1. Navigating transformation, resilience and sustainability in the food system

In July 2017, the UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development met to review progress towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and reaffirmed the pledge by the 193 UN member states to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture, among other aims of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). The participating member states emphasized that policy coherence and an enabling environment for sustainable development require engagement by all stakeholders including governments, public–private partnerships, the scientific community, the private sector, the donor community, non-governmental organizations, cooperatives, community groups, academic institutions and other relevant actors (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2017). Given such a multiplicity of stakeholders, and the fact that complex interdependencies create major trade-offs between sustainable development goals (Waage et al., Reference Waage, Yap, Bell, Levy, Mace, Pegram, Unterhalter, Dasandi, Hudson, Kock, Mayhew, Marx and Poole2015; European Environment Agency, 2016; IPES-Food, 2016; International Council for Science, 2017), a significant challenge is to prioritize suites of interventions that are most likely to be effective in transforming socio-ecological systems, such as the global food system, to better deliver the UN SDGs.

Our global food system – defined as the network of activities and processes from production to consumption, including manufacture, packaging, transport, retail and associated businesses (Fig. 1) – is thought to be responsible for approximately 60% of global terrestrial biodiversity loss, 24% of greenhouse gas emissions, 33% of degraded soils and the overexploitation of 20% of aquifers (UNEP, 2016). Much of this environmental degradation is driven by high-input industrial agriculture and livestock rearing, with global supply chains largely controlled by a small number of multinational agribusiness and food retail companies (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development, 2009). This industrialization of the food system has resulted in substantially higher productivity, with global productivity tripling between 1961 and 2011, providing cheaper more abundant food for many people (FAO, 2017). However, this food system is also inefficient, with around one-third of food lost or wasted (FAO, 2017) and persistent inequality in food distribution – 815 million people are still undernourished globally, 155 million children are stunted, and other forms of malnutrition are rising (FAO et al., 2017). Additional social impacts include agrochemical exposure, local pollution from transport and processing, and increased zoonotic diseases and antibiotic resistance (Dangour et al., Reference Dangour, Mace and Shankar2017), as well as cultural erosion due to loss of traditional skills, knowledge, institutions and farming practices (IPES-Food, 2016).

Fig. 1. Key actors in the food system linked through flows of goods and information (arrows). The current food system configuration is driving chronic social and environmental impacts which threaten its long-term sustainability. The inset panel shows a ‘ball and cup’ diagram from ecosystem science, characterizing how transformation of a system (the ball) to a more desirable state is more likely when the full range of ‘lock-in’ mechanisms are tackled in a coordinated way (vertical arrow; see Fig. 2 for examples of mechanisms).

Therefore, the current configuration of the global food system is directly undermining the attainment of many of the UN SDGs. This has led to increasing calls for major reform and transformation of the global food system (European Environment Agency, 2017; International Council for Science, 2017; United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2017). Concurrently, however, other science–policy and business initiatives call for a more resilient food system (MacLennan, Reference MacLennan2014; Global Food Security Programme UK, 2015; Zeuli & Nijhuis, Reference Zeuli and Nijhuis2017). Resilience is defined as the resistance or rapid recovery of system inter-relationships and functions after perturbation, which can also potentially involve aspects of internal adaptation and transformation in order to maintain function (Holling, Reference Holling1973; Pimm, Reference Pimm1984; Carpenter et al., Reference Carpenter, Walker, Anderies and Abel2001; Walker et al., Reference Walker, Holling, Carpenter and Kinzig2004; Schipanski et al., Reference Schipanski, MacDonald, Rosenzweig, Chappell, Bennett, Kerr, Blesh, Crews, Drinkwater, Lundgren and Schnarr2016). However, resilient functioning for particular actors within the food system could promote the overall status quo and maintain the aforementioned negative aspects of the food system. How can these two apparently opposing perspectives of broad-scale system transformation and resilience be reconciled?

Many different disciplines investigate concepts of resilience, for example, engineering, geography, computer science, mathematics, psychology and ecology, and it has been a useful ‘bridging concept’ (Brand & Jax, Reference Brand and Jax2007), although it is used nearly exclusively in a normative sense focussing on the beneficial aspects of maintaining function or structure in the face of shocks. However, many aspects of socio-ecological systems show resilience of outcomes which are undesirable for society as a whole (e.g. chronic poverty, invasive species, diseases, terrorist networks and greenhouse gas emissions from industry) (Unruh, Reference Unruh2000).

When talking about resilience, there is a need to be explicit regarding resilience ‘of what?’, ‘to what?’ and ‘for whom?’ (Carpenter et al., Reference Carpenter, Walker, Anderies and Abel2001; Cutter, Reference Cutter2016), and, importantly, ‘over what timeframe?’ (Oliver, Reference Oliver2016). For example, global food retailers may seek resilient supply chains to maintain uninterrupted delivery of food products for their consumers in the face of extreme weather perturbations. To increase their economic resilience, one tactic is to secure production across multiple territories to defray risks; this has led to large-scale land acquisitions in developing countries which threaten the food security of local communities (European Environment Agency, 2015). Thus, targeting resilience in a narrow sectoral manner creates trade-offs with the resilience of positive outcomes for other actors in the system, or for society as a whole, including future generations.

In this article, we advocate a more holistic and long-term approach focussing on the resilience of a broad range of positive outcomes for the whole of society, that is, capturing the aim to promote the resilient delivery of multiple UN SDGs. The focus on a longer time frame (i.e. 2030 and beyond) is crucial, because whilst over the short term food security may be successfully achieved through redistribution of food using the same intensive production methods, over longer time scales food security will be threatened by these approaches. Under intensive food production, the loss and degradation of top soil, declines in pollinators and natural pest enemies, the development of pesticide and herbicide resistance, and the pollution of water and soil in the face of a changing climate all undermine the ability to sustain sufficient food production (Bullock et al., Reference Bullock, Dhanjal-Adams, Milne, Oliver, Todman, Whitmore and Pywell2017; FAO, 2017).

2. Unlocking undesirable resilience to achieve food system transformation

There have been optimistic approaches to achieving transformations in social–technical systems in sectors such as energy and transport (European Environment Agency, 2016). Under what is called the ‘multi-level’ perspective, social–technical systems are characterized as being structured and stabilized by factors such as knowledge, investments, policies, institutions, skills and cultural values (European Environment Agency, 2016; Geels, Reference Geels2011). To disrupt this prevailing ‘regime’, new ideas, technologies, business models or cultural norms have to emerge, and positive ones (such as renewable energy technologies) may need protecting from immediate pressure from the regime (European Environment Agency, 2017). Certain authors even suggest actively searching for ‘cracks’ in the prevailing regime to sow disruption (Fourcade, Reference Fourcade2012). Such approaches, which focus primarily on developing alternative approaches could remain largely theoretical unless we can tackle the strong feedback mechanisms that maintain a given system in its current undesirable state. For example, the rapid development of the global South and large-scale land acquisition by private interests may further drive the current industrial food model to even greater dominance (IPES-Food, 2016). Unless we can overcome such undesirable resilience, the food system may remain locked into its current state, slowly eroding its own sustainability until a perturbation or series of related perturbations cause sudden non-linear systemic collapses (Homer-Dixon et al., Reference Homer-Dixon, Walker, Biggs, Crepin, Folke, Lambin, Peterson, Rockström, Scheffer, Steffen and Troell2015; Global Food Security Programme UK, 2017).

In the absence of genuinely disruptive innovations that may endogenously transform a system, we need to take a strategic transdisciplinary approach to unlock undesirable resilience. First, we need to envision an alternative trajectory for the system that secures multiple long-term benefits for society (IIASA, 2017), understanding how this influences incumbent power relationships on the one hand, and social goods on the other (in short, in a transformed system, who wins, who loses and over what time scales?). We use the UN SDGs to identify a set of long-term outcomes to which the food system needs to be re-aligned. Second, an interdisciplinary lens is needed to identify the various mechanisms that underpin undesirable resilience and prevent food system transformation. Finally, higher-level emergent system properties should be considered that help or hinder transformations. A broad set of disciplines can provide insights from the analytical sciences, such as complexity and ecosystem science, to the social sciences (analysis of power relationships, governance, institutions, economics, equity and gender) and the humanities (e.g. history of food systems).

Although research into system transformations is a rapidly expanding field, knowledge is still fragmented across disciplines (Feola, Reference Feola2015). Much primary research on the mechanisms inhibiting system transformation, for example, are often discipline specific, with their own terminology (e.g. ‘institutional inertia’ (Rosenschöld et al., Reference Rosenschöld, Rozema and Frye-Levine2014), ‘wicked resilience’ (Glaser et al., Reference Glaser, Plass-Johnson, Ferse, Neil, Satari, Teichberg and Reuter2018), ‘unhelpful resilience’ (Standish et al., Reference Standish, Hobbs, Mayfield, Bestelmeyer, Suding, Battaglia, Eviner, Hawkes, Temperton, Cramer, Harris, Funk and Thomas2014), ‘path dependency’ (Barnes et al., Reference Barnes, Gartland and Stack2004), ‘lock-in’ (Barnes et al., Reference Barnes, Gartland and Stack2004), ‘traps’ (Haider et al., Reference Haider, Boonstra, Peterson and Schlüter2018)). Previous syntheses of the specific mechanisms that maintain what we term ‘undesirable resilience’ in food systems have identified only a handful of mechanisms and have tended to exclude lessons from the environmental sciences (Robertson & Swinton, Reference Robertson and Swinton2005; Scheffer & Westley, Reference Scheffer and Westley2007; European Environment Agency, 2016; IPES-Food, 2016; Kuokkanen et al., Reference Kuokkanen, Mikkilä, Kuisma, Kahiluoto and Linnanen2017). Such fragmentation is hindering the development of co-ordinated solutions. The development of less siloed approaches, agreed to be essential for successful system transformations, requires better integration of understanding across academic disciplines (European Environment Agency, 2016; IPES-Food, 2016; International Council for Science, 2017). For example, we need to understand when, how and why biophysical mechanisms limit socio-ecological transformation and whether tackling these is a prerequisite for the development of effective social, political and economic interventions. A case in point is the extensive global land area degraded by soil erosion and desertification, such as the Loess Plateau in China, which requires extensive ecosystem restoration to facilitate sustainable food production and associated social benefits (Zhao et al., Reference Zhao, Mu, Wen, Wang and Gao2013).

3. An interdisciplinary lens on food system ‘lock-in’ mechanisms

Below, we define an extensive list of mechanisms, including biophysical constraints, coupled with sociocultural, economic/regulatory and knowledge constraints, that underpin undesirable resilience in the global food system (Fig. 2 and sub-sections below; where ‘#’ in parentheses refer to numbered mechanisms in the figure). These mechanisms were identified through an interdisciplinary workshop followed up with an exploration of relevant literature around the potential mechanisms identified. Many of these mechanisms are more likely to become apparent only once other constraining mechanisms are removed, yet over time they may become increasingly costly, or even impossible, to reverse. Although our list is not exhaustive, we propose that this interdisciplinary synthesis, which brings together ecological, cultural, social and economic factors, is a significant starting point. Most food systems transformation research frames this issue primarily as separate production, social or economic problems (Robertson & Swinton, Reference Robertson and Swinton2005). Linked to these mechanisms we also provide a non-exhaustive list of possible solutions (Fig. 3), which need to be implemented contemporaneously across all the hierarchical scales in the food system – from individual to business to governance. This appreciation of cross-scale interactions for food system transformation leads to a more holistic approach akin to the ‘panarchy’ concept in socio-ecological studies (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Angeler, Garmestani, Gunderson and Holling2014); yet, by focussing first on particular solutions identified using a reductionist approach, it is arguably more pragmatic and potentially easier to operationalize.

Fig. 2. Some of the mechanisms locking the food system into its current undesirable state. At the bottom are different actor types to which the different mechanisms mostly pertain (from the three levels in Fig. 1; colour shading indicates tally count of mechanisms, which are coded by numbers). See headed sections below for mechanism descriptions.

Fig. 3. Potential solutions implemented across hierarchical levels of the food system. The list is not exhaustive and multiple solutions must be implemented across all hierarchical levels in order to overcome the undesirable resilience of the current food system. Colour coding links to the type of mechanism in Fig. 2, that is, knowledge-based, economic/regulatory, sociocultural and biophysical constraints.

4. Consideration of whole-system dynamics

After identifying a more desirable state for the global food system that balances multiple UN SDGs and subsequently ascertaining the mechanisms that constrain such a transformation (Fig. 2), it is important to consider the emergent dynamics of the system. More holistic, analytical approaches to investigating lock-ins in socio-economic systems are developing (Lade et al., Reference Lade, Haider, Engström and Schlüter2017; Ngonghala et al., Reference Ngonghala, De Leo, Pascual, Keenan, Dobson and Bonds2017), even though the field is still in its infancy. However, there is a long history of research into the opposite phenomenon of positive narratives of resilience, generally defined as the ability of a system to resist or recover from perturbations and maintain function (Holling, Reference Holling1973; Pimm, Reference Pimm1984; Oliver et al., Reference Oliver, Heard, Isaac, Roy, Procter, Eigenbrod, Freckleton, Hector, Orme, Petchey, Proença, Raffaelli, Suttle, Mace, Martín-López, Woodcock and Bullock2015), from which lessons can be learned. Below, we draw out lessons relevant to understanding undesirable resilience in the global food system.

5. ‘Locking-in’ positive system states to achieve resilience of beneficial outcomes

Following transformation of a system, or subsets of that system, to deliver beneficial outcomes for society, we may want to ‘lock-in’ these benefits so that they are resilient over the longer term (i.e. in systems science language, creating ‘virtuous circles’ rather than ‘vicious cycles’) (Nyborg et al., Reference Nyborg, Anderies, Dannenberg, Lindahl, Schill, Schlüter, Adger, Arrow, Barrett, Carpenter, Chapin, Crépin, Daily, Ehrlich, Folke, Jager, Kautsky, Levin, Madsen, Polasky, Scheffer, Walker, Weber, Wilen, Xepapadeas and de Zeeuw2016). A reformed food system delivering across multiple UN SDG outcomes needs to be resilient to the forces that might undermine this new system configuration. High levels of inter-connectivity in food systems can create a systemic risk to a reformed system by undermining sustainability efforts through price undercutting (Benton, Reference Benton and Vasbinderin press), whereby cheaper but less sustainable products (due to externalization of health and environmental costs) outcompete sustainably produced products and spread through the food system. This is analogous to highly-competitive invasive species spreading rapidly through globalized trade routes (Chapman et al., Reference Chapman, Purse, Roy and Bullock2017). To reduce this risk of the system reverting to an undesirable state, promoting modularity in the food system (i.e. relatively isolated sub-systems with differentiated approaches to sustainability) may be helpful (Gilarranz et al., Reference Gilarranz, Rayfield, Liñán-Cembrano, Bascompte and Gonzalez2017). In ecological systems, diversity enhances the stability of beneficial ecosystem functions through increased likelihood of at least one strategy (e.g. genotype or species) performing well in a given set of circumstances (Oliver et al., Reference Oliver, Heard, Isaac, Roy, Procter, Eigenbrod, Freckleton, Hector, Orme, Petchey, Proença, Raffaelli, Suttle, Mace, Martín-López, Woodcock and Bullock2015). Similar ‘portfolio effects’ operate in financial investment systems (Abson et al., Reference Abson, Fraser and Benton2013). In food systems, local networks could achieve systemic diversity through the adoption of different governance mechanisms, institutional organization or food production methods (Hodbod et al., Reference Hodbod, Barreteau, Allen and Magda2016; Bullock et al., Reference Bullock, Dhanjal-Adams, Milne, Oliver, Todman, Whitmore and Pywell2017).

With regards to the scale (regional, national, sub-national) at which such modules could most effectively operate, the ‘city-region’ scale has been suggested as promising with regards to the potential for shorter supply chains with lower environmental impacts (FAO, 2016; IPES-Food, 2016; International Food Policy Research Institute, 2017), and a number of policy initiatives are developing focussed at this scale (e.g. the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact signed by cities globally, and the New Urban Agenda adopted by the UN (United Nations, 2016)). However, consideration is needed on how to share good practice across these initiatives without reducing their diversity, and also on how to ensure that local networks are not undercut by cheaper, less sustainable products from the global market. This may become a particular problem as chronic environmental and social issues escalate (with impacts particularly concentrated in cities) (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2017) in combination with rapid urbanization, making sustainably produced food an unaffordable luxury.