What happens when a warning becomes a real disruption to the food supply? In the second part of our interview with partner EXUS, we look at how SecureFood is helping stakeholders move from identifying a risk to understanding its consequences and exploring possible responses. We also look at how the different digital tools are being connected, so that information, warnings, incident reports and decision-support services can work together as part of one SecureFood ecosystem.

1. In Part 1 of our wp5 interview, we talked about identifying risks early. Once a disruption is recognised. how can SecureFood help people decide what to do next?

An early warning is valuable, but it is only the beginning. Knowing that something may go wrong does not automatically tell a producer, a logistics operator, or a public authority what the best response should be. Food supply chains are highly interconnected, so a disruption in one place can quickly affect transport, availability, prices or production elsewhere.

This is where the wider SecureFood digital ecosystem becomes important. The Early Warning System goes beyond simply flagging a potential risk: it allows users to monitor how risks evolve, assess their severity based on their own priorities, and access relevant information and recommendations that can support a timely response.

From there, the other SecureFood tools can support the next steps in different ways. The Information Exchange Platform allows operational information, incidents, stock conditions, and possible mitigation actions to be shared across the supply chain. If a disruption affects transport, RESILOG can help users explore alternative routes and transport options. Other SecureFood tools can also provide additional analysis or help users explore the potential consequences of a disruption.

The overall aim is not to automate decisions or replace human expertise. It is to connect early risk awareness with the information and decision-support services that stakeholders may need as a situation develops. In this way, SecureFood helps users move from recognising that a problem may be emerging, to understanding what it could mean and considering what they can do next.

2. You mention the RESILOG tool. What does it bring to the picture?

Transport is one of the areas where a disruption can become visible very quickly. A delayed port, an unavailable route, a capacity shortage, or a problem affecting a refrigerated shipment can force companies to reconsider how food reaches its destination. In these situations, simply knowing that there is a disruption is not enough, because stakeholders also need to understand what alternatives may still be available.

RESILOG addresses this logistics challenge by helping match transport needs with available transport services and by identifying suitable route alternatives. Depending on the request, these can include single or multimodal options and can take into account practical characteristics such as origin, destination, time window, cargo type, and available capacity. The tool can also provide information on the expected reliability of different transport legs, helping users compare alternatives not only in terms of whether a route exists, but also in terms of how resilient that option may be under disruptive conditions.

This is particularly relevant for food logistics, where different products have different requirements. RESILOG has been extended to support, for example, refrigerated and frozen cargo, as well as bulk transport needs. The purpose is therefore not simply to find a route from A to B, but to help logistics actors make more informed choices when normal transport arrangements are under pressure.

3. The project is also developing an Incident Exchange Platform, or IEP. Why is sharing information about incidents so important?

Because during a disruption, no single organisation has the full picture. A producer may know that expected production is lower than planned, a transport operator may know that a shipment has been delayed, and a processor or retailer may detect a problem with a specific batch. If these pieces of information remain within separate organisations, valuable time can be lost and the wider consequences may be harder to understand.

The IEP was developed to support structured information exchange between food-system actors and competent authorities. It allows users to share general information, report commodity stocks, and record incidents in a common environment. It also supports linked product records, so that where information is available, users can follow the full or parts of a product’s journey through the supply chain. If an incident affects a reported product, users can also provide mitigation reports with suggested actions such as rerouting a shipment, recalling a product, or alerting relevant partners.

This makes the IEP more than a reporting tool, instead providing a shared operational picture of what different actors are seeing and doing. Recent incidents and stock reports can also be viewed through the Observatory Dashboard, while relevant information from the IEP can be used by the Early Warning System as part of its risk assessment. In this way, information reported by one stakeholder can contribute to wider awareness across the SecureFood ecosystem.

4. How will RESILOG, the IEP, and the other SecureFood tools work together?

This is one of the most important aspects of Work Package 5 in SecureFood. The value does not come from having several separate digital tools; it comes from allowing each tool to contribute its specialised function to a broader decision-support workflow. The Observatory Dashboard acts as the main entry point, giving users an overview of relevant indicators, warnings and reports, while also providing access to the more specialised SecureFood applications.

Within that workflow, the Early Warning System helps identify and assess emerging risks, the IEP supports the exchange of information about incidents, stock conditions, and possible mitigation actions, and RESILOG helps users explore alternative transport options when logistics are disrupted.

For example, a user might first become aware of a potential problem through a warning, then look at related incident or stock information, and finally move to another tool to explore possible consequences or alternative transport options. The result is a more coherent journey from understanding what is happening, to assessing why it matters, to exploring what can be done next.

An important part of shaping this final ecosystem has also been the involvement of end users throughout the development process. The tools were demonstrated and tested through the SecureFood pilot activities, and the feedback collected helped refine the way information is presented, improve usability and navigation, and make the tools more relevant to the different food value chains. This was important because technical integration alone is not enough, as the tools also need to be understandable and useful in real operational situations.

5. Looking ahead, what would success for WP5 mean beyond the end of the project?

Success would mean that the SecureFood digital ecosystem remains useful beyond the lifetime of the project. Food systems will continue to face new risks, new data sources will become available, and stakeholders will continue to ask new questions. The platform has therefore been developed in a modular way, so that datasets, indicators, and specialised services can evolve without having to redesign the entire environment.

There is also a broader lesson from WP5: resilience is not created by a single tool or a single dataset. It comes from combining timely information with the ability to share what is happening, understand potential consequences, and identify realistic response options. The final Work Package 5 ecosystem thus brings together monitoring, early warning, information exchange, and resilient logistics in a way that supports this wider process.

Ultimately, success would mean that a producer, a logistics operator, a public authority or another stakeholder can recognise a problem earlier, understand how it connects to the rest of the food system, and make a better-informed decision. If the technology reduces the time spent searching for fragmented information and gives users more confidence when responding to disruption, then Work Package 5 will have achieved what it set out to do.

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.

SecureFood social media channels:

• • Website: https://secure-food.eu/
  • LinkedIn: SecureFood
  • Bluesky: @securefoodeu.bsky.social
  • X: SecureFoodEU
  • YouTube: @SecureFood