Table 4 Expert views of enablers and barriers for food system resilience. Results of open-ended questions
Techno-economic | Politico-institutional | Socio-cognitive | |
|---|---|---|---|
Enablers | ◾ Adjusting trade agreements ◾ Changes in taxation ◾ Changes in the farm subsidy system ◾ Increasing profitability of agricultural production ◾ Diversification of cropping ◾ Increased resources ◾ Domestic energy production ◾ Decentralised solutions | ◾ Creation of clear criteria for resilience and monitoring systems to support them ◾ Supporting policy measures ◾ Systematic framework for resilience (system thinking) ◾ Political will ◾ Enhanced communication and swift information flows between different sectors | ◾ Establishing targets ◾ Changes in attitudes ◾ Sense of fairness ◾ Collaboration and trust between actors in the food system ◾ Increased awareness ◾ Functional examples |
Barriers | ◾ Means to increase resilience are costly, but do not transfer into added income ◾ Using mainly demand-based measures ◾ Poor profitability ◾ Current subsidy system does not encourage increased resilience ◾ Disconnections between production and its inputs ◾ Unreasonable trust in market forces ◾ Lack of economic drivers and interests ◾ Small volume of the domestic markets | ◾ Lack of a bigger picture ◾ Fragmentation of the components regarding resilience ◾ Lack of scientific knowledge ◾ Stiffness and inertia at the political level ◾ Current political climate and lack of will ◾ Trends in the globalised food system counteract increasing resilience at the national level ◾ Overall system gives wrong signals for increasing resilience ◾ Corruption | ◾ Sense of unfairness ◾ Lack of understanding ◾ Poor level of organisation within the food system ◾ Reluctance and conflicts of interest ◾ Established attitudes and practices ◾ Lack of motivation |