Table 3 Applying the methodological framework to the historical food-energy crises

Detail systems architectures

• What are the goals of the system(s)?

• Who do these systems serve?

• What systems does it/do they closely connect to?

• Why are we concerned about harms from these systems?

Asking these questions would identify critical contextual factors of food and energy systems:

• The power and profits of large energy and agro-commodity companies with control of energy and food supply and trade;

• The vulnerability of people in energy and food commodity-importing countries to supply shocks and price rises;

• The systems to which food and energy systems are closely connected and that lead to reasons for concern, including: food system dependence on energy prices through fertiliser and agriculture machinery costs; both systems’ influence on socio-economic systems in different countries whose revenues depend on exports of these products; ecosystem and climate system implications from pollutants from these systems.

Map systems interconnections

• What is the best way (given available time and resources) to map interconnections between systems?

• What more could/should be done to capture interconnections in more detail?

Approach would identify:

• Inter-systemic links e.g. using participatory systems mapping to identify major causal drivers of food-energy crises (Supplementary Fig. 3);

• Cascading consequences to the economy, social, financial, environmental systems from crises in food and energy systems, including possible behaviours like the role of financial speculation, food and gas export embargoes.

Identify existing, enhanced and new responses

• What are the critical leverage points of the system(s)?

• What are the existing response types for the system(s) of focus?

• What are potential enhanced and new response types?

• How could the system(s) transform more fundamentally and what would be required?

Participatory processes would utilise:

• Databases of existing response types and design of new responses to allow identification of suitable, systemic responses(Supplementary Note 3). These could include: diversification away from gas towards renewables and energy efficiency; larger local grain stores to mitigate local food price volatility; lower-carbon intensity energy use to respond to climate heating; multilateral agreements to provide emergency energy and food supplies during times of crises;

• Foresight and scenario exercises to imagine transformative changes towards less risky food and energy systems, considering their interconnections with other systems and the potential risks facing them.

Assess response trade-offs and vulnerabilities

• What are the major trade-offs of envisaged responses?

• Where are vulnerabilities in the responses, in light of future possibilities?

• What are the critical leverage points of the system(s)?

Analysis would use systems mapping, response generation, identification of systems goals and power to identify:

• Response trade-offs e.g. securing of alternative gas supplies to lock-in to new LNG port infrastructure, thereby lengthening dependence on carbon-intensive gas;

• Response weaknesses, e.g. lack of resilience of some agricultural responses in light of climate extremes.

Develop future storylines

• How could risks propagate/cascade/compound/subside, considering response/no response storylines?

• What are the implications of these scenarios across a variety of system metrics/measures?

More explicit use of scenarios could highlight:

• Urgency of response options and resilience measures, including specific regional dependence on fossil fuels with volatile prices;

• Utility of investment in low-carbon, regenerative, local agriculture to protect against international food price shocks;

• Impact of multilateral agreements to provide emergency energy and grain supplies.

Simulate systemic risk dynamics

• Can storylines be simulated analytically e.g. in models?

• If applicable, what are the size of the adverse impacts/avoided impacts?

• With what likelihood and confidence levels?

If available and applicable, appropriately calibrated models including integrated assessment, shock propagation, system dynamics and agent-based models could be used to explore:

• The impacts and avoided impacts of response measures under different scenarios;

• Changes in risk likelihoods and/or frequencies of occurrence as a result of different responses (if run in stochastic modes).

Implement, monitor, evaluate, adapt

• How are risk and risk cascade dynamics developing?

• How effective are responses?

• What adaptations, revisions and course corrections are required?

Detailed risk monitoring measures for food and energy systems would collect evidence (and identify evidence gaps) including around:

• Import dependence, indigenous resources and diversity of resources around food and energy supply;

• Local resilience to crises through state capacity, transport networks, social capital and other responses;

• Procedures to respond with enhanced and new measures if/when risks reach pre-defined thresholds.