What constitutes food system resilience? The importance of divergent framings between UK mainstream and local food system actors

1.1 Literature review

AFNs emerged several decades ago in the UK as a counter to mainstream centralised food provisioning, with an emphasis on proximity, transparency and community embeddedness signified through a range of initiatives, including community supported agriculture (CSA), direct sales and small-scale artisan food businesses. Public interest in local food in the UK links directly to crisis events: “Mad Cow” disease in the 1990s and Food and Mouth Disease in 2001, the outcome from which created a strong policy case for shortening food chains and reconnecting consumers to local producers (Kneafsey et al., 2021; Morris and Buller, 2003). These events spurned AFN growth, but enthusiasm for localism then waned significantly; the relocalisation message lost its voice, if anything becoming an object of social and environmental critique, with local FS perspectives often absent in conversations about the future of UK FSs (Jones et al., 2022).

As Kirwan and Maye note (2013), critiques of FS relocalisation tend to focus on the question of national self-sufficiency. Currently, the UK’s FS is indeed highly dependent on imports (46% of the overall food in circulation (DEFRA, 2021), and there are ongoing debates about the extent to which this dependence could, or should, be decreased through UK-based production (Lang, 2020) [1]. While important, an exclusive focus on self-sufficiency tends to underplay other documented benefits of AFNs: the creation of social capital, new services for local communities, connectivity between businesses and increasing local employment (Sonnino and Griggs-Trevarthen, 2013), the enhancement of local ecology and biodiversity (Altieri, 2004; Lampkin et al., 2021; Martinez-Torres, 1994), the support for different forms of production (Clapp and Moseley, 2020) and greater equality in access to healthy food (Sanderson Bellamy et al., 2021).

Several studies now document how AFNs responded to the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly to manage the sudden exponential market demand experienced in early lockdowns. These studies characterise local FS adaptations and resilience capacities, including Jones et al.’s (2022) analysis of social capital, Low et al.’s (2021) study of local chain dynamics and proximal connectedness, and Marusak et al.’s (2021) account of nimbleness capacities. These and other studies (e.g. O’Connell et al., 2021; Schreiber et al., 2022) identify diversity and the collaborative nature of AFNs as critical assets. Covid-19 community food studies also recount inspiring stories of innovation, often via citizen-led place-based responses that territorialised community food economies through diversity and mobilisation of physical, social and digital infrastructures (Moragues-Faus, 2020 p. 583). AFNs also used these diverse structures, although some studies caution that the “local food pivot” was not as widespread among consumers as initially reported (see DuPuis et al., 2022). Beyond local and community food studies, several studies reported innovative practices, notably the shift to online food shopping (e.g. Alaimo et al., 2020, 2022) and responsible consumption behaviour changes (e.g. Šimanskienė et al., 2022).

These are a snapshot of a now extensive corpus of papers on innovative food chain practices during the pandemic, particularly local FS resilience, including links to food security (Béné, 2020). There is consensus regarding the importance of short chains/circuits, local food and small farms for FS resilience because of associated diversity, connectivity, sociality and flexibility. However, as Nichols et al. (2022) argue, with greater social embeddedness also comes socio-emotional and economic “costs” of resilience. The underlying moral economy of local food makes producers susceptible to self-exploitation. For instance, whilst local food was indeed able “to shine” during the Covid-19 pandemic (Nichols et al., 2022, p. 187), this increased interest was absorbed by producers and workers through increased work, stress and moral responsibility (cf. Jones et al., 2022). Policies focused on strengthening regional and local FS resilience must therefore account for the wider well-being of producers and workers. Moreover, resilience is not just a question of persisting and adapting through system shocks. It is about transforming systems into more desirable states (Hodbod and Eakin, 2015; Nichols et al., 2022). This raises several analytical prompts for this paper, not only in terms of how UK FS resilience is framed in different texts and by different constellations of actors, and the extent to which transformation is enacted or not through localism, but crucially also the composition and fairness of those re-valorised, re-imagined local food futures.

2.1 Limitations of the study

The paper presents an analysis of public sector reports focused on the UK FS released during the Covid-19 pandemic years 2020–2021. The corpus inclusion criteria mean that publications during this period which focus on other food sector issues, such social injustices, climate change and health, were not included in the analysis, although they may have touched upon local food issues. We further recognise that Covid-19 had a longer lasting effect on FSs than the years 2020–2021, and that many other publications on FSs have been published since. The time span chosen targets the time at which FSs were most disrupted, and therefore aims to capture emerging issues and solutions for the UK FS. Our insights should be further validated through a more complete review of both public reports and academic papers covering a wider base of food-related issues and sectors as well as a broader timespan.

3.1 Divergences in framings of local food: “system” vs “add-on”

We find that during the Covid-19 pandemic, AFNs organisations articulated the importance of local food to the overall UK FS system in a coherent and relatively consistent way. This contrasts with a previous analysis by Hunt (2015, p. 19) who found “high segmentation by sector, issue, and organisation” in local FS messaging. The AFN actors are centrally concerned with local food as a sector and present a framing of local food as a system. In the reviewed publications, all parts of the food and supply chain are considered, from food growing (including production methods and their social organisation), through processing, to distribution, consumption and waste, bringing together social and environmental aspects. For example, in “The Case for Local Food” by Sustain, local food is defined as food, which is produced, processed, sold (by independents or non-multiples) and consumed locally. The report is typical in its systemic perspective, which encompasses a discussion of food production practices (highlighting local food’s beneficial environment and biodiversity outcomes), as the contribution to overall economic resilience, impact on jobs markets and on the wider society [3].

The AFN reports also evidenced the growth in demand for local food in the UK during the pandemic, from increased farm-gate sales, to longer waiting lists for vegetable boxes and CSAs. For example, The Brighton and Hove Food Partnership noted that “57% of people are spending more in local, independent shops” and “42% of people are spending more on food deliveries from local independents, e.g. veg boxes, small grocery shops and food markets”, with 69% wanting to continue these habits (see also Griffin and O’brien, 2020). The Food Foundation released four other relevant reports which touch upon local food. In their “Veg voice report: Covid veg” and “Broken Plate” report, the Food Foundation also puts forward local provision as a way to address the unequal accessibility and availability of healthy food during Covid-19, noting an increased use of local shops and vegetable box schemes, as well as home growing (Food Foundation, 2021b, c). Their “Covid-19 and the convenience store sector” report notes the potential to use of convenience stores to sell more local produce whilst boosting the local economy (Food Foundation, 2021a).

In the AFN reports, the local FS’s ability to be flexible and adapt to an abrupt change in demand is seen as evidence of its resilience (e.g. “The Case for Local Food” (Sustain & RSPB, 2021a, b), “Food Builds Community” (FFCC, 2021), “Shortening Supply Chains” (Soil Association, 2020d), “Response to Covid-19 and food supply chain inquiry” (Soil Association, 2020b), “Sustain response to the EFRA inquiry on Food Supply during the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic” (Sustain, 2020). Equally, local FSs that did not undergo significant disruption are also seen as resilient, such as the CSA schemes which were able to “carry on more or less as usual” due to their close producer-consumer relationships and pool of volunteers (Food Foundation, 2020, p. 7).

In addition, “The Case for Local Food” by Sustain and the RSPB brings a useful historical perspective on the issue of framing of local food in policy debates. Its foreword by Lord Curry notes that already his 2002 “Curry Report” highlighted the need to re-localise food chains (Sustain & RSPB, 2021b). This earlier publication clearly did not have the desired effect, and across the reports we find critiques of a lack of the recognition of the systemic nature of local FSs in UK food policy. For example, the report by the Dynamic Food Procurement National Advisory Board (DFPNAB) states that SMEs “have been left exposed with no route to market. The barriers to entry for serving the retail grocery market for most of these SMEs are too great to overcome” (DFPNAB, 2020, p. 2).

We do not find the framing of local food as a system used by actors who do not already operate within AFNs. Conversely, in these publications, we find the overall focus is on preserving and improving the status quo of long-chain national and global supply chains. Local food is framed as an add-on to these existing systems. Often, local food is entirely absent. When mentioned, it tends to be referred to in a fragmented and often indirect way, and with a tendency to focus on single issues. For example, DEFRA’s (2020) “Agricultural Transition Plan” briefly mentions local food actors in relation to new entrants to farming, Local Nature Recovery Strategies and Protected Landscapes. Whilst the call here is for local actors to provide opportunities for new entrants, however, it is not clear that the food which they produce will be consumed locally. In terms of Local Nature Recovery and Protected Landscapes, respectively, the report alludes to local food and its distribution by “address[ing] market failures that have led to farmers having a weaker position in the supply chain” (DEFRA, 2020, p. 17) and in order “to help grow businesses, create green jobs, enhance biodiversity and invest in infrastructure to attract more diverse visitors to support local economies” (DEFRA, 2020, p. 44). However, there is no discussion of how these gains could be achieved without more profound systemic changes.

Similarly, the House of Lords “Hungry for Change” report only mentions local food in so far as “[a food strategy] must involve active engagement with SMEs and the catering sector” (House of Lords, 2020). In their report “A resilient UK food system”, POST recommends addressing “the balance between international trade strategies and local food production”. The word “local” is in fact used to refer to the scale of the nation, with calls for supporting UK-based growing (POST, 2020, p. 3). In the EFRA Committee’s “Public Sector Procurement of Food”, there is a call for greater government support for domestic producers to EFRA (2021b).

The National Food Strategy (2021) also reflects this fragmented and indirect approach to local food. The report suggests government support for SMEs against larger retailers and recommends that local authorities should create local food strategies with communities and invest in local infrastructure and facilities. However, historical examples and modelling are used as a warning against a reliance on local food, and in order to justify globalised trade and imports as a food security strategy. For instance, the Irish potato famine and a future scenario of climate change-induced harvest failures are brought in as evidence of the need to build food security on globalised trade.

While the National Farmers' Union’s “British food leading the way” report (National Farmers Union, 2021a) includes a call for more local consumption, the overall framing is redolent of the local-as-British frame identified by Kirwan and Maye (2013). The focus is on strategies to support more British consumers to eat British food, such as by embedding British and seasonal food in Public Procurement (PP) for schools and hospitals, or by introducing “British products” filters in online shopping. In their “Levelling up rural Britain” report (National Farmers Union, 2021b), the NFU provides little mention of local food, only that the public needs to connect with where food comes from through tourism and leisure.

Of the science reports reviewed, such as the SCAR Foresight report, there is no mention of local food at all. The report instead points to the importance of science and technology to building a fairer and healthier FS (SCAR Expert Group, 2020, p. 107).

Overall, we find that beyond those actors who are already in AFNs, local FSs are seen as a stop-gap for Just-in-Time (JIT) systems; a “buffer the system in case of future shocks” (POST, 2020, p. 3). In contrast, for those already within the local food sector, relocalisation is framed as a fundamental basis of UK’s FS resilience, as we discuss further below.

3.2 Divergencies in the perceptions on UK FS resilience

Linked with the aforementioned systemic vs add-on frame divergence is a fundamental difference in the perception of UK FS resilience amongst the local food actors and other actors. Table 2 highlights some of the key differences in their understanding of FS resilience, and in their visions of the future UK FS.

We note an overall preoccupation with the question of resilience in many of the reports issued in the AFN sector, including by the Soil Association (SA), Sustain and the RSPB, Sustainable Food Places, the Food and Farming Countryside Commission (FFCC), Landworkers' Alliance (LWA) and the Dynamic Food Procurement National Advisory Board (DFPNAB). These publications present the UK FS as lacking resilience and suggest that this is due to the over-reliance on just-in-time commodity chains, economies of scale and centralised structures [4]. The reports instead argue that local FSs possess resilience characteristics. Sustain and the RSPB find smaller, local enterprises to be more resilient due to greater flexibility and so better potential for adapting to changes and shocks. The FFCC and LWA echo this, commenting on the importance of existing strong partnerships within regional and local food work. The Food Foundation also talk about such existing relationships of support providing resilience in CSA schemes.

In contrast to AFN actors, other actors present the UK’s FS as largely resilient. For example, Defra’s UK Food Security report states that “the UK is resilient to potential shocks in the food supply chain” and that Covid-19 did not cause major problems with food supply, highlighting that although there were port closures, food was still imported (DEFRA, 2021, p. 149). The EFRA Committee cite the Secretary of State in saying “our lesson from this [pandemic] is that our food supply chain is remarkably resilient” owing to the size, geographic diversity and competitive nature of the industry, and an adaptable and sophisticated JIT system (EFRA, 2020) [5]. There is a limited focus on resilience in both “Part One” (2020) and “The Plan” (2021) of the National Food Strategy. The author quotes Tim Lang’s “Feeding Britain” book to draw attention to the need for resilience in all parts of the FS and notes that “foreign imports underpin our food security […] having a diverse food supply creates resilience” (Dimbleby, 2021, p. 137).

It is particularly pertinent here to highlight the difference in the use and understanding of “diversity” between the two groups. Whereas actors in the AFNs group perceive diversity in multiple areas of the FS (the variety of food grown, different models for food producers, diverse and shorter supply chains, diverse markets etc.), other actors refer to diversity only as in relation to diverse countries from which to import food.

We therefore observe a distinct divergence on the question of UK FS resilience. Actors from within the AFNs diagnose the current system as inherently unsustainable and lacking resilience, with systemic changes needed. Other actors perceive the FS as largely resilient, only needing minor adjustments (“add-ons”) in order to increase resilience further.

3.3 Convergences: local food system “solutions”

While much of the discourse discussed above is oppositional, we also note two key areas of convergence in the debates on the role of local food in UK FS resilience. These convergences emerge around specific solutions: reinstating local, small-scale abattoirs and the rolling out a dynamic procurement system (DPS) for PP of food (particularly concerning hospitals, schools and other public services). While for the AFN actors these solutions are part of the aforementioned systemic perspective, for others they present additional supports to the FS status quo.

Local abattoirs are seen as an important element of resilience for government actors. In their report “Moving animals across borders”, EFRA recognise the need for more smaller-scale abattoirs (EFRA, 2021a). They quote the Sustainable Food Trust in saying “the national network of small local abattoirs is rapidly declining”, causing long journey times and reduced animal welfare (Sustainable Food Trust and Campaign for Local Abattoirs, 2020, p. 1). EFRA also quote the UK Abattoir Network in saying that Defra “should recognise … the smaller-scale abattoirs … vital to an adequate local network, as a strategic national asset and integral to their future visions for sustainable farming and food resilience” (The UK Abattoir Network, 2021, p. 1). Further, EFRA suggest that the Future Farming Resilience Fund could support smaller slaughterhouse businesses and propose that Defra establish a working group on small and medium sized abattoir regulations (EFRA, 2021a). POST (2020, p. 3) recommend that “re-establishing small local abattoirs could increase resilience by reducing the current reliance on a few large abattoirs and buffer the system in case of future shocks”. Whereas this does show support for a certain aspect of local infrastructure, the latter quote confirms the add-on frame discussed previously.

The AFN actors do not explicitly outline recommendations for small scale abattoirs (the exception being the Sustainable Food Trust). Instead, and in line with their overall systemic approach, they recommend increasing and strengthening local food networks and infrastructure across all food and farming sectors. For example, the Dynamic Food Procurement National Advisory Board (DFPNAB) state that, especially in light of Covid-19 effects, “a regional food supply chain infrastructure needs to be established for the UK as an immediate priority to mitigate against future crises” (DFPNAB, 2020, p. 6). Similarly, the Soil Association (2020a, p. 24) assert that “The UK Government should invest in regional supply chain infrastructure to bring renewed diversity and resilience to routes to market.”

A similar convergence is noted in calls for DPSs from governance actors. The National Food Strategy references a trial of a DPS for local food suppliers as working “extremely well” and recommends that the government “accelerate the roll-out of this dynamic procurement scheme and use its new procurement standards to encourage caterers to try a broader range of suppliers” (Dimbleby, 2021, p. 161). The NFU asks the government to support PP for schools and hospitals (National Farmers Union, 2021a), and EFRA recommends setting mandatory PP standards and for local seasonal British produce, supporting SMEs in using DPS, disposing of exemptions on meeting quality and welfare standards for UK PP, and setting higher standards for procurement. Parsons and Barling’s (2021) POST report identifies some gaps in policy relating to local FSs, including the need to increase PP, and the measuring and monitoring of it to make it more effective.

Amongst AFN actors, the Dynamic Food Procurement National Advisory Board (DFPNAB) argue in their “Manifesto for a resilient, adaptable and sustainable UK food system”, that Covid-19 showed the need for DPS to support food related SMEs. They advocate more government support of a DPS roll-out as part of a wider a regional food supply chain infrastructure to mitigate against future crises (DFPNAB, 2020, p. 6). Similarly, the SA points to DPS as a way to support local retailers and farmers by giving better access to markets. It also promotes the Food for Life programme and praises the Sustainable Food Places initiative which “develop cross-sector partnerships of local public agencies, businesses, academics and NGOs” (Soil Association, 2020a, p. 28). In the same vein, Sustainable Food Places and Sustain’s “Good Food Enterprises” report asks for a DPS expansion to 33% of the country to support SMEs (Sustainable Food Places & Sustain, 2021).

We therefore highlight two key points of convergence between AFN and other actors: the need to reinstate local abattoirs and to roll out DPS systems for PP across the country. This convergence is, however, underpinned by and indeed strengthens the previously discussed divergence between systemic and add-on framings of local food. While AFN actors include specific solutions within a wider frame of more fundamental FS changes towards localisation, the mainstream FS group is targeting specific individual solutions or innovations within the status-quo.