Main disruptions and changes faced by the food system in the 2020s
The experts stressed that the disruptions faced by food systems were widespread and complex. Disruptions, combined with the identified need to transform systems in a more sustainable path, towards the circular economy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels, increased this complexity. Globally, many critical changes as well as their requirements are manifestations of humanity’s unsustainable systems and agriculture’s unsustainable production. Direct impacts of climate change such as the increase in extreme weather events, plant diseases, and pests, indirect trade disruption and political tensions, the loss of biodiversity, population growth, urbanisation, dietary changes, and vulnerable water resources cause multifaceted feedbacks in food systems that are difficult to predict.
The experts emphasised that Finland’s harsh climate meant variations in crop production between years were very large, which has led to a high production surplus in relation to consumption. The experts considered the impacts of extreme weather events on primary production to be very important (Table 1), reflecting the importance of the availability of domestic raw materials for industry, exports, and ultimately, consumer prices (Table 2). According to the experts, there were few infectious animal diseases classified as dangerous, and the starting point was to prevent them entering the country. Finland’s northern and remote location was an advantage in this sense, as animals moved less between different countries than in Central Europe, for example. The experts stressed that the food sector in Finland was strongly buffered by national and EU support policies. The National Emergency Supply Agency was unique in the world, monitoring critical operations through cooperation between private and public organisations.
The experts considered that the coronavirus pandemic had increased instability in international markets, with implications for the functioning of food systems. During the pandemic, Finland had managed to secure the food supply required by society. One major blow was the shortage of seasonal workers on vegetable and berry farms, a result of the sudden closure of borders in the spring of 2020. Finland lacked a sufficiently skilled workforce, and the deficit could not be fully compensated by domestic labour, which reduced the domestic production of fresh produce. At the trade level, the effects were limited to the closure of individual stores for a few hours for disinfections caused by single cases of the disease. According to the experts, the change in consumer behaviour had a greater significance in causing concerns about spikes in consumer demand that daily management would find difficult to meet. At the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, with new restrictive measures in society, fresh meat products were hoarded somewhat as a first reaction. However, the continued availability of products quickly restored consumer confidence. In addition, the rapid change in dining from institutional and restaurant catering to home food influenced food processing, distribution and trade, and sales.
The experts stressed that the food system actors in Finland were small on the European scale. In terms of volume, the food system actors in industry, distribution, and trade were concentrated and strongly interdependent. In primary production, especially in the dairy and meat sectors, a large part of the volume went through a few large units, the development being strongly influenced by the efforts of companies to increase economic efficiency. This property increased food system vulnerability, because if the disruption hit critical points with a few players such as the critical imported inputs, the scope for influence might be limited because of a lack of national control, leading to notable disruptions in the food system. In Finland and in Europe, the experts highlighted, the great dependence on imported soya feed was a major risk for animal production, increasing vulnerability to trade policy disruptions. Market disruptions also threatened animal welfare, especially poultry production, because the rapid growth rate of birds was sensitive to production disruptions, and delay could result in birds not fitting processes. In addition, the illness of the workforce in a large unit or in a few large distribution channels, or the spread of an animal disease in a large processing plant, could pose a widespread threat to operations, ranging from primary production to trade, affecting food availability at the consumer end.
The experts perceived that all today’s food system actors were strongly dependent on energy and electricity, and disruptions in their access could cause severe problems for food system operations. Disruptions could be severe when they affected the processing and trade of meat and dairy chains, whose products could not be placed in temporary storage. A large-scale regional power failure could especially risk food production, processing, storage, delivery, and sale. According to the experts, despite its good reserve power preparedness, primary production remained vulnerable to electricity disruptions, which endangered the supply of domestic raw materials in the supply chain. In food processing, there were fewer reserve power systems. However, the probability of simultaneous power outages in different parts of Finland was low. The retail and distribution of food were completely dependent on electricity to get products from farms or processing to storage and further to retail. In large central warehouses, robotics, a high degree of automation, and cold rooms all required electricity. Especially in densely populated cities, the impact of large-scale electricity disruptions on food security could be severe.
The functions of the food system also depend strongly on global, national, and local ICT systems and networks. According to the experts, at worst, a cyberattack could cripple an entire digital information system and disrupt a company’s business. Food terrorism could reduce food availability and increase consumer prices, profoundly upsetting the person’s sense of security associated with food.
The experts highlighted the impacts of infectious animal diseases on food system operations as very important (Tables 1 and 2). For livestock production, one of the major considered threats was the spread of African swine fever to Finland. The disruption would particularly affect pig farms, where infection would lead to the slaughter of pigs, with significant economic consequences and widespread market disruption. According to the experts, the disruption would drastically reduce the availability of domestic meat and affect meat prices in Finland. The experts considered the origin of meat was an important factor for consumers, and such a shock could thus have a major impact on consumer buying behaviour. In addition to a price increase, consumers’ distrust could be reflected in short-term changes in willingness to buy pork, and other meat and vegetable products. In the long run, the experts estimated that disruptions in livestock production would increase the popularity of the vegetarian diet.
Other notable changes and disruptions the experts mentioned were digitalisation, rapid changes in consumption, hazardous pesticide residues and genetically modified organisms, a decline in the sense of food reducing the ability to make the right food policy decisions, nuclear fallout, and war.
Table 1
Table 1
Expert evaluation of the importance of different disruptions for Finnish food systems (scale from one to five)
Example of disruption
|
1 = not important at all
|
2 = of little importance
|
3 = of average importance
|
4 = fairly important
|
5 = very important
|
A policy disruption such as a trade policy conflict that directly affects the market
|
|
|
22%
|
67%
|
11%
|
Gradual climate change and climate shocks such as an increase in extreme weather events
|
|
|
|
44%
|
56%
|
Market and price disruptions such as fluctuating or high input and product prices, investor uncertainty
|
|
|
22%
|
67%
|
11%
|
Changes in the availability of resources such as available arable land, labour, or feed
|
|
|
44%
|
33%
|
22%
|
Disruptions in energy supply, for example, in power distribution
|
|
22%
|
44%
|
11%
|
22%
|
Cybersecurity threats such as disruptions to electronic and networked systems and information security
|
|
|
44%
|
22%
|
33%
|
Bioterrorism related to biological weapons such as pathogenic microbes and toxins
|
22%
|
22%
|
22%
|
22%
|
11%
|
Infectious animal diseases such as African swine fever or Covid-19
|
|
|
|
|
100%
|
Contaminated foods that cause food poisoning such as salmonella
|
|
22%
|
11%
|
67%
|
|
Unexpected “black swans”, i.e. highly unlikely events
|
|
|
22%
|
33%
|
44%
|
Table 2
Table 2
Critical disruptions and impacts on food supply security.
Disruption
|
Impact on food supply security
|
Extreme weather events
|
A decline in the availability of domestic raw materials, influencing food processing and exports.
Economic losses in primary production.
Rising consumer prices.
|
Market disruptions
|
The shutdown of the food industry and exports.
A decline in sales for companies producing inputs.
Economic losses at all food system levels.
Declining availability of imported protein feed.
Endangered animal welfare.
Cold chain breakage of perishable products.
Loss of reputation and trust of business partners.
Rising consumer prices.
|
Infectious animal diseases
|
Economic losses in primary production.
Collapse of meat production.
Endangered animal welfare due to prevented access to processing.
The shutdown or reorganisation of the food industry.
Market disruptions.
Lack of domestic raw materials in industry.
Stagnation of exports.
Declining access to animal products for consumers.
Rising consumer prices.
Collapse in consumer confidence.
Export ban.
Financial losses at all food system levels.
|
Disruptions in the availability of foreign labour
|
A labour shortage on farms.
A lack of domestic raw materials in industry.
Rising prices for industry and consumers.
|
Disruptions in the energy supply
|
Shutdown of information systems.
Inoperative processes at all levels of food system and in distribution.
Disruptions in payment systems.
Financial losses at all food system levels.
|
Cyber incident
|
Shutdown of processes and production plants.
Endangered animal welfare due to prevented access to processing.
Reduced selection of food for consumers.
Financial losses at all food system levels.
|
Bioterrorism
Contaminated foods
|
Reduced food safety.
Collapse in consumer confidence.
Reduced selection of food for consumers.
Financial losses at all food system levels.
|
Black swans
|
Unexpected widespread impacts and feedbacks.
|
Resilience means at different levels of the food system
The experts highlighted the importance of innovative people and companies with alternative initiatives, courage, and willingness to experiment with new practices as a necessity for food system resilience. Actor-specific means in primary production, processing, and retail (Table 3) which could help prevent disruptions and minimise their negative impacts were necessary to secure critical operation. The implementation of such resilience means was strongly influenced by awareness of and expertise in useful means, the financial capacity of actors to conduct actions, and communication between different actors. For example, improving soil growing conditions through diversification required an understanding of complex biological feedbacks. Information security was an example of an expensive resilience means that required special knowledge and for which larger companies usually had better abilities to prepare for. Control of infectious animal diseases required the communication and cooperation of different actors.
The experts noted that for new and unexpected disruptions, the lack of information on the necessary means increased costs. During the Covid crisis, the food processing sector prepared for a collapse in the number of employees because of increased illness, and massive measures were taken rapidly to prevent the spread of the disease. Due to effective prevention measures throughout society, the effects of Covid did not threaten food availability.
Society plays an important role in enabling an encouraging operating environment for innovations and securing critical inputs and products during market disruption. The food system experts considered monitoring of national and international disruptions and food security indicators important. In Finland, the National Emergency Supply Agency monitors the state of critical sectors, including primary and food production, acting as an important buffering system for the national food supply. The experts highlighted its role in facilitating communication between the private sector and the authorities, and in supervising and giving guidance during the crisis. At policy level, both national and EU agricultural policy aims to maintain food production throughout the EU, but policy has only a few means to enhance resilience.
The experts highlighted the importance of social networks enabling the communication and cooperation of food system actors. In exceptional circumstances, network communication enabled the formation of a snapshot in the event of a disruption, allowing information sharing, quick decision making, and processes to be changed. In normal circumstances, communication between the private and public sectors was important for building mutual trust between actors and enabling companies to obtain information about risks nationally and internationally, share the knowledge different actors had, and create innovations. In the food system, vulnerability to various disruptions required the continuous development of preparedness for new disruptions from primary production to industry and trade.
Table 3
Table 3
Identified key means to enhance resilience at different levels of the food system.
Level of food system
|
Mean
|
Primary production
|
Employee support in year-round production such as dairy
Diversity in production, crops, varieties, and crop rotations
Investment in field growing conditions, drainage, irrigation systems, and nutrient recycling
Increasing self-sufficient bioenergy production
Acquisition of reserve electricity
Farm storages
Farm-scale biogas plants.
Hygiene
Contingency plans, self-monitoring, biosecurity
Investment in information security
Education, communication
|
Processing
|
Food and input imports
Acquisition of reserve electricity
Contract production
Binding prices in production season and yield
Restrictions on imports of meat products from high-risk countries
Alternative market channels
Division of workers, encapsulation of work shifts
Diversion of raw material flows to other units and processes
Self-monitoring, communication
Storage
Hygiene
Contingency plans, self-monitoring, biosecurity
Investment in information security
Education, communication
|
Retail trade
|
Contracts
Compensatory products
Decentralised retail network
Acquisition of reserve electricity and information security, encapsulation of work shifts, hygiene
Investment in information security
Education, communication
|
Society
|
Production surplus relative to consumption
Increasing domestic production of critical inputs that are currently imported
Wide geographical coverage of domestic production and processing plants
Plant breeding
Agricultural research
Location of critical operations in areas of best secured electricity networks
Diversity of production sectors
Reserve stocks for critical inputs and food
Improving labour mobility
Breaking down incentive traps for potential labour
Quarantine regulations
Maintenance of basic services and the road network in rural areas
Strengthening electricity networks through underground cabling or clearing risk areas from trees
Alternative import channels for electric power
Regulation of electricity for users
Supporting EU and national policy, market guidance, control, taxation, and regulation
Support for communication and cooperation between actors
Support for improving knowledge and guidance on changes, disruptions, and risks related to impacts
Increasing education
Investment in information security
|
Key elements of resilience in food systems
At the food system level, we identified four key elements of resilience based on the expert interview data: 1) system thinking through science and communication; 2) the redundancy of activities and networks; 3) the diversity of production and partners; and 4) buffering strategies (Fig. 1).
FIGURE 1
System thinking through science and communication
The identification of critical dependencies and an increasing understanding of complex interactions and feedbacks were emphasised as important for resilience. For example, for infectious diseases, risk preparedness started with identifying risks and adhering to good practices, including hygiene, protective clothing, and preventing people entering production facilities. The experts emphasised the importance of acknowledging that a perfect anticipation plan could not be pre-emptively tailored to mitigate the impacts of a sudden disruption. Planning must therefore be approached as a reactive tool, allowing the identification and rapid implementation of targeted measures for a specific situation. The experts considered multidisciplinary system analysis important for the identification of critical feedback in different sectors. National and international networks and cooperation were important means of advancing provision for various disruptions. Active communication between actors at horizontal and vertical levels of the food system, such as the private sector and public authorities, enabled the formation of situational awareness in the event of a disruption and an understanding of the boundary conditions of the activities of various actors. All this could enable the identification of critical risks and rapid reaction, which could help stop the spread of the disruption and help solve the problem (Table 4). In Finland, experiences of cooperation between business competitors had been positive during disruptions. Redirecting raw materials and the reorganisation of processing were examples of working together for a common goal to prevent large-scale problems. As the operating environment was constantly changing, new innovations and co-development promoting adaptation were needed. Cooperation between actors was important for the success of actor-specific initiatives and for gaining environmental, social, and economic benefits.
For new disruptions such as the problem in seasonal labour supply resulting from border closures during the Covid-19 pandemic, cyber incidents and ASF, the lack of previous experience hindered the understanding of the existing situation and consequences, and the selection of the right measures. At worst, this could lead to an expansion of disorder.
Redundancy of activities and networks
The experts considered that a wide network of actors, market partners, and activities distributed risks directed at food system operations. For example, extensive import channels would reduce dependence on a single supplier, securing the availability of raw materials and critical inputs in the event of disruptions, when the other actors could compensate for the functions one that was disrupted. In Finland, this was extremely important for the processing industry, because more than half oil plant raw materials were imported, for example. Imports and exports were important, because they diversified the selection of goods and ensured the availability of raw materials, both in the home market and abroad in the event of disruptions.
Geographically extensive primary production ensured the availability of domestic raw materials in extreme weather events in certain locations. In the event of disruption to specific production, such as a collapse of domestic pig meat production caused by ASF, alternative meat products would help compensate losses. These could be either imported pig meat or other domestic meat products such as poultry. Plant proteins could also compensate for the missing meat products. For labour, extensive networks would secure the availability of employees, and thus the maintenance of primary production on farms. It would also secure domestic raw material flows from farms to industry. An extensive retail network would secure consumers’ access to food during cyberattack directed at the retail trade, for example.
Diversity of production and partners
The experts stressed that at farm level, the cultivation of different crops and varieties within the same year on different plots would secure yields despite disruptions (Table 2) and thus increase the resilience of cultivation systems. Having plants at different stages of development would ensure the success of cultivation. For example, severe drought and high temperatures could hit a critical development point for spring cereals and cause significant crop losses. At the same time, however, oilseeds were just evolving and were less vulnerable to such disruption. Similarly, the pea was not sensitive to drought; on the contrary, it became lusher. However, autumn cereals usually had had time to develop deep roots when dry and warm periods came to Finland, so their growth was not disturbed.
The experts also emphasised that high crop diversity in crop rotation would promote good soil health, which buffered negative impacts of climate change such as heavy rainfall and drought. Increasing diversity, especially by including grasses, oilseeds, and protein crops in crop rotations in southern Finland, could improve the adaptability of agriculture to climate change. In Finland, the high production surplus of cereals in relation to consumption would enable the increase of production of protein crops in the existing cereal area. This would reduce the dependence on imported protein and add value to the domestic plant and animal protein production because of the reduced use of soya.
It was emphasised that diversity between farms within a region was important for securing domestic production for industry. In addition, the diversity of agricultural sectors was highlighted. In Finland, a strong livestock sector, based on grassland production in northern Finland, had secured national food security in past decades and centuries, compensating for possible losses in crop production in the south during crop failure years. Especially when the growing season was very rainy and cool, the production of special crops and cereals was risky in Finland. More diverse agricultural production at regional level would globally reduce the negative environmental impacts of highly concentrated industrialised agricultural production, such as the production of soya in South America. The experts considered economic incentives most efficient for increasing the diversity of food production.
Buffering strategies
The experts stressed that buffering strategies and backup systems were important to secure raw material flows and the availability of critical products at different levels of the food system, from primary production to consumers. The public authorities play the leading role in enhancing these strategies. They also call for committed cooperation between food system actors.
Biosecurity, HACCP (hazard analysis and critical control points) and contingency plans were considered important for protecting critical operations from damaging organisms and as guidelines for action in the event of the risk materialising. At all food system levels, hygiene was considered important for the prevention of infectious diseases. Regarding infectious animal diseases, preventing the spread of diseases was a priority. In Finland, the long shared land border with Russia to the east made it more difficult to control African swine fever, which spread with wild boar (Sus scrofa), while in the south and west, the sea prevented the movement of animals.
A high production buffer, that is, a production surplus in relation to consumption, for cereals balanced crop variability between years, which was important with increasing extreme weather events. Compared to many other European countries, Finland had a remarkably large year-round stock. Maintaining physical reserve stocks ensured the availability of critical inputs and raw materials for food supply. Especially at the farm level, storage capacity was large for cereals to obtain the best market price. Industry and trade also had large stocks. In addition, society’s reserve stocks increased the buffer against disruption. In Finland, the National Emergency Supply Agency facilitated communication between the private sector and the authorities, supporting the maintenance of security of supply in society. In a crisis, the work also involved supervision and guidance.
Backup connections for distribution secured the availability of electricity. Reserve power for different parts of the food chain was important in the event of power outages, especially in rural areas, where there were fewer electricity grids. However, backup power was very expensive, and the probability of a widespread power outage in Finland was considered low, which reduced actors’ interest in acquiring reserve power. Backup systems for ICT connections and payment systems were also very important as the digitalisation of the food system progressed.
Critical means to enhance resilience in Finnish food systems
We identified three means of enhancing resilience in Finnish food systems: 1) domestic production of protein crops; 2) domestic renewable energy production and strengthening of electricity transmission network; and 3) job creation measures. These means would implement the first three resilience elements presented above, strengthening the future stability of food supply.
Domestic production of protein crops
The diversification of cultivation through the production of protein crops would directly reduce the food system’s vulnerability to disruptions from imported inputs. At farm level, diversification would improve soil growing conditions and improve the stability of farming, which was important in the face of climate change.
According to the experts, climate change, especially the extension of the growing season, increasingly enabled the diversification of crop production with protein crops. For example, the production area under oilseed rape had quickly grown during the twenty-first century, and climatic conditions were also beginning to be favourable for fava bean cultivation. The diversification of cultivation within the same year was key, requiring the farmer to produce sufficient volumes of different crops. Larger farms increased the farmer’s opportunities to find suitable agricultural plots for crops that enhanced diversity. The experts considered that a sufficient arable area in Finland would enable the self-sufficient production of protein crops. Succeeding in diversified farming required new skills of farmers. The farmer faced a higher production risk with special crops than with traditional cereals due to the lack of experience, and the higher price did not necessarily take this risk into account yet. Advisory, farmer peer support, and decision-making tools could increase knowledge and encourage diversification. The experts stressed that there was a demand and will in the food industry to increase the use of domestic raw materials, despite the adaptation requirements for batch size and crop species in the production processes which were currently planned for imported soya.
Domestic renewable energy production
Increasing the production capacity of domestic renewable energy was considered to improve energy self-sufficiency. This was important because dependence on electricity was continuing to increase in society. Particularly during consumption peaks in the cold winter months, domestic production would reduce the risk of having to regulate electricity. Strengthening electricity transmission connections with abroad to enable both to import export electricity was considered important. Strengthening electricity networks through underground cabling and clearing risk areas to prevent trees from falling on power lines were ways to secure energy access.
Increasing the energy self-sufficiency of farms by increasing biogas production was considered to create environmental and economic benefits. Farms’ own energy production through bioreactors could even enable energy to be sold offsite. On livestock farms, manure could be processed into energy and as a more concentrated nutrient, which would improve nutrient recycling, and could reduce water and climate emissions. Grass yields could also be utilised as feed in the bioreactor, which could promote the use of grass as part of crop rotations on crop farms. This would reduce dependence on imported energy. The construction of biogas plants required an economically viable market-based operating environment. Agricultural, energy, and climate policies played an important role in creating incentives and a predictable market environment, for example, through taxation and environmental legislation.
Job creation measures
In Finland, the seasonality and heaviness of work and the low level of pay reduced domestic labour interest in farm work. Finnish farms also preferred to employ motivated and skilled employees from abroad. For foreigners, the salary level in Finland was high in relation to their home country. The experts suspected that new arrangements and the replacement of foreign with domestic labour would inevitably increase costs. Employing young people during school holidays was suggested as a potential solution. Long-term employment year after year was considered beneficial for both the employer and employees. The availability of domestic labour was affected by the number of young people and the unemployed and on the other hand, by the concentration of labour-intensive production. Adequate access to domestic labour was particularly difficult for labour-intensive berry and open-air vegetable farms far from population centres.
Labour networks that would extend to several countries would improve opportunities to get foreign employees to work in farms. The experts also highlighted the need to facilitate the mobility of foreign employees to be able to work without interruption in different workplaces. This could safeguard farms’ labour needs and prolong the employment relationships of foreign workers in Finland. Technological development could somewhat reduce vulnerability by facilitating and lengthening the harvesting periods on berry farms, for example. The authorities played a key role in establishing rules and procedures for quarantine practices and mobility to simultaneously ensure the adequacy of the workforce and prevent the spread of disease. At the administrative level, close cooperation between different ministries could improve such work.
Table 4
Table 4
Enablers, barriers, and benefits of key elements and critical means of food system resilience
Key elements to enhance general resilience in food systems
|
Enablers
|
Barriers
|
Benefits for resilience
|
Dimension of resilience
|
buffer
|
adaptation and (transformation)
|
System thinking through science and communication
|
Understanding of processes
Research
Communication
Cooperation
Scenario work
|
Plurality of drivers
Complexity of feedback
Narrow-mindedness
Lack of experience
|
Ability to form a snapshot of the situation
Ability to anticipate
Biosafety
Nutrient cycling
Economic savings
|
x
|
x
|
Redundancy of activities and networks
|
Social networks
Functioning markets
Imports
Rapidly produced compensating products
|
Cost effects
Efficiency thinking
Competition in markets
|
Risk diversification
Secures operations through compensation
|
x
|
x
|
Diversity of production and partners
|
Policy guidance
|
Lack of knowledge
Lack of options
|
Risk diversification
Secures operations through diverse responses
Reduces negative environmental impacts of agricultural production
Increases the power to control critical inputs
|
x
|
x
|
Buffering strategies
|
Risk awareness
All-year-round stores at all operating levels
|
Lack of knowledge
Weak economic situation
Difficulty in determining a reasonable level of preparedness
|
Secures critical operations in the event of a disruption
|
x
|
|
Critical means to enhance resilience in the Finnish food systems
|
Enablers
|
Barriers
|
Benefits for resilience
|
Dimension of resilience
|
buffer
|
adaptation and transformation
|
Domestic protein crop production
|
Knowledge
Market demand
Benefits for soil productivity
Suitable production conditions in Southern Finland
Cooperation
Policy incentives
|
Lack of knowledge
Production risks
Economic risks
|
Reduces dependence on imported inputs / Improves protein self-sufficiency
Increases the power to control critical inputs
|
x
|
x
|
Domestic renewable energy production
|
Regionally concentrated animal production
Policy guidance
Environmental statute
Taxation
Cooperation
|
Lack of system understanding
Lack of political decisions
Cost-effectiveness
|
Improved utilisation of nutrients in biomasses
Reduced dependence on imported energy
Additional income for farmers from manure
Improved nutrient cycle in the region
Can diversify crop rotation in crop farms if grass yield can be used as input
Reduces nutrient strain on water systems
|
x
|
x
|
Job creation measures
|
Identification of problem
Diverse employee networks
Employing young people during school holidays
Technological development
Long-term employment
|
Seasonal work
High dependence on Ukrainian workers
Suddenness and timing of shocks
Domestic workers do not do heavy field work
Labour-intensive berry and vegetable production
Opposition to change practices
Labour issues under many ministries
|
Improves the mobility of employees
Secures the availability of employees
Secures domestic production of vegetables and berries
|
x
|
x
|