Digest- Resilience by Design: What the National Audit Office report tells us about the UK food system

On 4th September the government watchdog gave its verdict on our national readiness for potential disruption to our food system. It examined preparations in other countries and other sectors in the UK, and compiled evidence from interviews with civil servants, experts from industry, and academics including Root and Reason Director Sarah Bridle.

The report presents a sober assessment: the UK food system has coped remarkably well with recent shocks, but there are growing doubts about its ability to withstand more severe disruptions in the years ahead. These conclusions strongly resonate with the arguments set out in the Root & Reason Roadmap for Resilience published last October. Resilience cannot be treated as a specialist policy area or an afterthought; instead, it must become an organising principle for governance, investment and decision-making across society.

Quick Take

• The system has been optimised for efficiency rather than resilience: Food availability has been maintained, but just-in-time logistics, highly concentrated supply chains, dependence on imported inputs, and increasing exposure to cyber threats and climate impacts mean future disruptions could be more difficult to absorb.
• Failures in connected systems can quickly cascade through the food system: Food supply depends on energy systems, transport networks, water availability, digital infrastructure, labour markets and international trade, with climate change amplifying these risks.
• Defra has yet to define a clearly articulated “risk appetite”: While Defra’s Towards a Good Food Cycle strategy identifies resilience as a priority outcome, the department has yet to define how improvements will be measured or what level of disruption government is prepared to tolerate.
• Resilience cannot be delivered solely from the centre: Compared with several European countries, UK households are less prepared for emergencies; communities, local authorities, voluntary organisations and citizens all have a role to play.
• The UK must decide if market mechanisms remain sufficient: Other countries have adopted more proactive approaches, including strategic food reserves, stronger public-private coordination and the identification of critical food infrastructure.

Deep Dive

Efficiency vs. Vulnerability in the Food System

The report highlights a paradox at the centre of the UK food system. Generally, food has continued to reach supermarket shelves despite the combined pressures of Brexit, COVID-19, the war in Ukraine, supply chain bottlenecks, cyber attacks and extreme weather events. Industry has largely managed these challenges through flexibility, global sourcing and commercial incentives to maintain supply. Overall food availability has been maintained largely without government intervention.

However, this apparent success disguises growing vulnerabilities. The system has been optimised for efficiency rather than resilience. Just-in-time logistics, highly concentrated supply chains, dependence on imported inputs and critical infrastructure, and increasing exposure to cyber threats and climate impacts all mean that future disruptions could be more difficult to absorb. The NAO reports that Defra itself is becoming less confident that businesses will be able to withstand shocks without government support over the next five to ten years.

A Systems Perspective on Resilience and Cascading Risk

A central strength of the report is its recognition that resilience is about more than emergency response. It is about anticipating risk, understanding interdependencies and building capacity before crises occur. Food supply depends on energy systems, transport networks, water availability, digital infrastructure, labour markets and international trade. Failures in any one of these can quickly cascade through the system. Climate change further amplifies these risks by increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events.

These conclusions strongly resonate with the arguments set out in the Root & Reason Roadmap for Resilience published last October. The Roadmap emphasises that resilience cannot be treated as a specialist policy area or an afterthought. Instead, it must become an organising principle for governance, investment and decision-making across society. The NAO report demonstrates why this broader systems perspective is needed. Food resilience is not simply a matter for farmers, retailers or Defra. It depends upon how effectively different sectors, institutions and communities work together to manage risk and uncertainty.

Government Strategy and the Missing Risk Appetite

The NAO report is particularly critical of the lack of an overarching framework within government. While Defra’s Towards a Good Food Cycle strategy identifies resilience as a priority outcome, the department has yet to define how improvements will be measured or what level of disruption government is prepared to tolerate. The NAO repeatedly highlights the absence of a clearly articulated “risk appetite”. Without this, it becomes difficult to make informed choices about investment, preparedness and intervention.

This challenge mirrors a broader weakness in UK resilience policy. Too often, resilience is discussed in abstract terms without clarity about objectives, priorities or acceptable levels of risk. Our Roadmap report argues that resilience requires transparent decisions about what society seeks to protect, which risks are most significant, and who is responsible for action. The NAO’s recommendations point in exactly this direction.

Climate Risk, Community Action, and Governance

The summer drought highlighted how climate change is no longer a future threat but a present reality affecting agricultural production, water resources and food prices. Climate-related disruptions do not occur as isolated events. They interact with existing pressures, exposing weaknesses accumulated over decades. The NAO identifies climate change as a chronic risk that can intensify acute shocks, creating a more volatile operating environment for the food system.

Importantly, the report moves beyond production and acknowledges the role of communities and households. Compared with several European countries, UK households are less prepared for emergencies, and government messaging on preparedness has been relatively limited. The NAO notes the importance of community food resilience, household preparedness and stronger local networks that can help people cope during disruptions.

This is perhaps one of the most significant messages of the report. Resilience cannot be delivered solely from the centre. Communities, local authorities, voluntary organisations and citizens all have a role to play. In an era of increasing uncertainty, resilience has to be seen as a shared responsibility.

The report stops short of recommending specific structural reforms, but it points towards important questions about governance. Other countries have adopted more proactive approaches, including strategic food reserves, stronger public-private coordination and the identification of critical food infrastructure. The UK will need to decide whether its longstanding reliance on market mechanisms remains sufficient in a risk environment characterised by climate instability, geopolitical tension and technological disruption.

Conclusion

The NAO’s overall conclusion is clear. Recent experience should not breed complacency. The UK food system has demonstrated considerable adaptability, but resilience has not yet been tested by a catastrophic disruption. Government has begun to strengthen its approach, but preparedness remains incomplete and many of the most important initiatives are still at an early stage.

For those interested in building a more resilient future, the report provides both a warning and an opportunity. The warning is that risks are growing faster than our current arrangements for managing them. The opportunity is to move beyond reactive crisis management towards a more strategic vision of resilience, one that invests in preparedness, strengthens communities, recognises interdependencies and places long-term resilience at the centre of food system governance.

That is ultimately the challenge set out both by the NAO and by the Roadmap for Resilience: not merely surviving shocks, but designing systems capable of adapting, learning and thriving in an increasingly uncertain world.