Food system resilience has multiple dimensions. We draw on food system and resilience concepts and review resilience framings of different communities. We present four questions to frame food system resilience (Resilience of what? Resilience to what? Resilience from whose perspective? Resilience for how long?) and three approaches to enhancing resilience (robustness, recovery, and reorientation—the three “Rs”). We focus on enhancing resilience of food system outcomes and argue this will require food system actors adapting their activities, noting that activities do not change spontaneously but in response to a change in drivers: an opportunity or a threat. However, operationalizing resilience enhancement involves normative choices and will result in decisions having to be negotiated about trade-offs among food system outcomes for different stakeholders. New approaches to including different food system actors’ perceptions and goals are needed to build food systems that are better positioned to address challenges of the future. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Volume 47 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Most studies concerned with measuring the rate of return to publicly-funded agricultural R&D investment have found high returns, suggesting under-investment, and calls for increased expenditure have been common. However, the evaluation of returns tends to measure the effect of research expenditure against growth in total factor productivity (TFP), based on market inputs and outputs. When compared against growing public unease over the environmental effects of pursuing agricultural productivity growth, TFP indices become a misleading measure of growth. This paper integrates some non-market components into the TFP index. The costs of two specific externalities of agricultural production, namely fertiliser and pesticide pollution, are integrated in a TFP index constructed for the period 1948-1995. This adjusted, or 'social', TFP index is measured against UK public R&D expenditures.The rates of return to agricultural R&D are reduced by using the 'social' as opposed to the traditional TFP index. Whilst both remain at justifiable levels, previous studies appear to have over-estimated the effect of agricultural R&D expenditures. Furthermore, with changes in policy towards more socially acceptable but non-productivity enhancing outcomes, such as animal welfare, rural diversification and organic farming, the future framework for analysing returns to agricultural R&D should not be so dependent on productivity growth as an indicator of research effectiveness. 0 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Keyw0rd.r UK Productivity; Agricultural R&D; Environmental externalities 0169-5150/02/$ -see front matter 0 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 1 6 9 -5 1 5 0 (0 1 ) 00 0 6 1 -5

Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, land use, land use change and forestry (ALULUCF) are a significant percentage of UK industrial emissions. The UK Government is committed to ambitious targets for reducing emissions and all significant industrial sources are coming under increasing scrutiny. The task of allocating shares of future reductions falls to the newly appointed Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which needs to consider efficient mitigation potential across a range of sectors. Marginal abatement cost curves are derived for a range of mitigation measures in the agriculture and forestry sectors over a range of adoption scenarios and for the years 2012, 2017 and 2022. The results indicate that in 2022 around 6.36 MtCO 2 e could be abated at negative or zero cost. Further, in same year over 17% of agricultural GHG emissions (7.85MtCO 2 e) could be abated at a cost of less than the 2022 Shadow Price of Carbon (£34tCO 2 e).