ decentralized cold-chain infrastructure ●​ regional food processing capacity ●​ local coordination mechanisms capable of operating independently when required The OECD notes that resilient food systems require a broader systems perspective that balances efficiency with the capacity to absorb and adapt to shocks. Similarly, the JRC identifies diversification and reduced dependency as important elements in strengthening food system resilience.

Territorial resilience and regional capacity Resilience is inherently territorial. Food systems interact closely with transport infrastructure, water systems, energy networks, communication systems, workforce availability, and regional governance structures.

When critical capacities become concentrated within a limited number of locations, disruptions can generate cascading effects across larger geographical areas.

Climate-related events such as droughts, floods, and extreme weather can further amplify these risks, particularly when they affect regions responsible for strategic food production or logistics functions.

Strengthening territorial resilience therefore requires attention not only to food production itself, but also to the broader infrastructure and governance systems that support food security.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

41

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) can contribute to this objective by increasing regional production and distribution capacity, strengthening relationships between food-system actors, and providing additional logistical options during disruptions.

Within this framework, SFSCs are viewed as a complementary resilience layer that can support continuity when larger supply chains experience stress.

Strategic implications A resilience-oriented food system should seek an appropriate balance between efficiency and continuity. While specialization, scale, and market integration remain important strengths of European agriculture, excessive concentration can create vulnerabilities that become visible only during crises.

Distributed production capacity, diversified supply networks, regional processing infrastructure, and territorial redundancy can reduce these vulnerabilities while increasing adaptability and recovery capacity.

This approach aligns closely with emerging European discussions concerning strategic autonomy, critical infrastructure resilience, supply-chain security, economic security, and preparedness for complex and systemic risks.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

42

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

43

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Key Measures: Territorial resilience through distributed food capacity Strengthening European food resilience requires moving beyond a narrow focus on efficiency and embracing a broader approach that also values adaptability, continuity, and redundancy. Recent crises have demonstrated that highly concentrated food systems may become vulnerable when disruptions affect transport, energy supply, communication networks, climate conditions, labour markets, or geopolitical stability.

The OECD and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre both emphasize that resilience depends on the ability of systems to adapt and continue functioning under adverse conditions, rather than solely maximizing efficiency under normal circumstances.

Within this framework, adaptive capacity refers to the ability of food systems, institutions, businesses, and communities to adjust their operations during disruptions while maintaining essential functions. Strengthening adaptive capacity requires increasing the geographical distribution of critical food-system functions and reducing dependence on concentrated infrastructure, specialized regions, or single supply routes.

The objective is not to replace Europe's large-scale food systems, but to complement them with sufficient territorial capacity to maintain continuity when disruptions occur.

Strengthening regional production capacity A resilient food system benefits from diversity in production, processing, and distribution. When food production is concentrated within a limited number of regions or actors, disruptions can generate impacts that extend far beyond the affected area.

Diversified regional production networks can increase resilience by reducing dependence on individual production hubs, strengthening local availability of food, and providing alternative supply options during crises. Experiences from the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that local and regional food producers often adapted rapidly through direct sales, regional cooperation, and alternative distribution channels when conventional supply chains experienced stress. This adaptability is one of the key strengths of territorially embedded food systems.

Policies that support producer cooperation, regional food networks, local procurement systems, and improved market access for small and medium-sized producers can therefore contribute to both resilience and regional economic development.

Coastal regions and the blue economy Coastal regions play an important role in European food security because they combine food production, fisheries, aquaculture, logistics infrastructure, ports, and trade corridors within relatively concentrated geographical areas.

At the same time, these regions are increasingly exposed to climate-related risks including flooding, sea-level rise, storms, and infrastructure disruption. Because many strategic ports and logistics hubs are located in coastal zones, disruptions can generate cascading effects throughout wider food distribution systems.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

44

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

For this reason, fisheries, aquaculture, seaweed production, regional ports, and decentralized maritime infrastructure should be considered part of Europe's broader resilience architecture. Diversifying maritime logistics capacity and strengthening regional coastal food networks can improve flexibility and continuity during disruptions affecting major transport corridors.

Decentralized production systems Climate change, water scarcity, flooding, and increasing supply-chain disruptions are driving interest in more decentralized forms of food production.

Controlled-environment agriculture, greenhouse production, urban agriculture, and other innovative production systems can complement conventional agriculture by increasing regional production capacity and reducing exposure to certain climate-related risks. While such systems will not replace traditional farming, they can provide additional flexibility and redundancy within regional food systems.

Urban and peri-urban food production may also strengthen community engagement, increase awareness of food resilience, and provide supplementary food capacity during emergencies.

Preserving agricultural diversity Long-term resilience depends not only on production volumes but also on preserving the diversity needed to adapt to changing conditions.

The European Parliament's study on food-system dependencies highlights the importance of reducing excessive reliance on concentrated inputs and suppliers.

Genetic diversity, regional seed systems, and decentralized breeding initiatives contribute to agricultural adaptability and reduce vulnerabilities associated with highly concentrated input systems.

Protecting agricultural diversity should therefore be considered a strategic resilience measure alongside biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation.

Distributed processing, storage, and logistics Food production alone is insufficient if processing, storage, and logistics remain highly centralized.

The JRC identifies infrastructure dependencies and logistical bottlenecks as important sources of food-system vulnerability. A resilience-oriented food system therefore requires distributed processing capacity, regional storage facilities, diversified logistics routes, and geographically dispersed cold-chain infrastructure capable of operating under degraded conditions.

Distributed infrastructure increases flexibility and can improve emergency food redistribution, continuity of supply, and recovery capacity during disruptions affecting transport systems, energy networks, or critical infrastructure.

Integrated territorial resilience

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

45

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Taken together, these measures contribute to a broader model of territorial resilience built around diversification, distributed redundancy, and regional adaptive capacity.

The purpose is not to isolate regions from national or international food systems.

Rather, it is to ensure that Europe maintains sufficient decentralized capacity to continue functioning during periods of systemic disruption. Within this approach, regional food systems, coastal infrastructure, decentralized logistics, local processing capacity, and diversified production networks should be understood as interconnected components of a resilient European food architecture.

Many of these investments generate multiple benefits simultaneously by supporting climate adaptation, biodiversity, regional economic development, strategic autonomy, critical infrastructure resilience, and food security. As a result, food resilience should be understood not solely as an agricultural challenge, but as a cross-sector resilience capacity requiring coordinated action across food systems, infrastructure, energy, governance, spatial planning, civil protection, and regional development.

Conclusion European food system resilience depends not only on production volumes and market efficiency, but also on the geographical distribution of critical capacities throughout the food system. While specialization and scale have strengthened productivity and competitiveness, recent crises have demonstrated the vulnerabilities that can arise from excessive concentration of production, processing, storage, logistics, and critical inputs. Strengthening territorial resilience therefore requires a balanced approach that combines efficiency with diversification, redundancy, and regional adaptive capacity. By supporting distributed food production, decentralized infrastructure, regional processing capacity, and diversified supply networks, Europe can reduce strategic dependencies and improve its ability to maintain food security during periods of disruption and uncertainty. This pillar therefore positions territorial resilience and distributed redundancy as essential components of a resilient European food system.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

46

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Pillar 3, Energy & Operational Continuity The objective of this pillar is to strengthen the operational continuity and crisis resilience of European food systems by safeguarding the infrastructure systems upon which food production, storage, processing, coordination, and distribution depend.

Why operational continuity matters Food security depends not only on the availability of agricultural production, but also on the continuity of the infrastructure systems that enable food to be preserved, processed, transported, coordinated, and distributed. Modern food systems rely on uninterrupted access to electricity, fuel, refrigeration, water pumping systems, digital coordination platforms, and transport infrastructure. Disruptions affecting these systems may therefore impair food-system functionality even when food supplies remain physically available.

Research on critical infrastructure resilience demonstrates that modern infrastructure systems are increasingly interconnected and interdependent. Rinaldi, Peerenboom, and Kelly (2001) argue that failures in one infrastructure sector may cascade rapidly into others, amplifying the scale and duration of disruption. This perspective is particularly relevant for food systems, which depend simultaneously on energy, transport, communication, water, and digital infrastructure.

“Critical infrastructures are increasingly interconnected and interdependent, so that a disruption in one infrastructure can propagate to others.” — Rinaldi, Peerenboom & Kelly (2001) Recent crises have highlighted the operational vulnerability of highly interconnected and energy-dependent food systems. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed weaknesses in supply-chain coordination and logistics flexibility. Climate-related disasters have disrupted transport corridors, storage facilities, and water infrastructure. Cyber incidents have demonstrated the dependence of food logistics on digital coordination systems, while the energy-market disruptions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine revealed the sensitivity of agricultural production, food processing, and refrigerated storage to energy availability and price volatility (International Energy Agency et al., 2023; European Commission, 2023).

The OECD (2023) emphasizes that resilience should be understood not only as the ability to withstand shocks, but also as the capacity to prepare for, absorb, recover from, and adapt to adverse events.

“Resilience is the ability to prepare for, absorb, recover from and adapt to adverse events.” — OECD (2023) Applied to food systems, this means that resilience requires operational continuity across the infrastructure networks that support food production and distribution.

Energy security, water management, digital coordination, refrigeration capacity, and

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

47

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

logistics functionality should therefore be regarded as enabling conditions for food security rather than as external supporting factors.

Within the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF), operational continuity is understood as the capacity of food systems to maintain essential functions under degraded conditions. This includes the ability to continue producing, storing, processing, transporting, coordinating, and distributing food during disruptions affecting critical infrastructure.

Food-Critical Infrastructure Building on existing research on critical infrastructure interdependencies, the ERFSF introduces the concept of Food-Critical Infrastructure. This concept refers to infrastructure systems whose disruption may significantly impair food-system continuity, public stability, and the operational functioning of society during emergencies or prolonged crises.

Modern food systems depend on a wide range of interconnected infrastructure systems. Although many of these systems are essential for maintaining societal stability during crises, they are not always consistently recognized within existing critical infrastructure protection frameworks. The ERFSF therefore proposes that food continuity should be considered explicitly within broader resilience, civil protection, and continuity-governance frameworks.

This approach aligns with the objectives of the Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive (Directive (EU) 2022/2557), which identifies food production, processing and distribution as essential services whose continuity contributes to societal resilience.

By explicitly framing these functions as Food-Critical Infrastructure, the ERFSF builds upon the Directive by providing a food-system perspective that highlights the operational interdependencies necessary to maintain food continuity during crises.

Food-Critical Infrastructure includes, but is not limited to: ●​ cold storage and refrigeration systems ●​ seed storage and breeding facilities ●​ regional food-processing infrastructure ●​ agricultural energy systems ●​ irrigation and water-pumping infrastructure ●​ logistics hubs and distribution centre’s ●​ ports connected to food imports and exports ●​ transport corridors supporting food distribution ●​ digital coordination infrastructure used for food logistics and supply management The continuity of these systems is essential because modern food systems are highly dependent on uninterrupted electricity supply, fuel availability, digital coordination, refrigeration, transport infrastructure, and water management systems. Failures affecting these interconnected systems may rapidly generate cascading impacts throughout broader food-supply networks.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

48

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Food systems are particularly vulnerable to operational disruption because they are highly time sensitive. Food production, storage, processing, and distribution often rely on tightly synchronized operational chains with limited interruption tolerance.

Even relatively short disruptions may therefore generate disproportionate impacts.

For example, refrigeration failures can rapidly lead to spoilage of dairy products, meat, fisheries, medicines, and fresh produce; interruptions in fuel supply may halt harvesting operations and food transport; and failures in digital coordination systems may disrupt inventory management, distribution planning, and supply-chain synchronization.

Because modern food systems are increasingly centralized and optimized for efficiency, disruptions affecting a limited number of infrastructure nodes may generate cascading effects across wider regional and national food networks. This concentration can create structural dependencies and reduce operational redundancy during crises affecting energy systems, communication infrastructure, cyber systems, transport corridors, or climate-sensitive regions.

The societal consequences of food-related infrastructure failure may extend beyond the food sector itself. Disruptions affecting storage, processing, logistics, or distribution capacity may contribute to food spoilage, supply-chain instability, market disruption, public uncertainty, panic buying, declining trust in authorities, and wider societal instability. In highly urbanized and digitally dependent societies, food-system disruption may therefore become a broader public-order and governance challenge.

Recognizing Food-Critical Infrastructure as a strategic category helps clarify that food resilience is not solely an agricultural concern. It is also a matter of infrastructure resilience, civil protection, energy continuity, water governance, logistics functionality, and digital coordination.

The concept of Food-Critical Infrastructure is illustrated in Figure 3.1. Rather than viewing food production, logistics, energy, water, transport and digital infrastructure as separate sectors, the ERFSF conceptualises them as an interconnected infrastructure ecosystem that enables the continuity of essential food-system functions. Disruptions affecting any of these enabling systems may propagate throughout the food system, ultimately affecting food security, public confidence and societal resilience.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

49

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Figure 3.1. Conceptual model of Food-Critical Infrastructure within the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF). The figure illustrates how interconnected infrastructure systems enable food-system continuity and how disruptions may propagate from external hazards through infrastructure dependencies to societal impacts.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

50

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Strategic Vulnerabilities within European Food Systems Modern European food systems have evolved into highly integrated socio-technical systems that achieve remarkable levels of productivity and efficiency. However, the same characteristics that enable this efficiency, including specialization, centralization, digitalization, and just-in-time logistics, also increase systemic vulnerability when critical infrastructure is disrupted.

Research on food system resilience consistently highlights the tension between efficiency and resilience. Tendall et al. (2015) define food system resilience as:

"The capacity over time of a food system and its units at multiple levels to provide sufficient, appropriate and accessible food to all, in the face of various and even unforeseen disturbances."

This definition emphasizes that resilience depends not only on food production but also on the ability of the entire system to continue functioning during disruption.

Workshop discussions confirmed that European food systems increasingly depend on uninterrupted energy supply, centralized logistics infrastructure, digital coordination platforms, and extensive transport networks. While these developments have improved productivity and reduced operational costs, they have also reduced redundancy and increased dependency on a relatively small number of critical infrastructure assets.

Consequently, disruptions affecting only a limited number of infrastructure nodes may generate cascading impacts across much larger regional or national food systems.

Infrastructure Interdependencies and Cascading Failure Food systems should not be understood as isolated supply chains but as complex networks embedded within other critical infrastructures. Agricultural production depends on electricity, water management, transport infrastructure, communications, fuel supply, financial services, and increasingly on digital technologies. Failure in any one of these sectors can rapidly affect food production and distribution.

Rinaldi, Peerenboom and Kelly (2001) describe this phenomenon as critical infrastructure interdependency, whereby failures propagate between infrastructure sectors through physical, cyber, geographic and logical connections. Their work demonstrates that modern infrastructure failures rarely remain isolated but instead generate cascading effects that may be disproportionate to the original disruption.

This perspective helps explain why food systems can become vulnerable even when agricultural production itself remains unaffected. A functioning harvest has little value if processing facilities lose power, transport corridors become inaccessible, digital logistics systems fail, or refrigerated storage cannot be maintained.

The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated these dynamics by exposing vulnerabilities in labour availability, logistics coordination, and international supply chains. More recently, energy shortages, cyber incidents, and extreme weather events have

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

51

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

demonstrated how multiple infrastructure disruptions can occur simultaneously, creating compound risks that challenge conventional emergency planning.

Operational continuity should therefore be understood as a systems challenge rather than an agricultural one.

Structural Vulnerabilities Workshop participants identified several structural characteristics that increase vulnerability within European food systems.

Centralization of infrastructure has resulted in storage facilities, processing plants, logistics hubs and distribution centres serving increasingly large geographical areas.

While this improves economic efficiency under normal circumstances, it also creates critical nodes whose disruption may affect entire regions.

Energy dependency has increased throughout the food chain. Electricity now underpins refrigeration, processing, automated storage, greenhouse production, irrigation, livestock management, and digital coordination systems. Rising electrification supports decarbonization objectives but also increases dependence on reliable electricity infrastructure.

Digitalization has transformed logistics management, inventory control, procurement systems and transport coordination. Cloud-based platforms, real-time data exchange and automated planning systems have improved efficiency, yet they have simultaneously expanded exposure to cyber risks and communication failures.

Finally, reduced redundancy has become a defining characteristic of many modern food supply chains. Just-in-time logistics minimize inventory costs but leave little capacity to absorb prolonged disruption. As Christopher and Peck (2004) argue, resilience depends upon the ability of supply chains to anticipate disruption, maintain flexibility and recover rapidly, rather than solely maximizing operational efficiency.

Together, these trends have created food systems that perform exceptionally well under stable conditions but may experience rapid degradation when multiple disruptions occur simultaneously.

Climate Change and Compound Risks Climate change is amplifying these existing vulnerabilities by increasing both the frequency and severity of disruptions affecting critical infrastructure.

According to the European Environment Agency (2024), Europe is experiencing more frequent heatwaves, prolonged droughts, extreme precipitation, flooding and coastal hazards. These events increasingly affect several infrastructure systems simultaneously rather than independently.

For example, prolonged heatwaves may increase electricity demand for cooling while simultaneously reducing power generation efficiency, increasing irrigation requirements, lowering river levels for inland navigation and affecting agricultural productivity. Likewise, flooding can disrupt transport infrastructure, electricity

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

52

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

networks, food-processing facilities and storage capacity within the same geographical area.

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) increasingly describes these events as systemic risks, recognizing that modern societies are characterized by tightly interconnected infrastructure networks in which disruption rarely remains confined to one sector.

For food systems, this means that climate adaptation can no longer focus exclusively on agricultural production. Equal attention must be given to strengthening the resilience of the infrastructure that enables food to move from farm to consumer.

Implications for the ERFSF The analysis of strategic vulnerabilities demonstrates that food resilience depends on much more than safeguarding agricultural production. Operational continuity increasingly relies on the resilience of interconnected infrastructure systems that support energy supply, water management, transport, digital communication and logistics.

This system’s perspective underpins the ERFSF approach. Rather than treating food security, infrastructure resilience, civil protection and emergency management as separate policy domains, the framework recognizes them as mutually reinforcing components of a resilient food system.

Consequently, the objective of Pillar 3 is not merely to protect individual infrastructure assets, but to strengthen the capacity of interconnected food systems to anticipate disruption, maintain essential functions under degraded conditions, and recover rapidly from crisis. This system-oriented approach provides the foundation for the operational resilience measures presented in the following sections.

Building Operational Resilience The analysis of strategic vulnerabilities demonstrates that strengthening food-system resilience requires more than protecting individual infrastructure assets.

It requires increasing the adaptive capacity of the interconnected systems that support food production, processing, storage, transport, and distribution. Operational resilience should therefore focus on reducing critical dependencies, improving redundancy where appropriate, and enhancing the ability of infrastructure to continue functioning under degraded conditions.

Rather than advocating parallel emergency systems, the ERFSF promotes the integration of resilience into existing food-system infrastructure. Investments that improve operational flexibility during normal conditions often provide the same benefits during crises, making resilience a continuous capability rather than an exceptional response.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

53

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Energy Resilience Energy is one of the most fundamental enabling conditions for modern food systems.

Agricultural production, greenhouse horticulture, irrigation, food processing, refrigeration, digital logistics, and retail distribution all depend upon reliable access to electricity and fuel.

The energy market disruptions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine demonstrated how quickly volatility within energy systems can affect food production costs, processing capacity, refrigerated storage, and transport throughout Europe (European Commission, 2023). As agriculture becomes increasingly electrified in support of climate objectives, operational dependence on resilient energy infrastructure is likely to increase further.

Improving resilience therefore requires stronger integration between food security planning and regional energy strategies. Measures such as distributed renewable generation, battery storage, agricultural microgrids, protected fuel reserves, and hybrid backup systems can reduce dependency on centralized electricity networks while increasing continuity during prolonged disruptions.

Rather than replacing existing energy systems, these investments improve the ability of critical food infrastructure to continue operating when conventional supply is compromised.

Cold-Chain Continuity Cold-chain infrastructure represents one of the most critical, and vulnerable, components of modern food systems. Refrigeration preserves food quality, reduces food loss, maintains food safety, and supports the storage of seeds, pharmaceuticals, and temperature-sensitive agricultural products.

According to the International Institute of Refrigeration (2020), inadequate or disrupted refrigeration contributes significantly to global food losses, particularly within dairy, fisheries, meat, and fresh produce supply chains. Even relatively short interruptions to refrigeration may rapidly lead to spoilage, economic losses, and food safety risks.

Because refrigeration systems depend almost entirely on uninterrupted electricity, cold-chain resilience should be regarded as a strategic infrastructure priority rather than merely a logistical concern. Distributed cold storage, thermal energy storage, renewable-powered refrigeration, battery-supported cooling systems, and emergency prioritization protocols can significantly improve operational continuity during infrastructure disruptions.

A more decentralized cold-chain architecture also reduces reliance on a limited number of large storage facilities, thereby increasing redundancy across regional food systems.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

54

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Water management and irrigation Reliable water management is equally fundamental to operational continuity.

Irrigation systems, drainage infrastructure, pumping stations, flood protection, and water supply all support agricultural productivity and food processing throughout Europe.

In low-lying regions such as the Netherlands, Belgium and parts of Germany and Italy, electricity-dependent pumping systems are indispensable for maintaining agricultural land, protecting infrastructure from flooding, and regulating freshwater availability.

Failure of these systems may have consequences that extend well beyond agriculture, affecting transport infrastructure, food processing facilities and regional economic activity.

Climate change further increases these risks. The European Environment Agency (2024) projects increasing exposure to drought, extreme precipitation, salinization and water stress across many European regions, requiring greater integration between climate adaptation, water governance and food resilience.

Strengthening operational continuity therefore requires resilient pumping infrastructure, backup energy supplies, climate-adaptive irrigation systems and stronger coordination between water authorities and food-system planning.

Logistics and Transport Networks Food systems depend not only on production but also on the continuous movement of goods. Transport corridors, ports, logistics hubs, warehouses and distribution centres form the physical backbone through which food reaches consumers.

Recent disruptions, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the temporary blockage of the Suez Canal, and geopolitical instability affecting maritime trade, demonstrated how quickly disruptions within transport infrastructure can influence food availability and market stability across Europe (OECD, 2023; UNCTAD, 2022).

The objective of resilience is therefore not to eliminate global trade or highly efficient logistics systems, but to improve their capacity to adapt when critical routes become unavailable.

Distributed logistics capacity, regional redistribution hubs, alternative transport corridors, emergency routing procedures and interoperable logistics coordination systems all increase flexibility during crises while continuing to support efficient food distribution under normal conditions.

Governance for Operational Continuity Infrastructure resilience cannot be achieved through technical investments alone.

Operational continuity depends equally on effective governance, institutional coordination, and the capacity of organizations to make timely decisions under conditions of uncertainty.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

55

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Food-system continuity involves a wide range of actors, including farmers, processors, retailers, logistics providers, energy operators, water authorities, municipalities, emergency services, and national governments. Yet responsibilities for these sectors are often distributed across separate policy domains, limiting coordination during crises.

Research on disaster governance consistently demonstrates that resilience improves when institutions coordinate across sectors before emergencies occur rather than attempting to establish new relationships during a crisis (UNDRR, OECD).

Within the ERFSF, operational continuity is therefore approached as a whole-of-system governance challenge.

Rather than creating new institutions, the framework seeks to strengthen cooperation between existing governance structures responsible for: ●​ food security ●​ critical infrastructure protection ●​ civil protection ●​ energy resilience ●​ water governance ●​ transport ●​ cybersecurity ●​ spatial planning This integrated approach reflects the reality that disruptions rarely respect administrative boundaries or sectoral responsibilities.

Multi-Level Governance Operational resilience requires clearly defined responsibilities across different governance levels.

Municipal authorities play an essential role in identifying locally critical food infrastructure, coordinating emergency logistics, supporting community preparedness, and integrating food continuity into local emergency planning.

Regional authorities provide territorial coordination by connecting municipalities, infrastructure operators and food-system actors. They are particularly important for coordinating water management, regional energy systems, logistics capacity and emergency redistribution.

National governments retain responsibility for strategic continuity planning, critical infrastructure protection, fuel prioritization, cybersecurity, emergency legislation and integration with national resilience strategies.

At the European level, the European Union supports Member States through common resilience standards, cross-border coordination mechanisms, infrastructure investment, research programmes and knowledge exchange. Existing initiatives, including the Critical Entities Resilience Directive, the NIS2 Directive and the European Food Security Crisis Preparedness and Response Mechanism (EFSCM),

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

56

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

already provide important foundations for strengthening operational continuity across Member States.

Regional capacity as everyday resilience One of the central conclusions of the ERFSF is that resilience cannot rely exclusively on emergency reserves or temporary crisis measures. Operational capacity must already exist within everyday food systems before disruptions occur.

From this perspective, Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs), regional processing facilities, local storage infrastructure and decentralized distribution networks should not be viewed solely as sustainability initiatives. They also represent strategic resilience assets because they maintain operational capacity, regional knowledge and logistical flexibility during normal conditions.

When large-scale supply chains are disrupted, these existing regional networks can often expand more rapidly than entirely new emergency structures.

Maintaining economically viable regional food infrastructure therefore contributes not only to rural development and sustainability but also to European preparedness and strategic autonomy.

Strategic Perspective The increasing interdependence between food systems and critical infrastructure requires a broader understanding of food security. Agricultural production alone cannot guarantee food availability if the infrastructure required to process, preserve, transport and distribute food is unable to function.

Operational continuity should therefore be recognized as a foundational dimension of food-system resilience.

Within the ERFSF, resilience is understood not as resistance to disruption but as the capacity to anticipate, absorb, adapt to and recover from changing conditions while maintaining essential societal functions. Achieving this objective requires balancing efficiency with redundancy, centralization with distributed capacity, and technological innovation with operational flexibility.

Operational continuity is no longer solely an issue of infrastructure reliability. It has become a prerequisite for food security, societal stability, and strategic autonomy.

Strengthening the resilience of Food-Critical Infrastructure therefore represents not only an investment in crisis preparedness but also in the long-term resilience and competitiveness of European food systems.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

57

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Pillar 4, Governance & Multi-level Coordination While Pillar 3 focuses on safeguarding the operational continuity of food-critical infrastructure, Pillar 4 provides the governance architecture required to coordinate these interconnected systems across all phases of resilience.

Therefore the objective of this pillar is to strengthen the governance capacity of European food systems by establishing coordinated, multi-level arrangements that enable preparedness, operational continuity, effective crisis response, and long-term recovery. Recognising that food systems are governed by a diverse range of public and private actors operating across multiple administrative levels, the pillar promotes governance structures that enhance collaboration, interoperability, and adaptive decision-making under conditions of uncertainty.

Within the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF), governance is understood not simply as the exercise of authority, but as the institutional capacity to coordinate actions, align resources, and sustain essential food-system functions before, during, and after crises. Effective governance therefore represents a prerequisite for resilient food systems, linking strategic policy with operational implementation across municipal, regional, national, and European levels.

“Governance enables operational continuity, while operational continuity underpins food-system resilience”

Why Governance Matters Modern food systems operate across highly interconnected economic, environmental, and institutional networks that extend well beyond administrative boundaries. Food production, processing, distribution, and consumption are influenced by decisions taken at multiple governance levels and involve a broad range of public authorities, private enterprises, civil society organizations, and infrastructure operators. As a result, food-system resilience depends not only on the robustness of individual organizations but also on the quality of coordination between them.

Recent crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme weather events, cyber incidents, and geopolitical disruptions, have demonstrated that institutional fragmentation can significantly hinder crisis response, even where technical capabilities remain available. Delays in information sharing, unclear responsibilities, fragmented decision-making, and limited coordination between sectors have repeatedly emerged as barriers to maintaining food-system continuity. These experiences have reinforced the need for governance systems capable of integrating diverse actors and coordinating action across administrative and sectoral boundaries.

The OECD (2020) argues that effective resilience governance requires institutions capable of anticipating risks, coordinating across sectors, and adapting to rapidly changing circumstances. Similarly, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR, 2015) emphasizes that disaster risk reduction depends upon

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

58

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

coherent governance arrangements that integrate prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery across all levels of government and society.

Increasingly, resilience is therefore understood as a governance challenge rather than solely a technical one. Infrastructure investments, emergency plans, and strategic reserves remain essential, but their effectiveness ultimately depends on the institutions responsible for coordinating their use during crises. Governance provides the mechanisms through which information is shared, resources are allocated, priorities are established, and collective action is organized.

This perspective aligns with the concept of polycentric governance, developed by Elinor Ostrom (2010), which recognizes that complex societal challenges are most effectively addressed through multiple, interacting centres of decision-making rather than by a single central authority. Polycentric governance encourages cooperation across governance levels while allowing decisions to be taken at the level closest to the problem, thereby improving flexibility, local responsiveness, and institutional learning.

"Polycentric systems have considerable advantages because they encourage experimentation, learning, adaptation, and cooperation at multiple scales."​ (Ostrom, 2010, Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557.)

Within the ERFSF, food-system governance is therefore conceptualised as an interconnected network of governance actors rather than a hierarchical chain of command. Municipal, regional, national, and European institutions each fulfil distinct yet complementary roles, collectively contributing to the continuity of essential food-system functions.

A Multi-Level governance architecture for food system resilience Building upon these governance principles, the ERFSF proposes a multi-level governance architecture that integrates strategic coordination with operational implementation across four interconnected governance levels: municipal, regional, national, and European.

Rather than assigning isolated responsibilities to individual institutions, the framework recognises that resilient food systems depend upon continuous interaction between governance levels. Decisions taken at one level frequently influence operational capacities at another, requiring mechanisms for coordination, information exchange, and joint decision-making throughout the crisis management cycle.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

59

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Figure 4.1 illustrates the governance architecture proposed by the ERFSF. The model emphasises that food-system resilience emerges through interaction between governance levels rather than through independent action by individual organisations. Cross-cutting Governance enablers—including risk assessment, secure communication, stakeholder engagement, data sharing, and innovation—support all governance levels by strengthening situational awareness, interoperability, and institutional capacity. Likewise, operational coordination platforms facilitate joint planning, resource allocation, crisis management, and post-event learning, enabling governance systems to function as an integrated whole.

​ Figure 4.1. Multi-Level Governance Architecture for Food System Resilience within the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF). The figure illustrates the interaction between municipal, regional, national, and European governance levels, supported by cross-cutting governance enablers, integrated coordination mechanisms, operational stress testing, and embedded regional capacity.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

60

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

ERFSF Governance Principle​ Resilient food systems emerge when governance is coordinated across institutional levels, integrated across sectors, and continuously strengthened through learning, collaboration, and adaptive decision-making.

The governance architecture reflects the principle of subsidiarity, whereby decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizens and communities affected while ensuring coordination at higher governance levels where strategic oversight, resource mobilisation, or cross-border cooperation is required. Local authorities possess detailed knowledge of community needs and critical infrastructure; regional authorities coordinate operational capacities across territories; national governments provide legislative authority and strategic leadership; and the European Union facilitates interoperability, solidarity, and cross-border resilience.

Importantly, governance within the ERFSF extends beyond public institutions alone.

Food producers, processors, retailers, logistics providers, infrastructure operators, research institutions, civil society organisations, and community networks all contribute to the governance of resilient food systems. Public–private collaboration, trusted information exchange, and shared situational awareness are therefore integral components of effective governance rather than supplementary activities.

This multi-level perspective also reflects contemporary European resilience policy.

The Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive (Directive (EU) 2022/2557), the NIS2 Directive, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, and the European Food Security Crisis Preparedness and Response Mechanism (EFSCM) all emphasise the importance of coordination, preparedness, and cross-sector collaboration in strengthening the resilience of essential societal functions. The ERFSF builds upon these initiatives by providing a governance framework specifically tailored to the continuity of food systems.

Accordingly, the following sections examine the distinctive contributions of each governance level and the mechanisms through which coordination, stress testing, institutional learning, and embedded regional capacity collectively strengthen the resilience of European food systems.

"Disaster risk reduction requires an all-of-society engagement and partnership."​ (UNDRR, 2015, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030.)

Governance Functions Across Multiple Levels The governance architecture presented in Figure 4.1 recognizes that resilient food systems depend upon complementary responsibilities distributed across multiple governance levels. While individual institutions perform distinct functions, effective resilience emerges from continuous coordination, information exchange, and shared decision-making rather than from isolated action.

Each governance level contributes unique capacities that reflect its proximity to communities, operational responsibilities, legislative authority, or strategic coordination. Together, these levels form an integrated governance system capable of

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

61

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

anticipating disruptions, coordinating crisis response, and supporting long-term recovery.

Municipal Governance: Local preparedness and immediate response Municipal authorities constitute the first level of governance directly connected to citizens, local businesses, and community organizations. Their proximity to local food systems enables them to identify vulnerabilities, coordinate immediate response measures, and maintain access to essential services during the initial stages of a disruption.

Within the ERFSF, municipalities play a central role in identifying vulnerable populations, mapping critical food infrastructure, maintaining local producer networks, and integrating food continuity into emergency planning. They are also well positioned to facilitate communication between public authorities, community organizations, retailers, and local producers, thereby strengthening social cohesion and public trust during crises.

Because municipalities possess detailed contextual knowledge, they contribute not only to emergency response but also to preparedness through risk assessments, community engagement, and the development of locally tailored contingency plans.

Regional Governance: Operational coordination Many operational challenges extend beyond municipal boundaries and therefore require coordination at the regional level. Regions provide the institutional bridge between local implementation and national strategy by coordinating logistics, infrastructure, resource allocation, and operational support across municipalities.

Regional authorities are particularly important for managing transport corridors, regional storage capacity, water systems, procurement mechanisms, and emergency logistics. They also facilitate mutual assistance between municipalities, allowing resources and operational capacities to be redistributed where they are most needed.

Within the ERFSF, regional governance represents the primary level for coordinating operational continuity across territories, ensuring that local disruptions do not develop into wider regional crises.

National Governance: Strategic leadership National governments provide the strategic, legislative, and institutional framework within which operational resilience is implemented. Their responsibilities include maintaining strategic food reserves where appropriate, protecting critical infrastructure, coordinating civil protection mechanisms, developing emergency legislation, and integrating food resilience into broader national security and preparedness strategies.

National authorities also play a key role in coordinating cross-sector cooperation between ministries responsible for agriculture, health, energy, transport, defence, cybersecurity, and civil protection. This horizontal coordination is increasingly

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

62

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

recognized as essential because food-system disruptions frequently affect multiple policy domains simultaneously.

Strategic leadership at the national level therefore enables consistent policy direction while supporting regional and municipal implementation.

European Governance: Coordination across borders Food systems operate within an increasingly interconnected European market in which supply chains, infrastructure networks, and crises frequently transcend national borders. Consequently, resilience requires governance mechanisms capable of supporting cooperation between Member States.

The European Union contributes by establishing common resilience standards, promoting interoperability, supporting research and innovation, facilitating cross-border information exchange, and coordinating solidarity mechanisms during major crises. Instruments such as the Critical Entities Resilience Directive, the NIS2 Directive, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, and the European Food Security Crisis Preparedness and Response Mechanism (EFSCM) provide important institutional foundations for strengthening resilience across the Union.

Rather than replacing national responsibilities, European governance enhances collective capacity by enabling coordination, mutual assistance, and shared learning between Member States.

Taken together, these governance levels demonstrate that food-system resilience depends upon institutional complementarity. Each level performs functions that cannot be effectively substituted by another, making coordination the defining characteristic of resilient governance.

Cross-Cutting Governance Enablers While governance responsibilities differ across administrative levels, several institutional capabilities are essential throughout the entire governance architecture.

The ERFSF identifies these as cross-cutting governance enablers because they strengthen preparedness, improve decision-making, and enhance operational coordination irrespective of institutional level.

One of the most important enablers is risk assessment and strategic foresight.

Anticipating emerging threats allows institutions to identify vulnerabilities before they develop into crises, enabling investments and preparedness measures that reduce long-term risk. Scenario planning and horizon scanning have become increasingly important as food systems face interacting risks associated with climate change, geopolitical instability, cyber threats, and infrastructure disruption.

Information sharing and data interoperability constitute a second critical enabler.

Effective crisis management depends upon timely access to reliable information that can be shared across institutional and sectoral boundaries. Interoperable digital systems, common reporting standards, and shared situational awareness improve the speed and quality of collective decision-making while reducing duplication of effort.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

63

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Closely related is the need for secure communication systems. During emergencies, governance depends upon resilient communication channels capable of functioning even when conventional infrastructure is degraded. Secure communication enhances coordination between authorities, infrastructure operators, emergency services, and private-sector actors while supporting public trust through consistent risk communication.

Another essential governance enabler is stakeholder engagement. Food-system resilience cannot be achieved solely through public institutions. Farmers, food processors, retailers, logistics providers, infrastructure operators, research institutions, civil society organizations, and community groups all possess knowledge, resources, and operational capacities that contribute to resilience.

Building trusted relationships before crises occur facilitates more effective collaboration during emergencies.

Finally, innovation and institutional learning strengthen governance over time.

Resilience is not a fixed condition but a dynamic capability that evolves through experience. Monitoring, evaluation, research, technological innovation, and the systematic incorporation of lessons learned all contribute to adaptive governance capable of responding to emerging challenges.

Together, these governance enablers create the institutional environment within which coordination becomes possible, supporting effective decision-making across all phases of the resilience cycle.

Operational coordination and shared decision-making Governance structures alone do not guarantee resilience. Their effectiveness depends upon the ability of institutions to coordinate operational activities under conditions of uncertainty. Operational coordination therefore represents the practical expression of multi-level governance, translating strategic objectives into collective action.

Within the ERFSF, the proposed Integrated Food Resilience Coordination Platform provides a conceptual mechanism through which governance actors exchange information, develop shared situational awareness, coordinate resources, and support joint decision-making before, during, and after crises.

The platform is not conceived as a new institution but as a coordination mechanism that strengthens collaboration between existing authorities and stakeholders. By integrating municipal, regional, national, and European actors within a common coordination framework, it enhances institutional interoperability while respecting existing legal responsibilities and governance structures.

Core coordination functions include joint preparedness planning, real-time information exchange, resource allocation, emergency logistics coordination, crisis communication, and post-event evaluation. These functions contribute to a common operational picture that enables institutions to respond collectively rather than independently to evolving disruptions.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

64

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Research on crisis governance consistently demonstrates that organizations that establish coordination mechanisms before emergencies occur respond more effectively than those attempting to create collaborative arrangements during crises (OECD, 2020; UNDRR, 2015). Regular interaction strengthens institutional trust, clarifies responsibilities, and improves the efficiency of collective decision-making when rapid action becomes necessary.

Public–private cooperation forms an equally important component of operational coordination. Much of the infrastructure supporting European food systems, including processing facilities, logistics networks, retail distribution, transport services, and digital platforms, is owned or operated by private organizations. Maintaining food-system continuity therefore requires structured collaboration between public authorities and private operators throughout preparedness, response, and recovery.

Accordingly, the ERFSF promotes operational coordination as a continuous governance function rather than an emergency activity. Routine collaboration, shared planning, and regular information exchange strengthen institutional relationships during normal conditions, thereby improving collective resilience when crises occur.

Operational stress testing and institutional learning Preparedness cannot be assessed solely through written contingency plans or institutional mandates. Governance systems must also demonstrate their ability to function effectively under realistic crisis conditions. Regular stress testing provides an essential mechanism for evaluating operational readiness, identifying vulnerabilities, and strengthening coordination across governance levels before emergencies occur.

Stress testing has become an increasingly important component of resilience policy across multiple sectors, including critical infrastructure protection, financial regulation, public health, and civil protection. Rather than attempting to predict specific future crises, stress tests evaluate whether institutions can maintain essential functions under a range of disruptive scenarios characterized by uncertainty, cascading failures, and resource constraints.

Within the ERFSF, operational stress testing should extend beyond individual organizations to include the wider governance network responsible for food-system continuity. Multi-agency exercises involving public authorities, infrastructure operators, food businesses, emergency services, research institutions, and civil society organizations enable participants to examine interdependencies, clarify responsibilities, and improve collective decision-making under pressure.

Scenario-based exercises should reflect the complex and interconnected risks facing European food systems. Potential scenarios may include prolonged electricity outages affecting refrigeration and food processing, cyberattacks disrupting logistics coordination, droughts reducing agricultural production and water availability, flooding affecting transport corridors, or compound crises in which several disruptions occur simultaneously.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

65

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

The value of stress testing lies not only in assessing operational performance but also in fostering institutional learning. Post-exercise evaluations provide opportunities to identify coordination gaps, strengthen communication protocols, revise contingency plans, and improve interoperability between organizations. In this way, stress testing becomes a continuous learning process that enhances governance capacity over time.

By embedding regular exercises within routine governance, resilience evolves from a reactive capability into an integral component of institutional practice.

Embedded regional capacity through Short Food Supply Chains Operational resilience depends not only on emergency planning but also on the capacities that exist within food systems during normal conditions. Institutions can coordinate resources during crises only if those resources remain available and accessible. Maintaining regional production, processing, storage, and distribution capacity therefore represents an important dimension of governance resilience.

Within the ERFSF, Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) are recognized not only as instruments for promoting sustainability and regional economic development but also as strategic governance assets that strengthen food-system resilience.

Because SFSCs operate continuously during normal conditions, they maintain local knowledge, trusted relationships, and operational capabilities that can be mobilized rapidly during emergencies. Regional producers, processors, distributors, retailers, and community organizations often possess detailed understanding of local supply networks, enabling them to adapt more quickly when national or international supply chains are disrupted.

This embedded capacity provides several resilience benefits. It strengthens social cohesion through established relationships between producers and consumers, supports regional economies by maintaining local production and processing expertise, and increases redundancy by reducing dependence on a limited number of highly centralized supply chains. During crises, these existing networks can often scale up more rapidly than newly established emergency structures because they are already integrated into regional food systems.

Importantly, embedded regional capacity should not be interpreted as an alternative to international trade or highly efficient supply chains. Rather, it complements larger food systems by increasing flexibility and providing additional operational options when external disruptions occur.

From a governance perspective, maintaining regional food-system capacity also strengthens institutional resilience. Authorities responsible for emergency food distribution, public procurement, or crisis logistics benefit from having established regional partners capable of supporting continuity under adverse conditions.

Consequently, investments in regional food infrastructure contribute simultaneously to sustainability, rural development, and crisis preparedness.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

66

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Strategic Perspective The governance of resilient food systems extends beyond the allocation of institutional responsibilities. It requires governance arrangements capable of integrating diverse actors, coordinating across administrative boundaries, and adapting to evolving risks while maintaining essential societal functions.

The ERFSF adopts a multi-level governance perspective in which municipalities, regions, national governments, European institutions, private organizations, and civil society each contribute complementary capacities. Resilience emerges not through centralization, but through effective coordination, interoperability, and shared responsibility across this interconnected governance network.

This perspective reflects broader developments within European resilience policy, which increasingly recognize that food security, critical infrastructure protection, climate adaptation, cybersecurity, public health, and civil protection are closely interconnected. Governance capable of bridging these policy domains is therefore becoming an essential component of societal resilience.

Operational preparedness further depends upon continuous learning. Institutions that regularly assess vulnerabilities, conduct joint exercises, evaluate performance, and incorporate lessons learned are better equipped to anticipate emerging challenges and adapt their governance arrangements over time. Resilience should therefore be understood as a dynamic institutional capability rather than a static condition.

Within the ERFSF, governance provides the organizational foundation upon which the other pillars of the framework depend. Infrastructure resilience, food-system continuity, regional capacity, and community preparedness all require governance systems capable of aligning strategies with implementation, facilitating cooperation between public and private actors, and supporting coordinated decision-making across governance levels.

Strengthening governance is therefore not simply an investment in administrative efficiency. It is an investment in Europe's capacity to anticipate disruption, maintain essential food-system functions, and strengthen strategic resilience in an increasingly interconnected risk landscape.

Pillar 5, Knowledge, Skills & Social Capacity The objective of this pillar is to strengthen the adaptive capacity of European food systems by enhancing the generation, exchange, application, and preservation of knowledge that enables societies to anticipate disruptions, utilise available food resources more effectively, and continuously adapt to changing circumstances.

Within the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF), resilience extends beyond protecting infrastructure and coordinating governance. It also depends upon the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, and industries to understand

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

67

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

food systems, maintain practical knowledge, adopt innovation, and transform available resources into secure, accessible, and nutritious food under both normal conditions and periods of disruption.

Adaptive Food Capacity is therefore defined as the collective capability of society to generate, preserve, share, and apply scientific, technical, institutional, and practical knowledge that strengthens food-system resilience. This includes research and technological innovation, but also food literacy, preservation techniques, regional production knowledge, circular resource use, professional skills, and community experience. Together, these capacities enable food systems to remain flexible, reduce waste, support local economies, and maintain continuity during crises.

This pillar complements the preceding chapters by providing the learning and adaptive mechanisms that allow resilient food systems to evolve over time. Pillar 5 ensures that these systems remain capable of learning, adapting, and making effective use of the food resources already available within Europe.

Why Adaptive Food Capacity matters The resilience of food systems depends not only on the availability of food, infrastructure, or governance arrangements but also on society's ability to use available resources effectively. As climate change, geopolitical instability, resource scarcity, technological disruption, and demographic change increase the complexity of food systems, resilience increasingly depends upon adaptive capacity, the ability to anticipate change, learn continuously, and respond flexibly to emerging challenges.

European food systems possess considerable productive capacity, advanced research institutions, and sophisticated supply chains. Yet recent crises have also exposed vulnerabilities associated with increasing dependence on globally interconnected markets, highly specialized production systems, and long supply chains. These disruptions have demonstrated that resilience is influenced not only by production capacity but also by how effectively existing food resources can be mobilized, redistributed, processed, preserved, and utilized when conventional systems are disrupted.

Adaptive Food Capacity therefore extends beyond scientific innovation alone. It encompasses the practical capabilities that enable societies to convert available resources into resilient food systems. These include food literacy, culinary knowledge, preservation techniques, understanding of seasonal production, skills for reducing food losses, and the ability to utilise locally available products that may otherwise remain underused.

Across Europe, many of these practical capacities have gradually declined as food systems have become increasingly specialized, centralized, and dependent on continuous market availability. Traditional practices such as preserving seasonal harvests, processing surplus production, fermenting, drying, smoking, or storing food have become less common in everyday life. At the same time, consumers have

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

68

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

become accustomed to year-round availability of imported products, often reducing awareness of seasonal production and locally available alternatives.

The purpose of recognizing these developments is not to advocate a return to historical food systems, but to acknowledge that practical food knowledge constitutes an important resilience asset. Communities that possess diverse food skills, understand regional production systems, and maintain the capacity to process and preserve food are generally better equipped to adapt during disruptions than those that depend exclusively on uninterrupted commercial supply chains.

This perspective reflects a growing consensus within international resilience and innovation policy that adaptive capacity emerges through collaboration between researchers, policy-makers, businesses, producers, educators, and civil society. The European Commission's (2023) framework emphasises that food-system transformation depends upon co-creation, knowledge exchange, and innovation across the entire food system, while recent FAO publications similarly recognise that resilient agrifood systems require continuous learning, institutional collaboration, and the integration of scientific and practical knowledge.

Within the ERFSF, Adaptive Food Capacity is therefore understood as a strategic resilience capability that combines scientific knowledge, practical expertise, institutional learning, and community experience to strengthen Europe's capacity to withstand, adapt to, and recover from disruption.

An adaptive Food Capacity Ecosystem Building upon these principles, the ERFSF proposes an Adaptive Food Capacity Ecosystem that connects scientific research, education, professional practice, regional food systems, communities, and innovation into a continuous learning network that strengthens food-system resilience.

Rather than treating research, education, technological innovation, food production, and consumer behaviour as separate domains, the framework recognises that resilience emerges through continuous interaction between them. Scientific knowledge informs policy and practice; operational experience generates new research questions; educational institutions develop future expertise; producers contribute practical knowledge; communities preserve cultural food practices; and innovation transforms ideas into scalable solutions. Together, these interactions create an adaptive system capable of responding to evolving risks while continuously improving food-system performance.

Adaptive Food Capacity also strengthens the distributed production model introduced in Pillar 2. While geographically distributed and diversified food production increases the availability of regional food resources and reduces dependence on concentrated supply chains, these resilience benefits can only be realised when society possesses the knowledge, skills, infrastructure, and institutional capacity to utilise those resources effectively. Regional production therefore becomes truly resilient when it is supported by food literacy, local processing capacity, preservation techniques, collaborative networks, and adaptive

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

69

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

governance. Adaptive Food Capacity transforms distributed production from a physical characteristic of the food system into an operational resilience capability.

Figure 5.1 illustrates the Adaptive Food Capacity Ecosystem proposed by the ERFSF. At its centre lies Adaptive Food Capacity, supported by six interconnected domains: scientific research and innovation, practical food knowledge, regional food utilisation, education and skills development, collaborative governance and partnerships, and digital knowledge systems. These domains operate as a continuous learning cycle in which knowledge is generated, exchanged, applied, evaluated, and refined through experience.

​ Figure 5.1. Adaptive Food Capacity Ecosystem within the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF). The ecosystem illustrates how scientific research, practical food knowledge, regional food utilisation, education, governance, digital innovation, and community participation interact to strengthen the adaptive capacity and resilience of European food systems.

A distinctive feature of the ecosystem is the equal recognition of scientific and practical knowledge. Research institutions, universities, and innovation programmes provide essential advances in agriculture, food technology, and digitalisation. At the same time, farmers, processors, chefs, educators, community organisations, and

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

70

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

households contribute practical expertise related to seasonal production, food preparation, preservation, storage, and the efficient use of regional resources.

Integrating these complementary forms of knowledge creates a more comprehensive foundation for resilience than either could provide independently.

The ecosystem also promotes greater utilisation of Europe's existing food resources.

Reducing food losses, valorising surplus production, encouraging regional processing capacity, strengthening local markets, and increasing consumer awareness of seasonal and locally available foods all contribute to a more flexible and resource-efficient food system. These measures not only enhance sustainability but also create additional operational capacity that can be mobilised during periods of disruption.

Accordingly, the following sections examine the principal components of Adaptive Food Capacity and the mechanisms through which research, innovation, education, food literacy, regional resource utilisation, and institutional learning collectively strengthen the resilience of European food systems.

Developing Adaptive Food Capacity The Adaptive Food Capacity Ecosystem proposed by the ERFSF depends upon a broad set of complementary capabilities that enable food systems to anticipate change, respond effectively to disruption, and continuously improve through experience.

Building resilience therefore requires investments not only in technology and scientific research but also in people, practical skills, institutional knowledge, and regional capacities that allow food systems to make effective use of available resources.

A central component of Adaptive Food Capacity is food literacy. Food literacy extends beyond nutritional knowledge and encompasses the knowledge, skills, and behaviours that enable individuals and communities to understand where food originates, how it is produced, selected, prepared, preserved, stored, and consumed in ways that support both human and environmental health. Vidgen and Gallegos (2014), whose work remains the most widely cited conceptualisation of food literacy, define it as:

“A collection of inter-related knowledge, skills and behaviours required to plan, manage, select, prepare and eat food to meet needs and determine food intake.”​ (Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014, p. 54) This definition recognises that food literacy is not limited to nutritional awareness but includes practical competencies that enable individuals to make informed food decisions throughout the entire food system. A subsequent systematic review of 549 scientific publications confirmed that this conceptualisation remains the dominant and internationally accepted framework for understanding food literacy (Thompson et al., 2021).

Within the ERFSF, food literacy is understood as a strategic resilience capability.

Individuals and communities with higher levels of food literacy are generally better

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

71

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

equipped to adapt their consumption patterns during disruptions, reduce food losses, utilise seasonal and locally available products, and make effective use of available food resources. Practical knowledge relating to food preparation, preservation, storage, and resource-efficient consumption increases societal flexibility during periods of disruption while reducing dependence on vulnerable supply chains.

Consequently, strengthening food literacy contributes not only to healthier diets and more sustainable consumption but also to Europe's broader Adaptive Food Capacity, enabling food systems to anticipate, absorb, and adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining food security and operational continuity.

Practical food knowledge forms an equally important element of resilience. Skills related to food preparation, preservation, storage, fermentation, drying, freezing, and other methods of extending food availability have historically enabled societies to cope with seasonal variability and temporary supply disruptions. While modern food systems have greatly improved food availability and safety, many of these practical skills have become less common in everyday life. Strengthening Adaptive Food Capacity therefore includes preserving and renewing practical food knowledge, not as a return to historical food systems, but as an additional source of flexibility that complements modern supply chains.

Professional education and workforce development are equally essential. Farmers, food processors, retailers, public authorities, and food service professionals all require access to continuous education that reflects evolving technologies, regulatory developments, climate adaptation strategies, and emerging risks. Lifelong learning enables organisations to remain innovative while ensuring that professional competencies evolve alongside increasingly complex food systems.

Adaptive capacity also depends upon strengthening regional knowledge networks.

Local producers, cooperatives, processors, educational institutions, advisory services, and community organisations possess valuable experience regarding regional production systems, seasonal availability, and operational challenges.

Facilitating knowledge exchange among these actors strengthens innovation while ensuring that practical experience informs both research and policy development.

Importantly, Adaptive Food Capacity is strengthened through the interaction of scientific and experiential knowledge. Research institutions contribute new technologies, analytical methods, and evidence-based insights, while practitioners contribute operational expertise gained through everyday experience. The integration of these complementary forms of knowledge creates more robust and implementable solutions than either could achieve independently.

Within the ERFSF, developing Adaptive Food Capacity therefore represents a continuous investment in human capital, institutional capability, and community resilience. These capacities enable European food systems not only to recover from disruptions but also to adapt proactively to future challenges.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

72

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Enabling continuous learning and innovation Adaptive capacity can only be sustained when knowledge is continuously generated, shared, evaluated, and translated into practice. The ERFSF therefore views learning and innovation as ongoing governance processes rather than isolated research activities or technological developments.

Scientific research provides an essential foundation for resilient food systems by improving understanding of climate impacts, ecosystem services, emerging diseases, food safety, supply chain vulnerabilities, and technological opportunities. European research programmes, including Horizon Europe and the European Commission (2023) initiative, increasingly promote interdisciplinary approaches that integrate agriculture, environmental sciences, engineering, economics, public health, and social sciences to address the interconnected nature of food-system resilience.

However, scientific knowledge alone does not generate resilience unless it is translated into practical application. Effective knowledge exchange requires strong connections between researchers, policy-makers, businesses, advisory services, educational institutions, and practitioners. Extension services, demonstration projects, living laboratories, public–private partnerships, and regional innovation networks all play important roles in accelerating the adoption of new practices while ensuring that innovation responds to real-world needs.

Digital technologies further strengthen Adaptive Food Capacity by enabling more effective collection, analysis, and dissemination of information. Remote sensing, artificial intelligence, geographic information systems, precision agriculture, digital twins, predictive modelling, and interoperable data platforms provide valuable tools for monitoring food systems, anticipating disruptions, and supporting evidence-based decision-making. Nevertheless, digital innovation should complement rather than replace human expertise. Reliable governance, transparent data management, cybersecurity, and equitable access to digital technologies remain essential prerequisites for building trust and ensuring that technological innovation contributes to resilience across all regions.

Learning also depends upon systematic evaluation. Monitoring outcomes, assessing policy implementation, conducting post-event reviews, and incorporating lessons learned from crises enable institutions to refine strategies over time. This continuous feedback process transforms individual experiences into collective knowledge, strengthening preparedness and reducing vulnerability to future disruptions.

Finally, innovation should be understood broadly. Technological advances are important, but equally significant are innovations in governance, education, financing, community organisation, food distribution, and circular resource management. Many resilience improvements emerge not through new technologies alone but through improved collaboration, institutional learning, and more effective utilisation of existing resources.

Within the ERFSF, continuous learning and innovation therefore constitute the dynamic processes that sustain the Adaptive Food Capacity Ecosystem. By combining

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

73

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

scientific excellence with practical knowledge, digital capabilities, and institutional learning, European food systems become better equipped to anticipate change, adapt to uncertainty, and maintain operational continuity in an increasingly complex risk environment.

Utilising Europe's existing food resources Adaptive Food Capacity extends beyond the generation of new knowledge and technologies. It also depends upon society's ability to recognise, value, and effectively utilise the food resources that already exist within European food systems.

While discussions on food security frequently emphasise increasing production or strengthening international supply chains, resilience can equally be enhanced by improving the utilisation of existing agricultural outputs, regional production capacities, and practical food knowledge.

The European Union is one of the world's largest producers and exporters of agri-food products. Despite this strong production capacity, significant quantities of edible food are lost, downgraded, or discarded throughout the food supply chain. The European Commission's Food Loss and Waste Prevention Hub says approximately 59 million tonnes of food waste are generated annually across the European Union, representing an estimated economic loss of €132 billion. At the same time, nearly 42 million people in the EU are unable to afford a quality meal every second day. This apparent paradox highlights that food-system resilience is not determined solely by production capacity, but also by society's ability to utilise, preserve, redistribute, and make effective use of the food resources already available. Reducing food losses and improving resource utilisation therefore not only enhances environmental sustainability but also strengthens the efficiency, equity, and resilience of European food systems.

However, underutilisation extends beyond food waste alone. Significant quantities of edible products are diverted to lower-value applications, remain commercially unattractive because they fail to meet market specifications, or are replaced by imported alternatives despite comparable regional production. At the same time, many traditional skills related to preserving seasonal surpluses, processing locally available products, and adapting diets to regional availability have gradually declined. These developments have increased dependence on continuous supply chains while reducing the flexibility that communities possess during periods of disruption.

From a resilience perspective, these underutilised resources represent a strategic reserve of adaptive capacity. Increasing the use of regional and seasonal products, strengthening local processing, improving the valorisation of surplus production, and supporting circular food systems all contribute to greater operational flexibility while reducing dependence on vulnerable external supply chains. Rather than replacing international trade, these measures complement global food markets by increasing the range of options available during crises.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

74

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Within the ERFSF, improving the utilisation of Europe's existing food resources is therefore recognised as a resilience strategy. Adaptive Food Capacity is strengthened not only by producing more food but also by increasing society's ability to preserve, process, distribute, and consume the food that is already available. In this way, resilience becomes a function of both production capacity and resource utilisation, linking sustainability, food security, and operational preparedness within a single adaptive framework.

Institutional learning, continuous improvement and foresight Adaptive Food Capacity cannot be achieved through one-time investments in research, education, or technological innovation. Resilience depends upon the ability of institutions and organisations to continuously evaluate performance, learn from experience, anticipate emerging risks, and adjust policies and practices accordingly.

Institutional learning therefore represents the mechanism through which adaptive capacity evolves over time.

Within the ERFSF, learning is understood as a continuous cycle in which knowledge is generated through scientific research, operational experience, monitoring, and crisis response; translated into policy and practice through collaboration and education; evaluated through assessment and reflection; and subsequently refined through innovation and organisational change. This iterative process enables food systems to remain responsive to changing environmental, technological, economic, and geopolitical conditions.

The importance of organisational learning has long been recognised within resilience research. Folke et al. (2005) argue that adaptive governance depends upon institutions capable of "learning, combining experience and knowledge, and adjusting to changing external drivers and internal processes." This capacity for continuous adaptation enables governance systems to respond effectively to uncertainty rather than relying on fixed plans or static organisational structures.

Regular evaluation forms an essential component of institutional learning. Monitoring resilience indicators, conducting post-incident reviews, evaluating policy implementation, and analysing operational performance enable organisations to identify strengths, reveal vulnerabilities, and improve future preparedness. Similar to the operational stress testing proposed in Pillar 4, these evaluations should extend beyond individual organisations to examine interdependencies across the wider food system.

Strategic foresight further strengthens Adaptive Food Capacity by enabling institutions to anticipate long-term developments before they develop into crises.

Horizon scanning, scenario analysis, systems modelling, and participatory foresight exercises support informed decision-making by identifying emerging trends, potential disruptions, and opportunities for innovation. Rather than predicting the future, foresight expands institutional awareness of plausible futures, allowing decision-makers to develop more robust and flexible strategies.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

75

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

This perspective is increasingly reflected in European policy. The European Commission's Competence Centre on Foresight and the Strategic Foresight Reports emphasise that anticipatory governance strengthens resilience by supporting evidence-based policy, improving preparedness, and enabling institutions to respond proactively to complex and uncertain developments. These approaches recognise that resilience depends not only on responding effectively to crises but also on developing the capacity to anticipate and prepare for future challenges.

Importantly, institutional learning should involve the full diversity of actors that comprise the food system. Farmers, processors, retailers, logistics providers, infrastructure operators, researchers, educators, civil society organisations, and public authorities all contribute valuable knowledge derived from their respective experiences. Integrating these perspectives strengthens collective understanding while ensuring that resilience measures remain practical, inclusive, and responsive to operational realities.

Within the ERFSF, institutional learning and strategic foresight therefore function as continuous resilience capabilities that enable European food systems to evolve alongside changing risks. By embedding learning within routine governance and operational practice, Adaptive Food Capacity becomes a dynamic capability that supports long-term resilience rather than a static policy objective.

Strategic perspective Knowledge and innovation are often viewed primarily as drivers of economic competitiveness and technological development. Within the European Resilient Food Systems Framework, however, they are recognised as the foundation of Adaptive Food Capacity, the collective capability of society to generate, preserve, exchange, and apply knowledge that strengthens food-system resilience.

The ERFSF broadens the concept of innovation beyond technological advancement alone. Scientific research, digital technologies, professional education, food literacy, practical food skills, regional knowledge, institutional learning, and community experience each contribute complementary forms of knowledge that enable food systems to anticipate change, respond effectively to disruption, and continuously improve over time. Resilience therefore depends as much on the ability to connect and apply existing knowledge as on the generation of new technologies.

This perspective also recognises the strategic value of Europe's existing food resources. Enhancing resilience is not solely a matter of increasing production or expanding technological capacity. Equally important is improving society's ability to utilise regional production, reduce food losses, preserve seasonal surpluses, strengthen local processing, and maintain practical food knowledge that increases flexibility during periods of disruption. These capabilities complement highly efficient global supply chains by providing additional adaptive capacity when external systems become constrained.

The European Commission's initiative similarly emphasises that resilient food systems require innovation that integrates environmental sustainability, healthy

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

76

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

diets, circularity, and inclusive governance. The ERFSF extends this perspective by explicitly recognising Adaptive Food Capacity as the mechanism through which scientific knowledge, practical expertise, institutional learning, and community engagement are translated into operational resilience.

Ultimately, resilient food systems are not defined solely by the strength of their infrastructure or the effectiveness of their governance. They are equally characterised by their capacity to learn continuously, adapt intelligently, and make effective use of the resources already available within society. Adaptive Food Capacity therefore provides the knowledge foundation upon which the preceding pillars of the ERFSF depend, ensuring that infrastructure remains functional, governance remains responsive, and communities remain capable of sustaining food security in an increasingly uncertain world.

"The ability to learn, adapt and transform in response to change is fundamental to resilience." Folke et al. (2010), Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability.

Within the ERFSF, Adaptive Food Capacity transforms resilience from the ability to withstand disruption into the capacity to learn continuously, utilise existing resources intelligently, and strengthen European food systems through knowledge, collaboration, and practical action.

Pillar 6, Assessment, Monitoring & Continuous Improvement The objective of this pillar is to strengthen the long-term resilience of European food systems by establishing a systematic approach to assessing, monitoring, evaluating, and continuously improving resilience across all components of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF).

Within the ERFSF, resilience is understood as a dynamic capability rather than a fixed state. Building resilient food systems therefore requires more than implementing policies or investing in infrastructure. It also requires the institutional capacity to measure resilience, evaluate performance, identify emerging vulnerabilities, learn from experience, and adapt strategies as conditions evolve.

Adaptive Resilience Assessment is therefore defined as the continuous process through which resilience capacities are monitored, evaluated, and improved across the six pillars of the ERFSF. By integrating performance measurements with institutional learning, the assessment process enables decision-makers to strengthen preparedness, support evidence-based policy, and ensure that resilience evolves alongside changing environmental, technological, economic, and geopolitical conditions.

This pillar complements the preceding chapters by providing the evaluation and learning mechanisms through which the ERFSF remains adaptive over time. While the previous pillars establish the structural, operational, institutional, and societal

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

77

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

foundations of resilient food systems, Pillar 6 ensures that these capacities are systematically assessed, refined, and strengthened through continuous improvement.

Why assessment and continuous improvement matter Resilience cannot be assumed simply because preparedness measures, governance structures, or technical solutions have been implemented. Food systems operate within highly dynamic environments characterised by climate change, geopolitical instability, technological innovation, demographic change, market volatility, and evolving societal expectations. Consequently, resilience must be understood as an evolving capability that requires continuous evaluation and adaptation rather than a fixed end state.

Recent crises have demonstrated that organisations and governments capable of learning from disruptions, monitoring emerging risks, and adapting their policies are generally better equipped to maintain essential societal functions during periods of uncertainty. The OECD (2023) argues that resilient systems depend not only on the capacity to withstand shocks but also on the ability to learn, adapt, and transform in response to changing circumstances. Similarly, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction emphasises that effective disaster risk reduction requires continuous monitoring, evaluation, and the integration of lessons learned into future planning (UNDRR, 2015).

"Disaster risk reduction requires an all-of-society engagement and partnership, underpinned by continuous learning, monitoring and review." UNDRR, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) Within food systems, this means that resilience cannot be measured solely by agricultural output, emergency response capacity, or infrastructure performance in isolation. Instead, resilience emerges through the interaction of multiple capacities, including distributed production (Pillar 2), Food-Critical Infrastructure (Pillar 3), Multi-Level Governance (Pillar 4), and Adaptive Food Capacity (Pillar 5). Assessing resilience therefore requires an integrated perspective that considers how these complementary capacities perform collectively under both normal conditions and periods of disruption.

The ERFSF therefore adopts an Adaptive Resilience Assessment approach that views monitoring not as a compliance exercise but as a strategic learning process.

Assessments provide evidence for policy development, identify emerging vulnerabilities, support investment decisions, strengthen accountability, and facilitate collaboration between public authorities, private organisations, researchers, and civil society. More importantly, they enable resilience to evolve continuously as new risks emerge and societal conditions change.

This perspective reflects broader developments within European resilience policy.

The European Commission increasingly emphasises evidence-based policymaking, strategic foresight, and continuous evaluation as essential components of effective governance. Monitoring and assessment are therefore not separate from resilience policy, they are integral mechanisms through which resilience is strengthened over time.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

78

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

An Integrated Resilience Assessment Framework Building upon the principles introduced in the previous sections, the ERFSF proposes an Integrated Resilience Assessment Framework that enables resilience to be evaluated across all six pillars in a structured, evidence-based, and adaptive manner.

Rather than assessing individual components of the food system in isolation, the framework recognises that resilience emerges through the interaction of physical infrastructure, governance arrangements, distributed production systems, adaptive knowledge, environmental sustainability, and societal preparedness.

Accordingly, resilience assessment should extend beyond traditional performance indicators such as production volumes or economic efficiency. It should also evaluate the capacity of food systems to anticipate disruption, maintain essential functions under adverse conditions, recover effectively, and continuously improve through institutional learning. This broader perspective reflects the understanding that resilient food systems are characterised not only by robustness, but also by adaptability and transformability (Folke et al., 2010).

Figure 6.1 illustrates the Integrated Resilience Assessment Framework proposed by the ERFSF. The framework places continuous assessment at the centre of resilience governance and connects monitoring, evaluation, learning, and policy improvement through an iterative cycle. Each of the six pillars contributes a distinct dimension of resilience, while the assessment process evaluates both their individual performance and their interaction as an integrated system. In this way, resilience becomes a continuously evolving capability rather than a static policy objective.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

79

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Figure 6.1. Integrated Resilience Assessment Framework within the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF). The figure illustrates how continuous monitoring, evaluation, institutional learning, and adaptive decision-making support the six interconnected pillars of the ERFSF, creating a dynamic cycle of resilience improvement.

A distinguishing feature of the framework is that assessment is not conceived as a compliance exercise or a one-time evaluation. Instead, it functions as a strategic management process that enables governments, food-system actors, and infrastructure operators to identify emerging vulnerabilities, prioritise investments, evaluate preparedness measures, and adapt policies as risks evolve. In doing so, the framework supports evidence-based decision-making while strengthening coordination between the multiple actors responsible for European food-system resilience.

This integrated perspective also reinforces the interdependence of the preceding pillars. Distributed production (Pillar 2) provides geographical diversity and redundancy; Food-Critical Infrastructure (Pillar 3) safeguards operational continuity; Multi-Level Governance (Pillar 4) coordinates institutions and stakeholders; and Adaptive Food Capacity (Pillar 5) enables society to learn, innovate, and make effective use of available resources. The assessment framework evaluates how these

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

80

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

complementary capacities function together, thereby providing a comprehensive picture of resilience across the European food system.

Measuring resilience across the six pillars The effectiveness of resilience policy depends upon the availability of meaningful indicators that provide insight into the strengths, vulnerabilities, and adaptive capacities of food systems. However, because resilience is a multidimensional concept, no single indicator can adequately capture its performance. The ERFSF therefore adopts a multidimensional assessment approach in which qualitative and quantitative indicators are combined to evaluate resilience across all six pillars.

This approach reflects international resilience research, which increasingly recognises that resilience cannot be reduced to a single metric. The OECD (2023) argues that resilience should be assessed through a combination of capacities that enable systems to anticipate, absorb, recover, and adapt to disruption. Similarly, the European Commission's Better Regulation framework emphasises that effective policy evaluation requires a balanced combination of performance indicators, stakeholder feedback, and continuous monitoring to support evidence-based decision-making.

Within the ERFSF, indicators are therefore organised according to the six pillars of the framework. Each pillar represents a strategic dimension of resilience and contributes complementary information regarding the preparedness and adaptive capacity of the European food system.

For example, indicators within Pillar 2 may assess the geographical distribution and diversity of food production, regional processing capacity, and supply-chain redundancy. Pillar 3 focuses on the continuity and robustness of Food-Critical Infrastructure, including energy security, storage capacity, logistics resilience, digital infrastructure, and operational redundancy. Pillar 4 evaluates governance effectiveness through measures of institutional coordination, preparedness planning, public–private collaboration, and crisis-management capability. Pillar 5 assesses Adaptive Food Capacity by examining food literacy, research and innovation, professional education, regional knowledge networks, and institutional learning.

Rather than interpreting these indicators independently, the ERFSF emphasises their interaction. Strong infrastructure cannot compensate for weak governance, while extensive regional production provides limited resilience if communities lack the knowledge or capacity to utilise available food resources effectively. Integrated assessment therefore enables decision-makers to identify systemic vulnerabilities that may not be visible when sectors are evaluated separately.

Importantly, resilience indicators should not be regarded as fixed benchmarks. As risks, technologies, environmental conditions, and societal priorities evolve, assessment frameworks must also adapt. Continuous review of indicators ensures that resilience measurement remains relevant, scientifically robust, and responsive to emerging challenges.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

81

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

From assessment to continuous improvement Everything discussed so far in this chapter, including resilience indicators, monitoring systems, stress testing, benchmarking, and adaptive governance, only creates value when assessment results are translated into practical improvements. Assessment should therefore not be regarded as an end in itself, but as a continuous process that informs decision-making, guides investment priorities, and strengthens the resilience of European food systems over time.

Within the ERFSF, assessment forms part of an iterative improvement cycle in which evidence is continuously transformed into action. Data collected through monitoring systems, resilience indicators, operational exercises, and post-event evaluations provide insight into emerging vulnerabilities, changing risks, and the effectiveness of existing resilience measures. These insights enable governments, infrastructure operators, food businesses, and regional authorities to adjust strategies before weaknesses develop into systemic failures.

This adaptive approach reflects the principle of continuous improvement that underpins many internationally recognised management frameworks. Rather than aiming to eliminate all risks, resilient systems seek to improve their capacity to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and recover from disruption through regular evaluation and organisational learning.

The OECD similarly argues that resilience requires governments to establish institutions capable of "learning, adapting and continuously improving in response to changing risks." (OECD (2023). Building resilience in food systems and critical infrastructures.).

Within the ERFSF, assessment therefore becomes a strategic governance function that links operational experience with long-term policy development, ensuring that resilience evolves alongside Europe's changing risk landscape.

Investment prioritisation and economic resilience Assessment also provides the evidence required to make informed investment decisions. Because financial resources are inherently limited, resilience investments should be directed towards interventions that produce the greatest improvement in food-system continuity, reduce systemic vulnerabilities, and strengthen long-term adaptive capacity.

The ERFSF therefore proposes that resilience assessments should inform investment decisions across all six pillars. Performance indicators help identify where infrastructure requires strengthening, where governance arrangements need improvement, where regional production capacity should be expanded, where food literacy programmes provide the greatest societal benefit, or where critical infrastructure dependencies require additional redundancy.

Importantly, resilience investments should not be viewed solely as costs associated with emergency preparedness. Increasingly, international organisations recognise resilience as an economic investment that reduces future losses while improving long-term competitiveness and sustainability.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

82

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

The World Bank notes that investments in resilience generate substantial economic returns by reducing disaster losses, protecting critical infrastructure, and increasing societal adaptability (World Bank, 2019).

Likewise, the OECD has emphasised that proactive resilience investments are generally more cost-effective than responding to crises after disruptions have occurred.

From this perspective, resilience assessment becomes an economic decision-support instrument. By identifying vulnerabilities before they develop into crises, assessment enables public authorities and private organisations to allocate resources more efficiently, reduce unnecessary expenditures during emergencies, and strengthen the long-term stability of European food systems.

Within the ERFSF, economic resilience is therefore understood not simply as financial robustness, but as the capacity to direct investments towards those measures that produce the greatest systemic resilience across the interconnected food system.

Integrating assessment across the Six Pillars The ultimate purpose of assessment is to strengthen the performance of the framework as a whole rather than evaluating individual components in isolation.

Because the six pillars of the ERFSF are highly interdependent, weaknesses identified within one pillar frequently indicate vulnerabilities elsewhere in the system.

For example, assessment may reveal that disruptions in food distribution are not primarily caused by inadequate transport infrastructure (Pillar 3), but by insufficient regional production capacity (Pillar 2), limited coordination between authorities (Pillar 4), or inadequate food literacy and adaptive capacity within communities (Pillar 5). Similarly, communication failures identified under Pillar 1 may reduce the effectiveness of emergency coordination throughout the entire framework.

Assessment should therefore examine not only the performance of individual pillars but also the interactions between them. Understanding these interdependencies enables decision-makers to prioritise interventions that strengthen multiple resilience capacities simultaneously, thereby increasing the efficiency of resilience investments.

This systems perspective reflects one of the central principles of the ERFSF: resilience emerges through the interaction of complementary capacities rather than through isolated improvements within individual sectors. Assessment consequently functions as the integrative mechanism that continuously aligns all six pillars and enables the framework to evolve as a coherent adaptive system.

Strategic Perspective Assessment, monitoring, and continuous improvement represent the adaptive mechanism through which the European Resilient Food Systems Framework evolves over time. While the preceding pillars establish the capacities required for resilient food systems—communication, distributed production, operational continuity, governance, and adaptive food capacity—Pillar 6 ensures that these capacities remain effective under changing conditions.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

83

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Rather than viewing resilience as a fixed objective, the ERFSF adopts a dynamic perspective in which resilience is continuously assessed, evaluated, and strengthened through evidence-based decision-making. Monitoring identifies emerging risks, assessment evaluates system performance, organisational learning translates experience into improved practice, and targeted investments strengthen those areas where vulnerabilities are greatest. In this way, resilience becomes an ongoing process of adaptation rather than a static state of preparedness.

Importantly, assessment also connects resilience with economic decision-making.

Reliable evidence enables governments, businesses, and regional authorities to prioritise investments that provide the greatest societal benefit while reducing long-term disruption costs. Continuous improvement therefore contributes not only to food security but also to economic efficiency, public confidence, and the sustainable use of financial resources.

Within the ERFSF, Pillar 6 serves as the framework's learning engine. It integrates the outputs of all preceding pillars into a continuous cycle of assessment, adaptation, and improvement, ensuring that European food systems become progressively more resilient as new knowledge, technologies, and experiences emerge. Assessment is therefore not the conclusion of the framework, but the mechanism that continually renews and strengthens it.

Implementing the European Resilient Food Systems Framework From Framework to Implementation The European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) provides an integrated approach for strengthening the resilience of European food systems through six mutually reinforcing pillars: Communication & Civic Coordination (Pillar 1), Distributed Food Production (Pillar 2), Energy & Operational Continuity (Pillar 3), Governance & Multi-level Coordination (Pillar 4), Knowledge, Skills & Social Capacity (Pillar 5), and Assessment, Monitoring & Continuous Improvement (Pillar 6). Together, these pillars establish the strategic capabilities required for food systems to anticipate, withstand, adapt to, and recover from an increasingly complex range of environmental, technological, economic, and geopolitical disruptions.

The preceding chapters have demonstrated that resilience cannot be achieved through isolated interventions. Food-system resilience emerges from the interaction between robust infrastructure, distributed production capacity, effective governance, informed communities, adaptive institutions, and continuous learning. The six pillars therefore constitute an integrated resilience architecture in which the effectiveness of each pillar depends upon the strength of the others. Strengthening communication without safeguarding critical infrastructure remains insufficient; investing in regional food production requires complementary governance and food literacy; and monitoring only creates value when assessment outcomes are translated into policy improvements and operational change.

Developing a resilience framework, however, represents only the first step towards strengthening European food security. Frameworks provide strategic direction, but

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

84

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

resilience is ultimately determined by the extent to which strategies are translated into coordinated action across governments, businesses, research institutions, infrastructure operators, and civil society. The practical value of the ERFSF therefore depends upon its implementation: the process through which resilience principles become embedded within governance, investment decisions, operational procedures, professional practice, and long-term policy development.

Implementation presents a particular challenge because European food systems are highly diverse. Climatic conditions, agricultural production systems, fisheries, demographic developments, institutional capacities, economic structures, and governance arrangements vary considerably between Member States and regions.

Coastal communities face different vulnerabilities than metropolitan regions; intensive agricultural landscapes require different resilience measures than mountainous or peripheral areas; and highly industrialised food-processing regions differ substantially from territories characterised by shorter regional food supply chains. A single, prescriptive implementation model would therefore fail to reflect the diversity that characterises European food systems.

For this reason, the ERFSF adopts an implementation philosophy based on adaptive resilience rather than uniform compliance. The framework establishes a common European resilience architecture while allowing implementation to remain sufficiently flexible to accommodate regional priorities, governance capacities, and risk profiles.

This approach reflects the principle of subsidiarity that underpins European governance, whereby decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizens and communities affected, while strategic coordination is provided where collective European action creates additional value.

Rather than presenting implementation as a linear sequence of policy measures, the ERFSF conceptualises implementation as a continuous improvement process.

Resilience is not a fixed end state that can be achieved through a single investment programme or legislative reform. Instead, it develops progressively through repeated cycles of assessment, prioritisation, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, institutional learning, and adaptation. As risks evolve, resilience strategies must evolve accordingly. Continuous improvement therefore becomes an intrinsic characteristic of resilient food systems rather than a separate policy objective.

This perspective is consistent with contemporary resilience governance literature.

The OECD emphasises that resilient governance depends upon institutions capable of anticipating risks, coordinating across sectors, learning from experience, and adapting policies to changing circumstances rather than relying upon static plans or predefined responses (OECD, 2023). Similarly, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction identifies understanding risk, strengthening governance, investing in resilience, and enhancing preparedness as mutually reinforcing priorities that together support long-term societal resilience (UNDRR, 2015). Within the European Union, the Better Regulation Guidelines likewise emphasise evidence-based policymaking, stakeholder participation, continuous evaluation, and adaptive implementation as essential components of effective public governance (European Commission, 2023).

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

85

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Building upon these principles, the ERFSF proposes an implementation methodology that translates the six resilience pillars into an operational process capable of supporting continuous improvement across all governance levels. Rather than prescribing identical interventions for every Member State, the framework provides a structured implementation pathway through which resilience can be progressively strengthened while remaining responsive to regional circumstances and emerging risks. The implementation methodology integrates strategic planning, multi-level governance, resilience assessment, phased implementation, financing, stakeholder collaboration, and continuous monitoring into a single adaptive process that enables resilience to mature over time.

Figure 7.1 illustrates this implementation philosophy. The implementation cycle demonstrates that resilience is not achieved through a single programme or project, but through a continuous process in which assessment informs prioritisation, prioritisation guides implementation, implementation is evaluated through monitoring, and the lessons learned become the foundation for subsequent improvements. In this way, implementation becomes the mechanism through which the European Resilient Food Systems Framework evolves alongside changing environmental, technological, economic, and geopolitical conditions.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

86

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Figure 7.1. Continuous Implementation Cycle of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF). The figure illustrates the iterative implementation process through which assessment, prioritisation, implementation, monitoring, institutional learning, and adaptation continuously strengthen the resilience of European food systems. Rather than representing a linear policy process, the cycle emphasises resilience as a dynamic capability that evolves through evidence-based decision-making and continuous improvement.

Principles for Implementation Although implementation pathways will inevitably differ between Member States, regions, and local food systems, several common principles should guide the application of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF). These principles provide a consistent foundation for translating the six pillars into practical action while allowing sufficient flexibility to accommodate Europe's geographical, institutional, economic, and cultural diversity. Rather than prescribing uniform solutions, they establish the conditions under which resilience can be developed systematically, evaluated consistently, and improved continuously.

A first principle is evidence-based implementation. Resilience investments should be informed by robust risk assessments, scientific evidence, operational experience, and stakeholder knowledge rather than by reactive responses to individual crises.

Effective implementation requires a clear understanding of systemic vulnerabilities, critical interdependencies, and the likely consequences of different types of disruption. Combining quantitative indicators with qualitative expertise enables decision-makers to prioritise interventions that strengthen the resilience of the food system as a whole instead of addressing isolated symptoms. This approach aligns closely with the European Commission's Better Regulation framework, which promotes evidence-based policy development, stakeholder participation, proportionality, and continuous evaluation as fundamental principles of effective governance (European Commission, 2023).

A second principle is risk-based and adaptive implementation. European food systems are exposed to an evolving combination of climate change, biodiversity decline, cyber threats, geopolitical instability, demographic developments, resource scarcity, and disruptions affecting critical infrastructure. Because these risks continue to evolve, resilience strategies cannot remain static. Instead, implementation should be reviewed periodically using updated assessments, monitoring results, operational experience, and emerging scientific knowledge. This adaptive perspective reflects the OECD's observation that resilient governance depends upon institutions capable of anticipating change, adapting to new circumstances, and continuously improving over time (OECD, 2023).

Implementation should also remain place-based. While the six pillars establish a common European resilience architecture, the practical measures required to strengthen resilience differ considerably between territories. Coastal fisheries face different vulnerabilities than intensive agricultural regions; metropolitan food systems differ fundamentally from rural production landscapes; mountainous regions European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

87

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

encounter different logistical challenges than densely populated urban centres.

Consequently, implementation should reflect regional environmental conditions, economic structures, cultural traditions, production systems, and institutional capacities. Applying resilience through a place-based perspective ensures that the framework remains both coherent at European level and relevant at local level.

A fourth principle concerns collaborative implementation. As established in Pillar 4, resilient food systems depend upon effective multi-level governance and strong collaboration between public authorities, private organisations, research institutions, food producers, infrastructure operators, community organisations, and citizens.

Implementation therefore extends beyond governmental responsibility alone. It requires a whole-of-system approach in which all actors contribute their respective knowledge, capabilities, and resources to strengthen continuity during disruptions.

Such collaboration improves institutional trust, accelerates innovation, facilitates knowledge exchange, and enables coordinated responses to increasingly interconnected systemic risks. This perspective closely aligns with the European Commission's Preparedness Union Strategy, which identifies a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach as a fundamental principle for strengthening European resilience (European Commission, 2024). Similarly, the FAO emphasises that resilient agrifood systems require inclusive governance and effective collaboration among all stakeholders across the food system (FAO, 2023).

Finally, implementation should be guided by the principle of continuous improvement. Resilience is not a condition that can be achieved through a single programme or legislative intervention. Instead, it develops progressively through repeated cycles of assessment, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, learning, and adaptation. This principle directly links the implementation roadmap to Pillar 6, where Assessment, Monitoring and Continuous Improvement provide the mechanisms through which resilience performance is evaluated and strengthened over time. Every implementation cycle should therefore generate new knowledge that informs subsequent investments, policy adjustments, operational improvements, and governance reforms.

Together, these implementation principles establish a common methodology for applying the ERFSF across diverse European contexts. They ensure that implementation remains evidence-based, adaptive, collaborative, and proportionate while preserving sufficient flexibility to address regional circumstances. Rather than prescribing identical interventions, the principles provide a shared foundation through which the six pillars can evolve into an integrated and continuously improving resilience system.

Governance Roles and Responsibilities Implementing the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) requires coordinated action across all levels of governance. Although the six pillars establish a common resilience architecture for European food systems, the responsibilities, resources, and decision-making capacities required to implement them differ considerably between governance levels. Consequently, resilience cannot be European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

88

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

achieved through action by a single institution or administrative level but depends upon coherent implementation across municipalities, regions, national governments, European institutions, and the wider network of public and private stakeholders that together shape the food system.

The governance architecture developed in Pillar 4 provides the institutional foundation for implementation. Rather than introducing new governance structures, the ERFSF builds upon existing responsibilities and coordination mechanisms, enabling resilience to become progressively embedded within current policy frameworks, operational procedures, and investment programmes. This approach reflects the principle of subsidiarity, whereby decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the communities affected while benefiting from strategic coordination where broader oversight or cross-border cooperation is required.

Municipal authorities contribute primarily through local preparedness, emergency planning, stakeholder engagement, and maintaining continuity of essential food services. Their close connection with communities enables them to identify local vulnerabilities, coordinate immediate response activities, and strengthen food-system resilience at neighbourhood level. Regional authorities provide the operational coordination necessary to connect municipalities, manage territorial food systems, coordinate infrastructure, and align resilience investments across wider geographic areas.

National governments establish the legislative, financial, and strategic conditions under which resilience can develop. Their responsibilities include integrating food resilience within national preparedness strategies, protecting critical food infrastructure, coordinating ministries, supporting research and innovation, and ensuring that resilience objectives are incorporated into broader policies concerning agriculture, energy, health, transport, cybersecurity, and civil protection. At European level, institutions contribute through legislation, research programmes, financial instruments, cross-border coordination, and the development of common resilience standards that promote interoperability across Member States.

Implementation also depends upon the active participation of actors beyond government. Farmers, fisheries, food processors, logistics providers, retailers, research organisations, educational institutions, financial institutions, civil society organisations, and community networks collectively own or manage a substantial proportion of the assets, knowledge, and operational capacities upon which food-system resilience depends. Effective implementation therefore requires long-term public–private collaboration, continuous knowledge exchange, and shared ownership of resilience objectives rather than isolated governmental intervention.

Figure 7.2 illustrates how implementation responsibilities evolve as resilience maturity increases. Rather than allocating specific maturity levels to individual governance layers, the model demonstrates that all governance levels contribute throughout implementation while progressively increasing the sophistication of their activities. Early stages focus on understanding vulnerabilities, establishing governance arrangements, and creating institutional awareness. As resilience

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

89

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

matures, coordination becomes increasingly integrated across sectors, investments become more closely aligned with resilience objectives, and monitoring and institutional learning become embedded within routine governance. At the highest maturity levels, resilience becomes a permanent characteristic of policy development, operational management, and strategic decision-making.

Figure 7.2. Multi-level Governance and Resilience Maturity within the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF). The figure illustrates how municipalities, regions, national governments, European institutions, and public–private partnerships contribute throughout the implementation process while progressively strengthening resilience through increasing levels of institutional maturity, coordination, monitoring, and adaptive governance.

Importantly, implementation should not be interpreted as a linear transfer of responsibilities between governance levels. Every actor remains engaged throughout the resilience journey, but the nature of their contribution evolves as institutional capability develops. Initial efforts concentrate on establishing awareness and governance capacity, whereas more mature systems increasingly emphasise

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

90

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

integrated planning, cross-sector coordination, evidence-based investment, continuous monitoring, operational stress testing, and institutional learning.

This governance perspective reinforces one of the central principles of the ERFSF: resilience is an emergent property of the food system as a whole. None of the six pillars can be implemented independently. Communication and civic coordination (Pillar 1) facilitate trusted information exchange; distributed production (Pillar 2) strengthens territorial resilience; food-critical infrastructure (Pillar 3) safeguards operational continuity; governance (Pillar 4) provides institutional coordination; Adaptive Food Capacity (Pillar 5) strengthens society's ability to learn and innovate; and Assessment, Monitoring and Continuous Improvement (Pillar 6) ensure that implementation remains evidence-based and capable of adapting over time. Effective governance therefore provides the mechanism through which these six pillars are translated into a coherent and continuously improving resilience strategy.

Phased Implementation Roadmap Recognising the diversity of European food systems, the ERFSF proposes a phased implementation roadmap that enables governments, regions, industries, and communities to strengthen resilience progressively over time. Rather than prescribing a rigid sequence of actions, the roadmap provides a structured pathway through which resilience capabilities can mature while remaining sufficiently flexible to accommodate differences in geography, institutional capacity, governance arrangements, and risk exposure across Europe.

The roadmap reflects the principle that resilience is not achieved through a single investment programme or legislative intervention. Instead, resilience develops through repeated cycles of assessment, prioritisation, implementation, monitoring, institutional learning, and adaptation. Each implementation phase therefore builds upon the previous one, gradually embedding resilience within policies, infrastructure, governance, operational practice, and organisational culture.

Unlike traditional implementation models that often focus on delivering predefined projects, the ERFSF adopts a capability-based approach. The objective is not merely to complete individual actions but to strengthen the long-term capacity of food systems to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and recover from disruption. Consequently, implementation should be viewed as a continuous development process rather than a finite programme with a fixed endpoint.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

91

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

92

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Figure 7.3 Phased Implementation Roadmap of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF). The roadmap illustrates the continuous implementation cycle through which assessment, prioritisation, implementation, monitoring, institutional learning, and adaptation progressively strengthen resilience across all six pillars of the ERFSF. Phase I – Understanding the System The first phase establishes the knowledge base required for effective resilience planning. Organisations begin by developing a comprehensive understanding of the existing food system, identifying vulnerabilities, mapping critical infrastructure, analysing supply-chain dependencies, and assessing institutional capabilities across the six pillars of the ERFSF. This phase should combine quantitative risk assessments with qualitative stakeholder knowledge. Mapping critical food infrastructure, identifying dependencies between sectors, evaluating governance arrangements, and assessing regional production capacity all contribute to a more complete understanding of systemic resilience. Particular attention should be given to identifying cascading risks, where disruption in one sector may rapidly affect multiple components of the food system.

Stakeholder engagement is equally important during this phase. Farmers, fisheries, food processors, logistics providers, retailers, infrastructure operators, emergency services, research institutions, and community organisations all possess knowledge that contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of regional vulnerabilities and existing resilience capacities.

The outcome of Phase I is therefore not a resilience strategy itself, but a robust evidence base that enables decision-makers to prioritise interventions according to risk, feasibility, and potential resilience impact.

Phase II – Strengthening Resilience The second phase focuses on implementing measures that strengthen each of the six pillars of the ERFSF while recognising the interdependencies between them. Rather than implementing isolated projects, organisations should seek mutually reinforcing investments that improve resilience across the food system as a whole.

Communication systems are strengthened through trusted communication networks and crisis coordination mechanisms (Pillar 1). Distributed production capacity is expanded by supporting regional food systems, diversification, and strategic redundancy (Pillar 2). Critical infrastructure protection and operational continuity measures increase the resilience of food processing, storage, logistics, energy systems, and digital infrastructure (Pillar 3). Governance arrangements are strengthened through improved coordination, operational planning, and public–private collaboration (Pillar 4). Adaptive Food Capacity is enhanced through research, education, innovation, food literacy, and regional knowledge networks (Pillar 5). Finally, monitoring systems, resilience indicators, benchmarking, and

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

93

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

stress-testing mechanisms are introduced to evaluate progress and support continuous improvement (Pillar 6).

Because these pillars reinforce one another, implementation should be coordinated wherever possible. Investments that simultaneously strengthen multiple pillars generally deliver greater long-term resilience than isolated sectoral interventions.

For example, strengthening regional food processing capacity not only supports distributed production but also enhances infrastructure resilience, improves governance coordination, increases adaptive capacity, and expands opportunities for continuous monitoring.

Phase III – Institutionalising Resilience The final phase embeds resilience within routine governance, investment planning, operational management, and organisational culture. At this stage, resilience is no longer treated as a separate programme but becomes an integral component of everyday decision-making throughout the food system.

Monitoring and assessment become permanent governance functions. Resilience indicators are reviewed periodically, operational stress tests are conducted routinely, institutional performance is evaluated, and lessons learned are systematically incorporated into future planning. Investments increasingly reflect resilience objectives alongside economic efficiency, environmental sustainability, and social development.

Institutional learning also becomes more mature during this phase. Organisations continuously refine governance arrangements, update contingency plans, integrate new scientific knowledge, adopt emerging technologies, and strengthen collaboration across sectors. Strategic foresight complements monitoring by identifying future trends and emerging risks before they develop into significant vulnerabilities.

Ultimately, Phase III transforms resilience from a reactive capability into a permanent characteristic of European food-system governance. Continuous learning, adaptive management, and evidence-based investment enable resilience to evolve alongside changing environmental, technological, economic, and geopolitical conditions.

The phased implementation roadmap should therefore be understood as a recurring cycle rather than a linear sequence with a defined endpoint. As new risks emerge and food systems continue to evolve, organisations return to renewed assessment, updated prioritisation, and further implementation, thereby creating a continuous improvement process that aligns directly with the assessment and learning mechanisms established in Pillar 6.

Financing the transition The successful implementation of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) depends not only upon effective governance and institutional coordination, but equally upon sustained and strategically aligned investment. Strengthening

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

94

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

food-system resilience requires long-term financing for critical infrastructure, distributed production systems, research and innovation, education and workforce development, digital capabilities, governance capacity, and continuous monitoring.

The challenge, however, is not simply increasing public expenditure. Rather, it is ensuring that existing and future investments collectively strengthen the resilience of the European food system instead of reinforcing isolated sectoral objectives.

Increasingly, resilience is recognised internationally as a strategic investment that generates substantial long-term economic and societal returns. The World Bank concludes that investing in resilient infrastructure significantly reduces the economic consequences of disasters while improving productivity, competitiveness, and long-term development. Its Lifelines report estimates that every euro invested in resilient infrastructure can prevent multiple euros in future recovery costs by reducing disruption to essential services and limiting cascading failures throughout interconnected systems (World Bank, 2019).

Similarly, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) argues that proactive investment in resilience is generally more cost-effective than responding to crises after disruptions have occurred. Preventive investment reduces recovery costs, improves institutional preparedness, strengthens adaptive capacity, and increases the ability of societies to absorb future shocks (OECD, 2023). This perspective reflects the fundamental philosophy of the ERFSF: resilience should be regarded as a long-term strategic asset rather than a short-term expenditure.

Within the ERFSF, financing should therefore adopt a portfolio approach. Investments across the six pillars should reinforce one another rather than being developed as independent funding programmes. Communication systems (Pillar 1), distributed food production (Pillar 2), operational continuity and critical infrastructure (Pillar 3), governance capacity (Pillar 4), Adaptive Food Capacity (Pillar 5), and Assessment, Monitoring and Continuous Improvement (Pillar 6) together create systemic resilience that exceeds the value of isolated investments.

This integrated investment philosophy also recognises that resilience frequently generates multiple co-benefits. Investments that improve regional food production can simultaneously strengthen food security, reduce transport dependency, stimulate regional economies, lower greenhouse-gas emissions, and increase strategic autonomy. Similarly, investments in digital monitoring systems support food safety, operational efficiency, emergency preparedness, and evidence-based governance simultaneously. Considering resilience through a systems perspective therefore enables decision-makers to maximise the value of limited public and private resources.

Importantly, the European Union already possesses a comprehensive portfolio of financial instruments capable of supporting implementation of the ERFSF. Rather than proposing the creation of entirely new funding mechanisms, the framework encourages stronger alignment between existing European investment programmes and resilience objectives. Relevant instruments include the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Horizon Europe, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

95

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Cohesion Fund, Interreg, the LIFE Programme, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), and financing provided through the European Investment Bank (EIB). Collectively, these programmes already support investments in agriculture, fisheries, research, innovation, infrastructure, regional development, climate adaptation, energy, digitalisation, and cross-border cooperation. Aligning these instruments around shared resilience objectives can substantially accelerate implementation without requiring the establishment of new financial structures.

At national and regional level, resilience should likewise become an integral consideration within infrastructure investment, spatial planning, food policy, emergency preparedness, education, and economic development programmes.

Embedding resilience criteria within existing investment frameworks encourages decision-makers to consider not only financial efficiency but also long-term robustness, adaptability, redundancy, and societal continuity when evaluating competing investment priorities.

Private-sector investment is equally important. A significant proportion of Europe's food production, processing, logistics, retail, and critical infrastructure is owned or operated by private organisations. Consequently, implementation of the ERFSF depends upon investment decisions made by farmers, fisheries, cooperatives, food processors, logistics providers, retailers, financial institutions, and technology companies. Public investment should therefore function as a catalyst that stimulates complementary private investment through predictable policy frameworks, public–private partnerships, innovation programmes, risk-sharing instruments, and long-term regulatory certainty.

The financing strategy proposed by the ERFSF ultimately reflects a broader transition in resilience policy. Rather than viewing resilience as an additional policy objective competing for scarce resources, the framework recognises resilience as a cross-cutting investment principle that strengthens the effectiveness of existing policies. Investments that simultaneously improve food security, climate adaptation, regional development, innovation, critical infrastructure, public health, and economic competitiveness generate benefits that extend far beyond crisis preparedness alone.

Accordingly, financing the transition should be understood as an investment in Europe's long-term strategic capacity to maintain food-system continuity under increasingly uncertain conditions. By coordinating investments across the six pillars and aligning existing European funding mechanisms with resilience objectives, the ERFSF provides a financially realistic pathway through which resilience can be progressively embedded within the governance and operation of European food systems.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Continuous Learning The successful implementation of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) depends not only on the execution of resilience measures but also on the ability to evaluate their effectiveness and continuously improve them over time.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

96

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Implementation should therefore not be regarded as the conclusion of the resilience process but as the beginning of an ongoing cycle of monitoring, evaluation, institutional learning, and adaptation. This principle reflects the adaptive governance philosophy that underpins the ERFSF and ensures that resilience remains responsive to evolving environmental, technological, economic, and geopolitical conditions.

A defining characteristic of the ERFSF is that implementation and assessment are fully integrated rather than treated as separate activities. Consequently, the monitoring process builds directly upon the methodology developed in Pillar 6 – Assessment, Monitoring and Continuous Improvement. Rather than introducing a separate evaluation framework, implementation uses the same resilience indicators, maturity assessments, benchmarking procedures, and stress-testing methodologies to measure progress and identify opportunities for further improvement. This creates consistency throughout the framework while avoiding duplication of assessment methodologies.

Monitoring should combine both quantitative performance indicators and qualitative institutional evaluation. Quantitative indicators provide objective evidence of progress and may include measures such as regional production diversity, redundancy of critical infrastructure, emergency response capability, communication continuity, stakeholder participation, food loss reduction, supply-chain diversification, or the maturity scores derived from the ERFSF assessment matrix.

Qualitative evaluation complements these indicators by examining governance quality, institutional cooperation, stakeholder trust, knowledge exchange, operational effectiveness, and organisational learning. Together, these approaches provide a comprehensive understanding of resilience performance that extends beyond purely technical measurements.

Equally important is the periodic evaluation of resilience policies, investments, and governance arrangements. Monitoring should not simply determine whether individual projects have been completed but should assess whether implemented measures genuinely strengthen the adaptive capacity of the food system. Regular policy reviews, operational exercises, simulation scenarios, and resilience stress tests provide valuable evidence regarding the effectiveness of resilience investments under realistic conditions. Lessons identified through these evaluations should directly inform future policy development, investment priorities, and governance improvements.

Within the ERFSF, monitoring is intentionally designed as a learning-oriented process rather than a compliance exercise. The objective is not to identify failure but to strengthen adaptive capacity through continuous institutional learning. This approach encourages organisations to openly evaluate vulnerabilities, exchange operational experience, disseminate good practices, and refine implementation strategies without creating disincentives for transparency. Such learning cultures have consistently been identified as a defining characteristic of resilient organisations capable of operating effectively under conditions of uncertainty (OECD, 2023).

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

97

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Continuous learning also enables resilience to evolve alongside changing circumstances. Climate change, emerging technologies, cyber threats, demographic developments, geopolitical instability, and changing consumer behaviour continuously reshape European food systems. Consequently, resilience priorities cannot remain static. Periodic reassessment using the ERFSF maturity model enables governments and stakeholders to identify emerging risks, evaluate evolving dependencies, and adjust resilience strategies before vulnerabilities become critical.

This adaptive process reflects the principles of anticipatory governance promoted by the European Commission's Strategic Foresight agenda, which emphasises the importance of preparing institutions for multiple plausible futures rather than reacting solely to immediate crises (European Commission, 2023).

Ultimately, monitoring, evaluation, and continuous learning transform implementation into an enduring governance capability. By systematically connecting assessment, implementation, evidence generation, institutional learning, and policy adaptation, the ERFSF establishes a self-reinforcing resilience cycle capable of strengthening European food systems over successive implementation cycles. In this way, resilience becomes embedded not only within infrastructure and governance but also within the institutional culture of continuous improvement itself.

Strategic Perspective Implementing the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) is not simply a matter of executing a predefined sequence of projects or introducing additional policy instruments. Rather, it represents the transition from a conceptual resilience framework to an operational governance model capable of strengthening the resilience of European food systems over the long term. The six pillars provide the strategic capabilities required for resilience, but implementation determines how those capabilities are translated into practical action, institutional behaviour, and sustained societal outcomes.

A defining characteristic of the ERFSF is that implementation is understood as a continuous adaptive process rather than a one-time policy intervention. Resilience cannot be achieved through isolated investments, temporary programmes, or static emergency plans. Instead, it develops progressively through repeated cycles of assessment, prioritisation, implementation, monitoring, institutional learning, and adaptation. By embedding these processes within routine governance, resilience becomes an enduring organisational capability that evolves alongside changing environmental, technological, economic, and geopolitical conditions.

The implementation approach proposed by the ERFSF also recognises that resilience is inherently systemic. Food security does not depend upon any single sector, institution, or policy domain, but emerges through the interaction of communication networks, regional production systems, critical infrastructure, governance arrangements, adaptive knowledge, and continuous assessment. Consequently, successful implementation requires these six pillars to be developed as mutually reinforcing components of a single resilience architecture rather than as separate policy initiatives. Investments in one pillar strengthen the effectiveness of the others,

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

98

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

creating cumulative resilience benefits that exceed the impact of individual interventions.

This integrated perspective closely aligns with the evolving European resilience agenda. Recent initiatives, including the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive, the NIS2 Directive, the Food 2030 Initiative, the Preparedness Union Strategy, and the European Commission's Strategic Foresight Reports, all emphasise that resilience depends upon proactive governance, cross-sectoral coordination, evidence-based decision-making, and continuous adaptation. The ERFSF contributes to this policy landscape by providing a coherent operational framework through which these principles can be translated into practical implementation across the entire European food system. Rather than introducing a competing governance model, the framework integrates existing European strategies into a common resilience architecture.

Perhaps the most important contribution of the ERFSF is that it reframes resilience from a reactive concept into a strategic capability. Traditional approaches to food security have often focused on efficiency, optimisation, and crisis response. While these remain important objectives, the increasing frequency and interconnected nature of contemporary risks require food systems that are equally capable of anticipating disruption, adapting to uncertainty, learning from experience, and maintaining essential societal functions under changing conditions. The ERFSF therefore positions resilience not as the opposite of efficiency, but as a complementary characteristic that enables efficient systems to remain functional when confronted with disruption.

Ultimately, implementation represents the point at which resilience becomes embedded within everyday decision-making. Through coordinated governance, strategic investment, adaptive food capacity, continuous monitoring, and institutional learning, the ERFSF provides a practical pathway for progressively strengthening Europe's capacity to anticipate, withstand, adapt to, and recover from disruption. In doing so, it supports not only food security, but also the broader objectives of strategic autonomy, societal stability, economic resilience, and sustainable development.

As Folke et al. (2010) observe, "Resilience is the capacity to continually change and adapt yet remain within critical thresholds." More recently, the IPCC (2022) has reinforced this perspective by defining resilience as the capacity of interconnected systems to cope with disturbance while maintaining their essential functions through adaptation, learning and transformation. These complementary perspectives capture the central philosophy of the ERFSF. The objective is not to create a food system that is resistant to every possible disruption, an unrealistic ambition, but to develop one that continuously learns, adapts and evolves while maintaining its core function: ensuring secure, sustainable and accessible food for Europe's citizens under an increasingly uncertain future.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

99

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Strategic Recommendations Establish Food-System Resilience as a Strategic European Policy Objective Strategic rationale The European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) demonstrates that food-system resilience extends beyond agricultural production or emergency response. It depends upon the combined capacity of communication systems, distributed production, critical infrastructure, governance, adaptive knowledge, and continuous improvement to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and recover from disruption.

These capabilities have been developed throughout the six pillars of the ERFSF and together provide an integrated approach for strengthening Europe's food security under increasingly complex and interconnected risks.

Although many existing European policies contribute to food-system resilience, including the Common Agricultural Policy, the Critical Entities Resilience Directive, the NIS2 Directive, the Preparedness Union Strategy, Food 2030, the Farm to Fork Strategy, and the European Climate Adaptation Strategy, resilience remains dispersed across multiple policy domains. This fragmentation can limit coordination and reduce the ability to address systemic risks that extend across sectors and governance levels.

Rather than creating an additional policy framework, the ERFSF recommends recognising food-system resilience as a cross-cutting strategic objective that can guide the implementation and alignment of existing European legislation, investment programmes, and governance arrangements. Such an approach reflects the European Commission's increasing emphasis on integrated preparedness, strategic foresight, and whole-of-society resilience while respecting the principle of subsidiarity that underpins European governance.

This recommendation also aligns with the OECD's observation that resilience should be embedded within public policy as a long-term institutional capability rather than addressed only through crisis response. Similarly, the EU Preparedness Union Strategy recognises that strengthening resilience requires coordinated action across sectors, governance levels, and society as a whole (European Commission, 2025; OECD, 2023).

Recommended actions Rather than prescribing identical implementation measures across Europe, stakeholders should consider actions appropriate to their institutional responsibilities and regional circumstances, including: ●​ Embed food-system resilience within relevant European, national, regional, and local policy frameworks. ●​ Promote integrated implementation of the six ERFSF pillars across food, agriculture, infrastructure, energy, security, climate adaptation, and public health policies.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

100

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

●​ Encourage Member States and regional authorities to incorporate resilience objectives into existing food strategies, spatial planning, and emergency preparedness arrangements. ●​ Strengthen cooperation between governments, critical infrastructure operators, businesses, research institutions, educational organisations, and civil society through whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches. ●​ Align existing European funding instruments, including the Common Agricultural Policy, Horizon Europe, Cohesion Policy, Interreg, LIFE, and the European Investment Bank, with long-term resilience objectives where appropriate. ●​ Encourage regular resilience assessments and strategic foresight to support evidence-based decision-making and adaptive governance.

Expected contribution to resilience Recognising food-system resilience as a strategic policy objective provides a common direction for implementing the ERFSF while preserving flexibility in how resilience is achieved across different governance levels and territorial contexts. By strengthening coordination rather than creating additional institutional complexity, this recommendation supports more coherent decision-making, improves policy alignment, and enhances Europe's capacity to anticipate, withstand, adapt to, and recover from future disruptions.

Figure 8.2: Food-system resilience functions as a cross-cutting strategic objective that connects existing policy domains and governance levels rather than creating an additional policy framework.

Establish a European Food System Resilience Assessment Framework Why this recommendation?

Current European policies contain many valuable indicators covering agriculture, food security, climate adaptation, disaster risk reduction and critical infrastructure.

However, these indicators are fragmented across different policy domains and rarely provide an integrated picture of overall food-system resilience.

Without a common assessment methodology, it remains difficult for governments, regions and stakeholders to: ●​ identify systemic vulnerabilities ●​ compare resilience across regions ●​ prioritise investments ●​ monitor progress over time ●​ evaluate whether resilience policies are actually improving preparedness Rather than creating an entirely new monitoring system, the European Union should establish a common resilience assessment framework based on the six pillars of the ERFSF. Such a framework would provide a shared language for resilience while allowing implementation to remain flexible according to regional circumstances and governance responsibilities.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

101

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

This recommendation directly operationalises Pillar 6 by translating continuous assessment and learning into a practical decision-support instrument.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

102

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Strategic Objective Develop a common European methodology for assessing, benchmarking and continuously improving food-system resilience across all governance levels.

Recommended Actions Develop a common resilience assessment methodology Create a standardised assessment framework using the six ERFSF pillars as the organising structure for resilience evaluation.

The methodology should remain sufficiently flexible to accommodate regional differences while ensuring European comparability.

Integrate resilience indicators into existing monitoring systems Rather than introducing additional reporting requirements, resilience indicators should be incorporated into existing European monitoring mechanisms wherever possible.

Examples include: ●​ CAP Strategic Plans ●​ Civil Protection reporting ●​ Critical Infrastructure Resilience monitoring ●​ Climate Adaptation indicators ●​ Regional Development programmes Apply maturity-based assessments Use the ERFSF Maturity Model to evaluate institutional capability instead of measuring only infrastructure or financial investments.

Regular maturity assessments help organisations identify priority improvements while encouraging continuous learning rather than compliance.

Encourage regional benchmarking Allow Member States and regions to compare resilience performance, exchange good practices and identify successful implementation approaches.

Benchmarking should support collaborative learning rather than ranking or competition.

Promote evidence-based policy evaluation Assessment results should directly inform future investment priorities, policy revisions and resilience planning.

Implementation should therefore become an iterative learning cycle in which monitoring continuously improves decision-making.

Strategic Perspective Food-system resilience cannot be strengthened without understanding where vulnerabilities exist and whether implemented measures actually improve system performance. Assessment therefore represents the foundation upon which adaptive governance is built.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

103

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

The ERFSF proposes an evidence-based approach in which resilience is monitored through continuous assessment, benchmarking, stress testing and institutional learning. Rather than functioning as a compliance exercise, assessment becomes a strategic management tool that supports better investment decisions, stronger governance and more adaptive policy development.

By embedding resilience assessment within existing European monitoring structures, the Union can progressively build a common evidence base while preserving the flexibility required for diverse regional contexts.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

104

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Figure 8.2. European Food System Resilience Assessment Framework. The figure illustrates how the six pillars of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) are translated into a continuous assessment process. By combining common indicators, regional assessment, benchmarking, investment prioritisation and continuous improvement, the framework enables evidence-based decision-making

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

105

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

while supporting flexible implementation across different European governance levels.

Strengthen distributed and diversified regional food systems Why this recommendation?

European food production has achieved remarkable efficiency through specialization, economies of scale, and global trade. However, recent crises have demonstrated that highly concentrated production systems, long supply chains, and dependence on a limited number of suppliers can also create systemic vulnerabilities. Climate extremes, geopolitical disruptions, pandemics, cyber incidents and infrastructure failures have shown that disruptions occurring in one region may rapidly cascade across the European food system.

The ERFSF therefore proposes strengthening the diversity, redundancy and territorial distribution of food production rather than replacing existing food systems.

Distributed regional production enhances adaptive capacity by reducing dependency on single production centres, increasing local availability of essential foods, supporting shorter supply chains where appropriate, and improving the ability of regions to respond to disruptions.

This recommendation does not advocate self-sufficiency or protectionism. Instead, it promotes a balanced food system in which efficient international trade is complemented by resilient regional production capacities capable of maintaining continuity during periods of disruption.

Strategic Objective Strengthen the resilience of European food systems by promoting diversified regional production, distributed processing capacity, and flexible territorial food networks that complement international supply chains.

Recommended Actions Promote regional production diversity Encourage a balanced mix of agricultural, fisheries, horticultural and emerging food production systems that reduce dependence on single commodities or production regions while respecting regional comparative advantages.

Strengthen regional processing capacity Support distributed food processing, storage and logistics facilities that improve continuity during disruptions and reduce critical bottlenecks within food supply chains.

Expand territorial food networks Facilitate cooperation between producers, processors, retailers, food hubs and public institutions to strengthen regional food distribution and improve access to essential products during emergencies.

Protect strategic production capacity

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

106

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Safeguard agricultural land, fisheries, aquaculture, freshwater resources and other food-critical assets through long-term spatial planning and integrated resilience strategies.

Encourage innovation and diversification Support innovation in climate-resilient production systems, controlled-environment agriculture, circular food systems, digital technologies, and sustainable Blue Economy initiatives that enhance regional adaptive capacity.

Strategic Perspective Resilient food systems require both efficiency and diversity. International trade will remain essential for European food security, but resilience increases when regions also maintain sufficient production, processing and distribution capacity to absorb disruptions and recover more rapidly.

By strengthening distributed territorial food systems, Europe can reduce systemic vulnerabilities while preserving the flexibility, competitiveness and innovation that characterise its diverse agricultural and food sectors. This balanced approach aligns resilience with sustainability, regional development and long-term food security.

Strengthen Governance, Collaboration and Preparedness Why this recommendation?

Food-system resilience depends not only on physical infrastructure and production capacity but also on the ability of organisations and institutions to coordinate effectively before, during and after disruptions. Recent crises have demonstrated that fragmented responsibilities, limited information sharing and insufficient coordination across governance levels can significantly reduce the effectiveness of crisis response, even where adequate resources are available.

The ERFSF therefore recognises governance, communication and collaboration as enabling conditions for resilience. Building upon Pillars 1 and 4, this recommendation promotes integrated governance arrangements that strengthen preparedness, facilitate information exchange and support coordinated decision-making across the entire food system. Rather than creating additional governance structures, the emphasis is on improving cooperation within existing institutional frameworks while respecting the principle of subsidiarity and the diversity of governance arrangements across Europe.

Strategic Objective Strengthen multi-level governance, cross-sector collaboration and preparedness to enable coordinated and adaptive responses to food-system disruptions across Europe.

Recommended Actions Strengthen multi-level governance

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

107

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Promote coordination between European, national, regional and local authorities to improve policy coherence, preparedness and operational decision-making throughout the food system.

Enhance cross-sector collaboration Encourage long-term cooperation between public authorities, producers, processors, logistics providers, infrastructure operators, research institutions, educational organisations and civil society to strengthen resilience across interconnected sectors.

Improve crisis communication Develop trusted communication mechanisms that enable timely information sharing, coordinated public messaging and effective situational awareness during periods of disruption.

Integrate preparedness into routine governance Encourage organisations to incorporate resilience planning, contingency arrangements, operational exercises and stress testing into regular governance processes rather than treating preparedness as a stand-alone emergency activity.

Promote knowledge exchange and mutual learning Facilitate platforms through which governments, businesses, researchers and communities can exchange experience, identify good practices and strengthen institutional learning across Europe.

Strategic Perspective Effective governance provides the institutional foundation upon which all other resilience measures depend. Communication systems, distributed production, critical infrastructure and adaptive capacity can only function effectively when supported by trusted relationships, coordinated decision-making and clear governance arrangements. By strengthening collaboration and preparedness across governance levels and sectors, Europe can improve its capacity to anticipate, respond to and recover from future disruptions while maintaining the flexibility required for diverse regional contexts.

Invest in Adaptive Food Capacity Why this recommendation?

Long-term food-system resilience depends not only on infrastructure and governance but also on the knowledge, skills and adaptive capacity of society. Scientific research, technological innovation, food literacy, professional education and practical food knowledge together determine how effectively available resources can be utilised and how rapidly food systems can adapt to changing circumstances.

Pillar 5 demonstrated that Adaptive Food Capacity represents a strategic resilience capability that connects scientific excellence with practical experience, institutional learning and community participation. This recommendation therefore focuses on

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

108

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

strengthening Europe's capacity to generate, exchange and apply knowledge that enhances resilience while making better use of existing food resources.

Strategic Objective Strengthen Europe's Adaptive Food Capacity by investing in knowledge, education, innovation and collaborative learning that enable food systems to anticipate change, utilise resources effectively and continuously improve.

Recommended Actions Promote food literacy Support initiatives that improve understanding of food production, preparation, preservation, storage and resource-efficient consumption throughout society.

Strengthen education and professional development Encourage lifelong learning and workforce development for professionals across agriculture, fisheries, food processing, logistics, retail and public administration to support evolving resilience challenges.

Invest in research and innovation Promote interdisciplinary research, technological innovation and living laboratories that accelerate practical resilience solutions while strengthening collaboration between science and practice.

Preserve and exchange practical knowledge Encourage mechanisms through which producers, processors, educators, community organisations and research institutions can exchange operational experience, traditional knowledge and innovative practices.

Support regional innovation ecosystems Strengthen regional cooperation between businesses, educational institutions, research organisations and public authorities to develop locally adapted resilience solutions while contributing to European knowledge exchange.

Strategic Perspective Knowledge represents one of Europe's most valuable resilience resources.

Investments in education, innovation and food literacy strengthen the capacity of individuals, organisations and institutions to adapt continuously to changing risks while making more effective use of existing food resources. By strengthening Adaptive Food Capacity, Europe enhances not only food security but also its long-term ability to innovate, collaborate and respond proactively to future challenges.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

109

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Institutionalise resilience assessment, monitoring and continuous improvement Why this recommendation?

Resilience cannot be maintained through one-time investments or isolated policy interventions. As environmental, technological, economic and geopolitical conditions continue to evolve, food systems must be capable of continuously assessing performance, identifying emerging vulnerabilities and adapting strategies accordingly.

Pillar 6 established Assessment, Monitoring and Continuous Improvement as the adaptive engine of the ERFSF. This recommendation therefore promotes the institutionalisation of resilience assessment as an ongoing governance capability that supports evidence-based decision-making, strategic foresight and continuous learning across all governance levels.

Strategic Objective Embed continuous assessment, monitoring and institutional learning within European food-system governance to support adaptive management and long-term resilience.

Recommended Actions Integrate resilience assessment into governance Encourage the routine use of resilience indicators, benchmarking and maturity assessments within existing governance and policy processes.

Strengthen monitoring and evaluation Promote systematic monitoring of resilience performance using quantitative indicators together with qualitative evaluation of governance, collaboration and adaptive capacity.

Expand strategic foresight Support horizon scanning, scenario analysis and resilience stress testing to identify emerging risks and inform long-term investment and policy development.

Promote institutional learning Encourage organisations to translate monitoring outcomes, operational experience and post-incident evaluations into continuous policy improvement and organisational learning.

Foster adaptive governance Promote governance arrangements that regularly review resilience priorities, adjust implementation strategies and respond proactively to changing conditions rather than relying on static planning approaches.

Strategic Perspective Assessment and monitoring transform resilience from a policy ambition into a measurable and continuously improving capability. By embedding learning, evaluation and strategic foresight within routine governance, Europe can ensure that

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

110

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

food-system resilience remains responsive to future challenges while supporting evidence-based investment and adaptive decision-making. Continuous improvement therefore represents the mechanism through which the entire European Resilient Food Systems Framework remains effective over time.

Final overview of the recommendations The European Resilient Food Systems Framework presented throughout this report is designed as an integrated resilience architecture rather than a collection of independent policy measures. Each chapter has developed a distinct component of resilience, beginning with the six strategic pillars, followed by mechanisms for assessment and continuous improvement, an implementation roadmap, and practical recommendations for policymakers and practitioners. Together, these elements form a coherent framework that enables European food systems to anticipate, withstand, adapt to and recover from increasingly complex disruptions.

Figure 9.1 brings these elements together into a single integrated overview. It illustrates how the conceptual foundation of the ERFSF is translated into implementation through assessment, governance, continuous learning and strategic action. Rather than representing a linear process, the framework should be understood as a continuous resilience cycle in which monitoring, learning and adaptation strengthen all components over time.

This figure will be presented on the next page. ​ Figure 9.1. European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF): From Strategic Framework to Continuous Resilience.​ The figure provides an integrated overview of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework. The six interconnected resilience pillars form the conceptual foundation of the framework and are supported by assessment, implementation, governance and continuous improvement mechanisms. Together, these elements create a dynamic resilience cycle through which European food systems progressively strengthen their capacity to anticipate, absorb, adapt to and recover from environmental, economic, technological and geopolitical disruptions.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

111

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

112

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Conclusion Reframing European Food-System Resilience European food systems have achieved remarkable levels of productivity, efficiency and international competitiveness. At the same time, successive disruptions, including the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical instability, climate-related extreme weather events, energy crises, cyber threats and increasing pressure on natural resources, have demonstrated that efficiency alone cannot guarantee continuity under conditions of systemic disruption. These developments have revealed that food security depends not only on agricultural production or market performance, but on the resilience of the entire food system and the complex interactions between infrastructure, governance, knowledge, society and the environment.

This report has developed the European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF) as an integrated framework for strengthening the resilience of European food systems. Rather than addressing individual risks in isolation, the ERFSF adopts a systems perspective in which resilience emerges through the interaction of multiple complementary capabilities. The framework recognises that resilient food systems are characterised not only by their capacity to withstand disruption, but also by their ability to anticipate change, adapt to evolving conditions, recover from shocks and continuously improve through learning and innovation.

By combining strategic vision with practical implementation, the ERFSF provides a structured approach that can support policy-makers, public authorities, infrastructure operators, businesses, researchers and civil society in strengthening food-system resilience across Europe while remaining sufficiently flexible to accommodate regional diversity and different governance contexts.

The contribution of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework The principal contribution of the ERFSF is the development of an integrated resilience architecture that brings together multiple dimensions of food-system resilience within a single coherent framework. Existing approaches frequently address individual components such as agricultural production, food security, disaster risk reduction or critical infrastructure. The ERFSF demonstrates that resilience is created through the interaction of these components rather than through isolated interventions.

The six interconnected pillars developed throughout this report provide a comprehensive foundation for resilience. Communication and Civic Coordination strengthens trusted information exchange and coordinated decision-making.

Distributed Production promotes geographical diversity and reduces dependence on concentrated production systems. Energy and Operational Continuity protects the critical infrastructure upon which food systems depend. Governance and Multi-level Coordination establish the institutional capacity required for collaboration and preparedness. Adaptive Food Capacity recognises knowledge, education, innovation and practical expertise as strategic resilience assets. Finally, Assessment, Monitoring

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

113

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

and Continuous Improvement provide the mechanisms through which resilience can be evaluated, strengthened and continuously adapted to changing circumstances.

Beyond integrating these dimensions, the ERFSF introduces several concepts that extend existing resilience thinking. The framework explicitly recognises Food-Critical Infrastructure as an essential component of societal resilience, introduces Adaptive Food Capacity as the collective capability to generate, preserve and apply knowledge that strengthens food-system resilience, emphasises Distributed Redundancy as a principle for reducing systemic vulnerability, and embeds continuous assessment and institutional learning as permanent resilience capabilities rather than post-crisis activities.

Equally important is the operational nature of the framework. Resilience is translated from a strategic ambition into practical implementation through resilience assessment, maturity modelling, phased implementation, continuous monitoring and strategic recommendations. In doing so, the ERFSF provides not only a conceptual framework but also an implementation pathway through which resilience can progressively mature across governance levels and territorial contexts.

Implications for European Policy and Practice The ERFSF is intended to complement rather than replace existing European policy initiatives. Europe already possesses a broad range of policies and instruments that contribute to food security, critical infrastructure protection, climate adaptation, disaster risk reduction, research and innovation. The challenge is increasingly one of integration rather than the creation of additional policy frameworks.

The ERFSF contributes to this integration by providing a common resilience architecture through which existing European initiatives can be connected. The framework aligns closely with the objectives of the Preparedness Union Strategy, Food 2030, the Critical Entities Resilience Directive, the NIS2 Directive, the European Green Deal, the Common Agricultural Policy, and broader European strategic foresight initiatives. Rather than proposing new institutional structures, the ERFSF encourages greater coherence between existing governance arrangements while supporting the principle of subsidiarity that underpins European cooperation.

The implementation approach developed in this report reflects the understanding that resilience cannot be achieved through one-time investments or isolated projects.

Instead, resilience develops progressively through continuous assessment, prioritisation, implementation, monitoring, institutional learning and adaptation. This iterative process allows resilience strategies to evolve alongside changing environmental, technological, economic and geopolitical conditions while remaining responsive to regional circumstances.

Importantly, the framework also recognises that responsibility for resilience extends beyond government alone. Producers, processors, logistics providers, infrastructure operators, research institutions, educational organisations and civil society each possess capabilities that contribute to the continuity of food systems. Building

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

114

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

resilience therefore requires long-term collaboration, shared ownership and continuous knowledge exchange across sectors and governance levels.

Looking Forward European food systems will continue to face increasing uncertainty. Climate change, biodiversity loss, geopolitical tensions, technological developments, cyber threats and demographic change are likely to reshape both the risks confronting food systems and the opportunities available to strengthen their resilience. Under these conditions, resilience should not be regarded as a fixed objective that can eventually be achieved, but as a continuous capability that must evolve alongside an increasingly complex operating environment.

The ERFSF therefore views resilience as a dynamic process of continuous learning, adaptation and improvement. Regular assessment, institutional learning, strategic foresight and collaborative governance enable organisations and governments to refine resilience strategies before vulnerabilities develop into crises. In this way, resilience becomes embedded within the everyday governance of food systems rather than being activated only during emergencies.

Ultimately, resilient food systems are not defined solely by the strength of their infrastructure, the productivity of their agriculture or the effectiveness of individual policies. They are characterised by the ability of society to connect these elements into an adaptive system that can continue to function under conditions of uncertainty.

The European Resilient Food Systems Framework demonstrates that communication, distributed production, operational continuity, governance, adaptive knowledge and continuous improvement are not independent policy domains but mutually reinforcing capabilities that together determine the resilience of the food system as a whole.

By integrating these capabilities into a coherent strategic framework, the ERFSF provides a practical pathway through which Europe can progressively strengthen food security, protect critical societal functions and enhance its capacity to anticipate, absorb, adapt to and recover from future disruptions. Rather than presenting resilience as a final destination, the framework establishes a foundation for continuous improvement, ensuring that European food systems remain capable of responding to the challenges of an increasingly interconnected and uncertain world.

Limitations At the same time, it is important to recognise the scope and limitations of this research. The ERFSF represents a strategic and conceptual framework that has been developed through the integration of scientific literature, European policy analysis, expert insights and practical implementation experience. While the framework is grounded in contemporary resilience theory and supported by extensive policy literature, it has not yet been empirically validated across the full diversity of European food systems. The operational effectiveness of the framework will ultimately depend upon its application within different territorial, institutional and socio-economic contexts. Future research should therefore focus on empirical implementation, comparative regional case studies, quantitative resilience

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

115

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

assessment, indicator development, maturity benchmarking and longitudinal evaluation of resilience outcomes. Such research will provide valuable evidence for further refinement of the framework and contribute to its continued evolution.

This also reflects one of the underlying principles of the ERFSF itself, resilience is never complete. Just as resilient food systems must continuously learn, adapt and improve, the framework should likewise be regarded as an evolving body of knowledge rather than a final or static model. Its future development will benefit from practical implementation, interdisciplinary research, stakeholder engagement and continued scientific evaluation.

Ultimately, this research argues that strengthening European food-system resilience is not simply a technical challenge, but a strategic societal investment. A resilient food system protects food security, safeguards critical infrastructure, strengthens public trust, supports regional economies and enhances Europe's capacity to respond to an increasingly uncertain future. By integrating resilience into governance, investment, infrastructure, knowledge development and continuous learning, the European Resilient Food Systems Framework offers a practical pathway through which Europe can progressively strengthen its preparedness while maintaining the flexibility required to respond to future challenges.

The ERFSF should therefore not be regarded as a fixed endpoint, but as the beginning of an evolving resilience approach that supports future scientific research, informs European policy development and guides practical implementation across diverse territorial contexts. If resilience is to become a defining characteristic of Europe's future food system, it must remain a continuous process of learning, collaboration and adaptation. It is this perspective that ultimately defines the ambition of the European Resilient Food Systems Framework. ​

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

116

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Bibliography The European Resilient Food Systems Framework presented in this research should be regarded as Version 1.0 of an evolving resilience framework. As new scientific insights, technological developments and implementation experiences emerge, the framework should continue to evolve through empirical validation, interdisciplinary collaboration and practical application. In this way, the ERFSF aims not only to contribute to the current scientific and policy debate on food-system resilience, but also to provide a foundation for future research and the continued strengthening of resilient food systems across Europe.

Bertolozzi-Caredio, D., Gómez y Paloma, S., M'Barek, R., & Réquillart, V. (2023). Risks and vulnerabilities in the EU food supply chain (JRC135290). European Commission, Joint Research Centre.

Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1–14.

Deconinck, K., Avery, E., & Jackson, L. A. (2023). Towards resilient food systems: Implications of supply chain disruptions and policy responses (OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 205). OECD Publishing.

Dzerowicz, J. (2023). Food security and conflict: Harvesting resilience in the face of a global crisis (016 CDS 23 E rev. 2 fin). NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

European Commission. (2020). A farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. European Commission.

European Commission. (2020). Food 2030: Pathways for action 2.0. European Commission.

European Commission. (2021). Forging a climate-resilient Europe: EU strategy on adaptation to climate change. European Commission.

European Commission. (2023). Better regulation guidelines. European Commission.

European Commission. (2023). Competence Centre on Foresight. Joint Research Centre.

European Commission. (2023). European Food Security Crisis Preparedness and Response Mechanism (EFSCM): Recommendations on ways to improve the diversity of sources of supply. European Commission.

European Commission. (2023). Strategic foresight report 2023: Sustainability and well-being at the heart of Europe’s open strategic autonomy. European Commission.

European Commission. (2024). Preparedness Union Strategy. European Commission.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

117

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

European Commission, Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. (2026). EU civil protection mechanism. https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/civil-protection/eu-civilprotection-mechanism_en European Environment Agency. (2024). European climate risk assessment.

Publications Office of the European Union.

European Union Institute for Security Studies. (2024). Food security and strategic dependencies in Europe. European Union Institute for Security Studies.

European Commission. (n.d.). Food waste. Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/food-waste_en Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2022). Climate change impacts on plant pests and diseases. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2023). Territorial food systems and food governance. FAO. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010).

Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), Article 20.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. IPCC. International Institute of Refrigeration. (2020). The role of refrigeration in worldwide nutrition (6th Informatory Note on Refrigeration and Food). International Institute of Refrigeration. https://doi.org/10.18462/iir.INfood06.03.2020 Loi, A., et al. (2024). The dependency of the EU's food system on inputs and their sources. European Parliament.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Development co-operation report 2020: Learning from crises, building resilience. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f6d42aa5-en Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Building resilience in food systems and critical infrastructures. OECD Publishing.

Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557.

Rinaldi, S. M., Peerenboom, J. P., & Kelly, T. K. (2001). Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 21(6), 11–25.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

118

ERFSF | VERSION 1.0

Tendall, D. M., Joerin, J., Kopainsky, B., Edwards, P., Shreck, A., Le, Q. B., Kruetli, P., Grant, M., & Six, J. (2015). Food system resilience: Defining the concept. Global Food Security, 6, 17–23.

Thompson, C., Adams, J., & Vidgen, H. A. (2021). Are we closer to international consensus on the term “food literacy”? A systematic scoping review of its use in the academic literature (1998–2019). Nutrients, 13(6), 2006. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13062006 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2022). Review of maritime transport 2022. United Nations.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. United Nations.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2022). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2022: Our world at risk. United Nations.

Vidgen, H. A., & Gallegos, D. (2014). Defining food literacy and its components.

Appetite, 76, 50–59.

World Bank. (2019). Lifelines: The resilient infrastructure opportunity. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1430-3 World Bank. (2022). Food security update: Global impacts of conflict and supply chain disruptions. World Bank.

World Health Organization. (2024). Building trust through risk communication, community engagement and infodemic management. World Health Organization.

World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. (2024). Risk communication, community engagement and infodemic management in the WHO European Region.

WHO Regional Office for Europe.

EU Legislation European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2022). Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union (NIS2 Directive).

Official Journal of the European Union, L333, 80–152.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2022). Directive (EU) 2022/2557 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on the resilience of critical entities (CER Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, L333, 164–198.

European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2013). Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism. Official Journal of the European Union, L347, 924–947.

European Resilient Food Systems Framework (ERFSF)​

​

119