背景:COVID-19大流行,极端天气事件,和俄罗斯入侵乌克兰突出了全球粮食系统的脆弱性和缺乏准备和前瞻性计划日益复杂的破坏。这激发了人们对食物系统弹性的兴趣。尽管人们对食物系统弹性的兴趣越来越高,缺乏对国家一级粮食系统抗灾能力的比较分析。对粮食系统复原力状况的更好理解可以支持和指导未来的政策,programs,和规划。
方法:我们对来自澳大利亚的国家级食品系统复原力活动进行了跨国比较,Aotearoa新西兰,瑞典,和美国。我们开发并调整了Harris和Spiegel提出的复原力框架,以比较来自13个国家粮食系统复原力文件的行动。我们根据政府采取的行动对文件进行编码,包括:利用的粮食系统弹性属性,食品供应链的一部分,特定的冲击或压力源,执行水平,行动的时间焦点,以及对粮食安全的预期影响。我们分析并比较了国家/地区的编码类别和子类别,和类别组合。
结果:结果表明,这些国家正在解决一些相同的问题,正在使用多管齐下的政策行动来解决粮食系统的弹性问题,并专注于回顾性审查和破坏性事件的前瞻性模型,以告知他们的决定。为应对气候变化和其他自然灾害做了一些工作,对其他冲击或压力源的准备工作较少。
结论:本文开发并应用了一个植根于文献的框架,以了解国家级食品系统弹性文件的内容。分析确定了潜在的差距,浓度,以及国家粮食系统韧性的主题。该框架可用于增强现有政策,创建新策略,以及补充和补充其他现有框架。
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic, extreme weather events, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have highlighted global food system vulnerabilities and a lack of preparedness and prospective planning for increasingly complex disruptions. This has spurred an interest in food system resilience. Despite the elevated interest in food system resilience, there is a lack of comparative analyses of national-level food system resilience efforts. An improved understanding of the food system resilience landscape can support and inform future policies, programs, and planning.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-country comparison of national-level food system resilience activities from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, Sweden, and the United States. We developed upon and adapted the resilience framework proposed by Harris and Spiegel to compare actions derived from thirteen national food system resilience documents. We coded the documents based on the actions taken by the governments including: the food system resilience attributes utilized, the part of the food supply chain, the specific shocks or stressors, the implementation level, the temporal focus of action, and the expected impact on food security. We analyzed and compared countries\' coded categories and subcategories, and category combinations.
RESULTS: The results showed that these countries are addressing some of the same issues, are using multi-pronged policy actions to address food system resilience issues, and are focused on both retrospective reviews and prospective models of disruptive events to inform their decisions. Some work has been done towards preparing for climate change and other natural disasters, and less preparing has been done for other shocks or stressors.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper develops and applies a framework rooted in literature to understand the content of national-level food system resilience documents. The analysis identified potential gaps, concentrations, and themes in national food systems resilience. The framework can be applied to augment existing policy, create new policy, as well as to supplement and complement other existing frameworks.