As part of our two-part interview series, we spoke with participants of Work Package 2 (WP2), Galanakis Laboratories, EMPRACTIS L.P., and the Institute of Communication and Computer Systems, to discuss the analytical core of the project. In SecureFood, WP2 focuses on mapping Europe’s food security landscape, identifying key vulnerabilities, and designing the frameworks that will guide the project’s digital and policy solutions. While Part 1 examined why WP2’s work matters and what the team has uncovered about vulnerabilities and governance gaps in Europe’s food systems, Part 2 turns to how these insights are being translated into practice. In this second instalment, our partners discuss the development of user-oriented use cases, how SecureFood’s system architecture brings all project tools together, the methods for evaluating success, and how WP2’s outputs shape the next phases of the project.

6. What are “use cases,” and can you give an example of how SecureFood might be applied in practice?

The use cases demonstrate the primary objectives of end-users and outline the steps necessary to achieve them using the SecureFood solutions. They serve as practical scenarios that show how users may carry out their tasks in a specified context with the SecureFood ecosystem. They are essentially blueprints of user-system interactions, detailing what stakeholders aim to achieve, how the system responds and the expected outcomes.

For example, one use case deals with resilient logistics. In a scenario where a logistics coordinator faces sudden border closures due to geopolitical tensions, the SecureFood transport optimization tool, enables users to simulate alternative routes and access detailed information such as turn-around-time, total emissions and cost estimates per multimodal transport leg.  This ensures that goods still reach their destination, reducing delays and losses.

Another use case focuses on food loss and waste. A retailer with surplus perishable stock can utilize the Waste-SEC tool to evaluate redistribution or processing options, thereby reducing waste, lowering costs, and enhancing sustainability.

Another practical illustration of a SecureFood use case, demonstrating how the system can be applied in real-world operations, involves a scenario in which a food processor detects pesticide residues exceeding legal limits during routine testing and reports the incident through the Information Exchange Platform. The user accesses the reporting page, completes the incident form and submits it. The Early Warning System then notifies relevant stakeholders, including authorities and suppliers. Upon receiving the alert, the supplier reviews the report and responds through the platform, committing to more frequent and rigorous pesticide testing. This workflow illustrates how SecureFood enables timely reporting, transparent communication among trusted users and coordinated action, thereby strengthening early warning and overall resilience within the food supply chain.

By making the objectives concrete and operational, use cases ensure that SecureFood solutions are not abstract models, but tools designed for real conditions. They also provide the foundation for the pilot testing in case studies, where solutions will be demonstrated and validated across different food sectors.

7. How will you measure whether SecureFood is successful?

The assessment of SecureFood’s performance will be carried out collaboratively by the end-users and technical partners, in line with the evaluation and validation strategy developed within WP6. Building on the outcomes of WP2, the evaluation and validation materials were developed to ensure effective integration between system-level analysis and user-centred perspectives. The definition of the user and system requirements served as the foundation for designing the end-user evaluation questionnaires and the technical evaluation matrix, accordingly, ensuring that all assessment solutions remain fully aligned with the project’s objectives and stakeholders’ needs.

Based on the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), defined under WP2, the validation activities will be conducted by the technical experts using the validation forms. These indicators provide measurable criteria for assessing how effectively the project achieves its objectives and delivers practical value to its users. The KPIs were designed to be specific, measurable, relevant and timely.

During the pilot activities the end-users will provide structured feedback following the pilot demonstrations, while technical partners will evaluate and validate the SecureFood performance. By combining qualitative user feedback with quantitative performance data, SecureFood’s success will be determined by its ability to meet KPI targets, deliver effective and user-oriented solutions and enhance the resilience and security of European food systems.

8. What is meant by the SecureFood “system architecture,” and why is it important?

The system architecture serves as the blueprint that brings all SecureFood tools together into a single, integrated ecosystem. It defines how data is collected, processed, analysed, and shared, ensuring that every solution (from early-warning systems and digital twins to waste management and observatories) works seamlessly with the others.

At its foundation, data comes from sensors, surveys, and open databases. These feed into analytics powered by artificial intelligence and predictive models. Additionally, user interfaces offer stakeholders accessible dashboards and mobile platforms. Governance and interoperability mechanisms ensure that all tools comply with EU standards and international guidelines, and that they can scale across Member States.

The architecture matters because food systems are interconnected. A disruption in one sector quickly spreads to others. Without integration, responses remain siloed and ineffective. The architecture solves this by creating coherence, making SecureFood more than just a set of digital tools. It is the structure that allows Europe to build a unified food security system, one that can adapt to shocks and scale over time.

9. How does WP2 feed into the later stages of the project?

WP2 serves as the launchpad for the entire SecureFood project. The mapping of vulnerabilities and governance gaps carried out under WP2 directly informs the scenario modelling and frameworks development in WP3, ensuring that the risks analysis is based on robust, evidence-based insights. The user requirements and use cases developed in WP2 guide the technical design work in WP4 and WP5, as well as the pilot scenarios where the SecureFood solutions will be demonstrated and tested, guaranteeing that the tools developed address stakeholder needs and reflect real-word conditions.

The high-level system architecture designed in WP2 also establishes the framework for the evaluation activities in WP6, where all solutions will be tested and validated though the four SecureFood case studies. In addition, WP2’s identification of policy gaps, such as the lack of food waste regulation, weak alignment between CAP and climate adaptation, and fragmented crisis coordination) provides the foundation for WP7, where policy recommendations will be drafted.

In short, WP2 provides the knowledge, the requirements and the design framework that ensure coherence across the project. It ensures that SecureFood evolves logically, from analysis to design, to testing, and to policy impact.

10. In your opinion, what is the most important takeaway from WP2 so far?

The key lesson from WP2 is that food security cannot be strengthened through isolated measures; it requires a coordinated, multi-actor approach that integrates governance, technology and inclusiveness. Europe’s food supply chain systems are not only exposed to climate and economic shocks but are also weakened by structural policy gaps, including the absence of critical infrastructure prioritization, the lack of binding regulations on food waste and fragmented governance across Member States.

At the same time, significant operational weaknesses persist. Few organizations have resilience plans, many lack crisis communication tools and digital adoption remains uneven, especially among smaller farms and enterprises. However, stakeholders showed strong alignment on priorities: ensuring food availability and access remain the top concern, followed by long-term sustainability. They also made it clear that climate action, crisis preparedness and investment in innovation are the most effective pathways toward resilience.

An important value of WP2 lies in the clarity it provides. Through its holistic background analysis, WP2 offers a comprehensive understanding of the current landscape, highlighting the gaps and needs that SecureFood must address. The detailed driver analysis shed light on the complexity and interdependencies within Europe’s food systems, ensuring that the solutions developed are aligned with broader community needs and remain up to date.

By developing a reference architecture, practical use cases and measurable performance indicators, WP2 ensures that SecureFood not only identifies problems but also actively builds solutions that can scale. The most important takeaway is that resilience stems from a system-wide approach, one that integrates policy reform, scientific analysis and practical tools into a unified framework to safeguard Europe’s food supply in an uncertain future.

WP2’s work demonstrates how analytical insights, stakeholder needs, and system design come together to form the backbone of SecureFood’s resilience solutions. By translating evidence into practical use cases, defining a unifying system architecture, and establishing clear criteria for evaluation, WP2 ensures that the project’s tools are grounded in real-world conditions and aligned with user expectations. These contributions set the stage for the upcoming pilot activities and policy work, where SecureFood’s solutions will be tested, refined, and prepared for long-term impact across Europe’s food systems.

The SecureFood project is funded by the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101136583. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

Follow us on:

LinkedIn: SecureFood
BlueSky: @securefoodeu.bsky.social
X: @SecureFoodEU