food supply essay

News from the Columbia Climate School

Future of Food: Exploring Challenges to Global Food Systems

Mahak Agrawal

Food is fuel to human existence, and in the evolution of human settlements, food— its production, availability, demand and supply — and food systems have steered the development, expansion and decline of human settlements.

In the 21st century, global food systems face dual challenges of increasing food demand while competing for resources — such as land, water, and energy — that affect food supply. In context of climate change and unpredictable shocks, such as a global pandemic, the need for resiliency in global food systems has become more pressing than ever.

With the globalization of food systems in 1950s, the global food production and associated trade has witnessed a sustained growth, and continues to be driven by advancements in transport and communications, reduction in trade barriers and agricultural tariffs. But, the effectiveness of global food system is undermined by two key challenges: waste and nutrition.

Food wastage is common across all stages of the food chain. Nearly 13.8% of food is lost in supply chains — from harvesting to transport to storage to processing. However, limited research and scientific understanding of price elasticity of food waste makes it tough to evaluate how food waste can be reduced with pricing strategy.

When food is wasted, so are the energy, land, and resources that were used to create it . Nearly 23% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions between 2007-2016 were derived from agriculture, forestry and other land uses. Apart from cultivation and livestock rearing, agriculture also adds emissions through land clearance for cultivation. Overfishing, soil erosion, and depletion and deterioration of aquifers threaten food security. At the same time, food production faces increasing risks from climate change — particularly droughts, increasing frequency of storms, and other extreme weather events.

The world has made significant progress in reducing hunger in the past 50 years. Yet there are nearly 800 million people without access to adequate food. Additionally, two billion people are affected by hidden hunger wherein people lack key micronutrients such as iron, zinc, vitamin A and iodine. Apart from nutrient deficiency, approximately two billion people are overweight and affected by chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases.

In essence, the global food system is inadequate in delivering the changing and increasing demands of the human population. The system requires an upgrade that takes into account the social-cultural interactions, changing diets, increasing wealth and wealth gap, finite resources, challenges of inequitable access, and the needs of the disadvantaged who spend the greatest proportion of their income on food. To feed the projected 10 billion people by 2050, it is essential to increase and stabilize global food trade and simultaneously align the food demand and supply chains across different geographies and at various scales of space and time.

Back in 1798, Thomas Robert Malthus, in his essay on the principle of population, concluded that “ the power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must come in some shape or other visit the human race .” Malthus projected that short-term gains in living standards would eventually be undermined as human population growth outstripped food production, thereby pushing back living standards towards subsistence.

Malthus’ projections were based on a model where population grew geometrically, while food production increased arithmetically. While Malthus emphasized the importance of land in population-food production dynamics, he understated the role of technology in augmenting total production and family planning in reducing fertility rates. Nonetheless, one cannot banish the Malthusian specter; food production and population are closely intertwined. This close relationship, however, is also affected by changing and improving diets in developing countries and biofuel production — factors that increase the global demand for food and feed.

Around the world, enough food is produced to feed the planet and provide 3,000 calories of nutritious food to each human being every day. In the story of global food systems once defined by starvation and death to now feeding the world, there have been a few ratchets — technologies and innovations that helped the human species transition from hunters and gatherers to shoppers in a supermarket . While some of these ratchets have helped improve and expand the global food systems, some create new opportunities for environmental damage.

To sum it up, the future of global food systems is strongly interlinked to the planning, management and development of sustainable, equitable and healthy food systems delivering food and nutrition security for all. A bundle of interventions and stimulus packages are needed at both the supply and demand ends to feed the world in the present as well as the future — sustainably, within the planetary boundaries defining a safe operating space for humanity. It requires an intersectoral policy analysis, multi-stakeholder engagement — involving farms, retailers, food processors, technology providers, financial institutions, government agencies, consumers — and interdisciplinary actions.

This blog post is based on an independent study — Future of Food: Examining the supply-demand chains feeding the world — led by Mahak Agrawal in fall 2020 under the guidance of Steven Cohen.

Mahak Agrawal is a medical candidate turned urban planner, exploring innovative, implementable, impactful solutions for pressing urban-regional challenges in her diverse works. Presently, she is studying environmental science and policy at Columbia University as a Shardashish Interschool Fellow and SIPA Environmental Fellow. In different capacities, Mahak has worked with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Town and Country Planning Organization-Government of India, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo. In 2019, she founded Spatial Perspectives as an initiative that uses the power of digital storytelling and open data to dismantle myths and faulty perspectives associated with spaces around the world. In her spare time, Mahak creates sustainable artwork to tell tales of environmental crisis.

Related Posts

Student Spotlight: Paying It Forward to Her Community

Student Spotlight: Prioritizing Environmental Justice and Urban Green Space

From ‘Asthma Alley’ to Green Spaces: A Field Trip with South Bronx Unite

Columbia Climate School has once again been selected as university partner for Climate Week NYC, an annual convening of climate leaders to drive the transition, speed up progress and champion change. Join us for events and follow our coverage .

I’m doing an assignment on food production, ad I just happened to come across this article! Wow, what a lucky find! I’m going to use it for some information in my paragraphs.

it’s more better to have new fruits and reduce human and other thing more thing that you can do.

Get the Columbia Climate School Newsletter

Threats to Global Food Supplies Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Surviving in the realm of the 21 st century global economy is not an easy task for SMEs. Developing in a new environment, they have to face a number of entirely new challenges. Since most of these problems are related to not only economic, but also social and ecological issues, a complex approach towards the new issues based on sustainability and a proper resource allocation must be developed.

Combined with the effects of the climate change and the corresponding issues with the crops, the increasing growth of the population is obviously one of the greatest concerns (Slaght 2012). Among the possible solutions, the idea of investing into economic growth in general should be mentioned.

The specified solution can be seen as quite valid in the context of smaller agricultural cities and states. However, the specified solution works well only for the regions that already thrive on their agriculture related business. For industrial states, the solution is much more complex and requires that sustainable product consumption must be adopted.

The rivalry for resources, as well as the scarceness thereof should also be listed among the key concerns (Godfrey et al. 2012). Producing more food from the same amount of land, therefore, remains the only possible solution. This solution, though, fails to capture the necessity to use exhaustive resources sustainably and, therefore, may lead to a complete drainage of exhaustive resources and the extinction of a range of species.

Needless to say, the productivity of crops and livestock, which has decreased over the past few decades impressively, is also the issue of a major concern (Godfray 2012a).

This is the point, at which sustainable consumption factors in. Sustainable consumption will supposedly help reduce the resources exhaustion rates and, therefore, contribute to the environmental and economic sustainability. Motivating the entire population of the Earth to be wise in their products consumption, however, is quite a challenge.

Food security is another major concern for the people of the 21 st century. As reports say, not only have the productivity rates of livestock dropped, but so has their number (Slaght 2012).

High concentration of diclopheniac and other hazardous substances in the air lead to impressive drops in the number of livestock and poultry. Increasing the potential of food yields is one of the possible solutions, yet it will be required to motivate producers and consumers of food for being responsible.

Finally, the changes in the environment have triggered a variety of plant mutations, which means that a range of agricultural processes, including the location of the plants, the fertilizing and the related processes must be redefined in accordance with the new properties of the mutated species.

Among the key solutions to the issue, the use of genetically modified crops as the means to adjust to the changing environment can be seen as the most productive. Indeed, with the introduction of the plants, which will be resistant to the climate changes occurring at present, the chances for increasing the quality and quality of crops will rise. It should be born in mind, though, that the effects of the consumption of such genetically modified crops are yet to be identified (Godfray 2012a.).

While most of the concerns regarding global food supplies revolve around the lack of food and the increasing growth of the population, the solution lies outside the agricultural area. By incorporating the ecological, economic and social perspectives of sustainability, the humankind will be able to avoid food crisis.

Reference List

Godfray, H C J 2012, ‘Closing the yield gap,’ in J Slaght and A Pallant (eds.), Reading and writing source book , Garnet Education, Bristol, UK, pp. 32–34.

Godfray, H C J 2012a, ‘Dealing with the situation,’ in J Slaght and A Pallant (eds.), Reading and writing source book , Garnet Education, Bristol, UK, pp. 35–39.

Godfrey, H C, Reddington, J R, Crute, I R, Haddad, L, Mulr, J F, Pretty, J, Robinsons, S, Thomas, S M & Toulmin, C 2012, ‘The challenge of feeding 5 billion people,’ in J Slaght and A Pallant (eds.), Reading and writing source book , Garnet Education, Bristol, UK, pp. 30–31.

Slaght, J 2012, ‘Diet and sustainability key to feeding the world: A food security report,’ in J Slaght and A Pallant (eds.), Reading and writing source book , Garnet Education, Bristol, UK, pp. 28–29.

• Hydroponics in Agriculture
• Gardners Creek Reserve Vegetation Structure
• Benefits and Concerns Regarding Genetically Modified Crops
• Genetically Modified Foods Negative Aspects
• The Effect of Genetically Modified Food on Society and Environment
• Hydroponics Application in Abu Dhabi
• The Farmers’ Market Analysis
• The Agricultural Policy in European Union and the United State of America
• Salmonella Enteritidis Infection in a Layer-Hen Breeding Farm
• Large-Scale Organic Farming and Food Supply
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 21). Threats to Global Food Supplies. https://ivypanda.com/essays/threats-to-global-food-supplies/

"Threats to Global Food Supplies." IvyPanda , 21 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/threats-to-global-food-supplies/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Threats to Global Food Supplies'. 21 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Threats to Global Food Supplies." June 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/threats-to-global-food-supplies/.

1. IvyPanda . "Threats to Global Food Supplies." June 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/threats-to-global-food-supplies/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Threats to Global Food Supplies." June 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/threats-to-global-food-supplies/.

14.4 The Globalization of Food

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe the impacts of globalization on food and food diversity.
• Define food deserts and food oases.

Globalization of Food

Most people, when they think about food, consider it a local, individual choice based on personal preferences and economic possibilities. But food is a global commodity marketed by transnational corporations, health institutes, advertising campaigns, and subtle and not-so-subtle cultural messaging through global media such as movies, television, and online video. Most often, what people choose to eat is based on underlying structures that determine availability and cost. While there are now hothouse businesses growing year-round fruits and vegetables, affordability often prohibits everyone from having access to fresh, ripe foods. Instead, mainstream grocery stores most often stock foods imported across long distances. Most fruits and vegetables sold in the grocery store were harvested unripe (and often tasteless) so that they would last the days and weeks between harvesting and purchase.

In her work on food and globalization, anthropologist and food studies specialist Lynne Phillips points out the “crooked pathways” (2006, 38) that food takes to become a global commodity. Increasingly affected by transnational corporations, food today is marketed for endlessly higher profits. Food no longer goes simply from producer to consumer. There are many turns along the way.

Food globalization has numerous effects on our daily lives:

• The food chains from producers to consumers are increasingly fragile as a small number of transnational corporations provide the basic foods that we eat daily. Failures in this food chain might come from contamination during production or breaks in the supply chain due to climate crises, tariffs, or trade negotiations between countries. Our dependence on global food chains makes the food supply to our communities more vulnerable to disruption and scarcity.
• Our food cultures are less diverse and tend to revolve around a limited number of mass-produced meats or grains. With the loss of diversity, there is an accompanying loss not only of food knowledge but also of nutrition.
• As foods become more globalized, we are increasingly dependent on food additives to enhance the appearance and taste of foods and to ensure their preservation during the long journey from factory farm to table. We are also increasingly exposed to steroids, antibiotics, and other medicines in the meat we eat. This exposure poses health risks to large numbers of people.
• As plants and animals are subjected to ever more sophisticated forms of genetic engineering, there is an increasing monopoly on basic food items, allowing transnational companies to affect regulatory controls on food safety. As corporate laboratories develop patented seeds (such as the Monsanto Corporation’s genetically engineered corn) that are super-producers and able to withstand challenges such as harsh climate conditions and disease, growers become dependent on the seed sold by these corporations. No longer able to save seed from year to year, growers have little choice but to pay whatever price these corporations choose to charge for their genetic material.
• Factory farming of all types, but especially large-scale animal farms, are major contributors to global warming. Not only do they produce large amounts of water and air pollution and contribute to worldwide deforestation, but as more and more forest is turned into pasture, the sheer number of livestock contributes significant levels of greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. Worldwide, livestock account for around 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (Quinton 2019).

Food has long been an international commodity, even during the 17th and 18th centuries, when traders sought spice and trade routes connecting Europe and Asia. Today, however, food has become transnational, with production sometimes spanning many different countries and fresh and processed foods moving long distances from their original harvest or production. Because these migrating foods must be harvested early or packaged with preservatives that we may not know or even be able to pronounce, there has been a parallel development in local food movements, organic food movements, and farm-to-table establishments as people see the dangers of food globalization. In the very popular The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (2006), American author and food journalist Michael Pollan advocates that people should know the identity of the foods they eat and should make every effort to eat locally sourced products. Shortly after the book’s publication, chef and author Jessica Prentice coined the term locavore to refer to those who eat locally and know the origins of their foods. In 2007, locavore was chosen as the New Oxford American Dictionary word of the year.

Food Deserts and Oases

Worldwide, access to nutritious and affordable foods is growing increasingly unequal. Areas with inadequate or unreliable access to nutritious foods are sometimes called food deserts . Food deserts present serious challenges to health and wellness in multiple ways and have been linked to eating disorders, obesity, and malnutrition. In Western nations, food deserts frequently correspond to other areas of social inequality, such as low-income and minority communities. Reduced availability of healthy and economical food often exacerbates many of the challenges these communities face.

As the world population continues to grow ( currently at around 7.9 billion people ), climate change accelerates, and food production becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of a few corporations, access to food will become increasingly critical to our survival. The story of progress embraced by Western society tells us that globalization and agricultural developments have stabilized and secured our food chains, but anthropological studies of foragers suggest otherwise. Agricultural production is tied to access to arable land, clean water, stable climate, and a reliable workforce. Periodically, crops (and animals) fail due to disease, drought, and even disruption from warfare and extreme weather, leading to scarcity and famine in many parts of the world. In addition, as families and communities produce less and less of their own food and become more and more dependent on intermediaries to gain access to food, their vulnerabilities increase. While there are many differences between state societies and foragers, there are valuable lessons we can learn from them. Foragers, facing the same unstable conditions that we all face worldwide, have a more varied and flexible diet and are able to adjust their needs seasonally based on local availability. They eat locally, and they adjust their needs to what is available.

There are also food oases , areas that have high access to supermarkets and fresh foods, and these are growing in number. Some are in urban or suburban areas, and some are in rural areas where sustainable farming supports a local community or restaurant. In Harrodsburg, Kentucky, the Trustees’ Table serves food from the nearby Pleasant Hill Shaker gardens. Visitors to the Shaker site, a historic cloistered religious community, learn about the Shaker seed industry, plant varieties, and sustainable gardening techniques at Shaker Farm, then walk down to the Trustees’ Table to have a farm-to-table meal. The seasonal menu features local Kentucky dishes that would have been common fare during the period of Shaker occupation (1805–1910), such as garlic potatoes, warm or cold salads, vegetable pot pies, and apple pie. By utilizing the foods raised in the nearby gardens, the Trustees’ Table serves as a legacy restaurant that helps preserve and sustain Shaker research and farming on-site.

In Richmond, Virginia, an organization called Real Local RVA was founded in 2014 as a grassroots local food movement to support businesses and residential areas in the downtown area of the city. It expresses its core value as “collaboration over competition.” The group sponsors monthly meetings, local farm tours, and community events highlighting businesses and prominent figures in the local food movement. The participants are all farmers, independent grocers, or local restaurants that source local ingredients and products as part of their mission. Besides advocating for small farms and independent businesses, Real Local RVA also sponsors workshops and education on sustainable farming, does joint marketing and “storytelling” about its partnership and the values of local food networks, and provide a recognizable brand to identify participating members for the wider urban community.

Although local food movements are increasingly popular, most still primarily operate in more affluent areas. As we develop more of these healthy initiatives, we also must expand the zones in which they operate, especially in cities, to include all of our neighbors and neighborhoods. Food and sociality go hand in hand. As Michael Pollan writes, “The shared meal elevates eating from a mechanical process of fueling the body to a ritual of family and community, from mere animal biology to an act of culture” (2008, 192).

The study of food in anthropology is important for many reasons. Food reveals cultural identities and physical vulnerabilities, and it helps build social networks and mark important life events. How often eating is prescribed, what foods are considered appropriate, who cooks, who serves whom, and what foods are most and least valued all vary across cultures. As anthropologists seek to understand human cultures, food is often a centerpiece ingredient in knowing who we are.

Mini-Fieldwork Activity

Food memories.

Food plays an important role in long-term memory, as it is linked to smell, taste, and texture and often is a central feature of social functions, whether they be family dinners or holiday feasts. In this project, you will interview two individuals who are likely to have different food memories than you; they may be older, they may be living in a different part of the country (or world), or they may have lived part of their lives in a specific environment (rural or urban) that is different from yours. Ask each person to share with you stories about special holiday meals prepared and served as part of their family life, whether as a child or an adult. What foods do they most identify with specific holidays? How did they prepare and consume those foods? Were there specific gender roles during the preparation and holiday meals? After collecting and writing up what you have learned, what conclusions can you make about the role of food in human social and cultural life?

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Jennifer Hasty, David G. Lewis, Marjorie M. Snipes
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Anthropology
• Publication date: Feb 23, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/14-4-the-globalization-of-food

© Feb 22, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

What You Need to Know About Food Security and Climate Change

#ShowYourStripes graphic by Professor Ed Hawkins (University of Reading) https://showyourstripes.info/

What is the state of global food security today, and what is the role of climate change?

The number of people suffering acute food insecurity increased from 135 million in 2019 to 345 million in 82 countries by June 2022, as the war in Ukraine, supply chain disruptions, and the continued economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic pushed food prices to all-time highs.

Global food insecurity had already been rising, due in large part to climate phenomena. Global warming is influencing weather patterns, causing heat waves, heavy rainfall, and droughts. Rising food commodity prices in 2021 were a major factor in pushing approximately 30 million additional people in low-income countries toward food insecurity.

At the same time, the way that food is often produced today is a big part of the problem. It’s recently been estimated that the global food system is responsible for about a third of greenhouse gas emissions—second only to the energy sector; it is the number one source of methane and biodiversity loss.

It’s recently been estimated that the global food system is responsible for about a third of greenhouse gas emissions—second only to the energy sector; it is the number one source of methane and biodiversity loss.

Who is most affected by climate impacts on food security?

About 80% of the global population most at risk from crop failures and hunger from climate change are in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, where farming families are disproportionally poor and vulnerable. A  severe drought caused by an El Nino weather pattern or climate change can push millions more people into poverty. This is true even in places like the Philippines and Vietnam, which have relatively high incomes, but where farmers often live at the edge of poverty and food price increases have an outsized impact on poor urban consumers.

How might climate change affect farming and food security in the future?

Up to a certain point, rising temperatures and CO2 can be beneficial for crops. But rising temperatures also accelerate evapotranspiration from plants and soils, and there must also be enough water for crops to thrive.  

For areas of the world that are already water-constrained, climate change will increasingly cause adverse impacts on agricultural production through diminishing water supplies, increases in extreme events like floods and severe storms, heat stress, and increased prevalence of pests and diseases.

Above a certain point of warming -- and particularly above an increase of 2 degrees Celsius in average global temperatures – it becomes increasingly more difficult to adapt and increasingly more expensive. In countries where temperatures are already extremely high, such as the Sahel belt of Africa or South Asia, rising temperatures could have a more immediate effect on crops such as wheat that are less heat tolerant.

Without solutions, falling crop yields, especially in the world's most food-insecure regions, will push more people into poverty – an estimated 43 million people in Africa alone could fall below the poverty line by 2030 as a result.

How can agriculture adapt to climate change?

It’s possible to reduce emissions and become more resilient, but doing so often requires major social, economic, and technological change. There are a few key strategies:

Use water more efficiently and effectively, combined with policies to manage demand . Building more irrigation infrastructure may not be a solution if future water supply proves to be inadequate to supply the irrigation systems—which our research has shown may indeed be the case for some countries. Other options include better management of water demand as well as the use of advanced water accounting systems and technologies to assess the amount of water available, including soil moisture sensors and satellite evapotranspiration measurements . Such measures can facilitate techniques such as alternate wetting and drying of rice paddies, which saves water and reduces methane emissions at the same time.

Switch to less-thirsty crops . For example, rice farmers could switch to crops that require less water such as maize or legumes. Doing so would also help reduce methane emissions, because rice is a major source of agri-food emissions. But a culture that has been growing and consuming rice for thousands of years may not so easily switch to another less thirsty, less emitting crop.

Improve soil health . This is hugely important. Increasing organic carbon in soil helps it better retain water and allows plants to access water more readily, increasing resilience to drought. It also provides more nutrients without requiring as much chemical fertilizer -- which is a major source of emissions. Farmers can restore carbon that has been lost by not tilling soil and by using cover crops, particularly with large roots, in the rotation cycle rather than leaving fields fallow. Such nature-based solutions to environmental challenges could deliver 37% of climate change mitigation necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. But getting farmers to adopt these practices will take time, awareness-raising and training. In places where farm plots are small and farmers can’t afford to let fields lie fallow or even rotate with leguminous crops, improving soil health could pose a challenge.  

What is the World Bank doing to help countries build food security in the face of climate change?

The World Bank Group’s Climate Change Action Plan (2021-2025) is stepping up support for climate-smart agriculture across the agriculture and food value chains and via policy and technological interventions to enhance productivity, improve resilience, and reduce GHG emissions. The Bank also helps countries tackle food loss and waste and manage flood and drought risks. For example, in Niger, a Bank-supported project aims to benefit 500,000 farmers and pastoralists in 44 communes through the distribution of improved, drought-tolerant seeds, more efficient irrigation, and expanded use of forestry for farming and conservation agriculture techniques. To date, the project has helped 336,518 farmers more sustainably manage their land and brought 79,938 hectares under more sustainable farming practices.

Website:  Climate Explainer Series

Website:  Climate Stories: How Countries and Communities Are Shaping A Sustainable Future

Website:  Food Security Update

Website:  World Bank - Climate Change

Website:  World Bank - Agriculture and Food

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 19 August 2020

The future of food from the sea

• Christopher Costello   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9646-7806 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Ling Cao 3   na1 ,
• Stefan Gelcich   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5976-9311 4 , 5   na1 ,
• Miguel Á. Cisneros-Mata   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5525-5498 6 ,
• Christopher M. Free 1 , 2 ,
• Halley E. Froehlich 7 , 8 ,
• Christopher D. Golden   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0358-4625 9 , 10 ,
• Gakushi Ishimura 11 , 12 ,
• Jason Maier 1 ,
• Ilan Macadam-Somer 1 , 2 ,
• Tracey Mangin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6111-0914 1 , 2 ,
• Michael C. Melnychuk 13 ,
• Masanori Miyahara 14 ,
• Carryn L. de Moor 15 ,
• Rosamond Naylor 16 , 17 ,
• Linda Nøstbakken 18 ,
• Elena Ojea 19 ,
• Erin O’Reilly 1 , 2 ,
• Ana M. Parma 20 ,
• Andrew J. Plantinga 1 , 2 ,
• Shakuntala H. Thilsted 21 &
• Jane Lubchenco   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3540-5879 22  

Nature volume  588 ,  pages 95–100 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

106k Accesses

427 Citations

974 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Ecosystem services
• Environmental sciences

Matters Arising to this article was published on 09 March 2022

Global food demand is rising, and serious questions remain about whether supply can increase sustainably 1 . Land-based expansion is possible but may exacerbate climate change and biodiversity loss, and compromise the delivery of other ecosystem services 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 . As food from the sea represents only 17% of the current production of edible meat, we ask how much food we can expect the ocean to sustainably produce by 2050. Here we examine the main food-producing sectors in the ocean—wild fisheries, finfish mariculture and bivalve mariculture—to estimate ‘sustainable supply curves’ that account for ecological, economic, regulatory and technological constraints. We overlay these supply curves with demand scenarios to estimate future seafood production. We find that under our estimated demand shifts and supply scenarios (which account for policy reform and technology improvements), edible food from the sea could increase by 21–44 million tonnes by 2050, a 36–74% increase compared to current yields. This represents 12–25% of the estimated increase in all meat needed to feed 9.8 billion people by 2050. Increases in all three sectors are likely, but are most pronounced for mariculture. Whether these production potentials are realized sustainably will depend on factors such as policy reforms, technological innovation and the extent of future shifts in demand.

Similar content being viewed by others

Expanding ocean food production under climate change

Reducing global land-use pressures with seaweed farming

Farming fish in the sea will not nourish the world

Human population growth, rising incomes and preference shifts will considerably increase global demand for nutritious food in the coming decades. Malnutrition and hunger still plague many countries 1 , 7 , and projections of population and income by 2050 suggest a future need for more than 500 megatonnes (Mt) of meat per year for human consumption (Supplementary Information section  1.1.6 ). Scaling up the production of land-derived food crops is challenging, because of declining yield rates and competition for scarce land and water resources 2 . Land-derived seafood (freshwater aquaculture and inland capture fisheries; we use seafood to denote any aquatic food resource, and food from the sea for marine resources specifically) has an important role in food security and global supply, but its expansion is also constrained. Similar to other land-based production, the expansion of land-based aquaculture has resulted in substantial environmental externalities that affect water, soil, biodiversity and climate, and which compromise the ability of the environment to produce food 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 . Despite the importance of terrestrial aquaculture in seafood production (Supplementary Fig. 3 ), many countries—notably China, the largest inland-aquaculture producer—have restricted the use of land and public waters for this purpose, which constrains expansion 8 . Although inland capture fisheries are important for food security, their contribution to total global seafood production is limited (Supplementary Table 1 ) and expansion is hampered by ecosystem constraints. Thus, to meet future needs (and recognizing that land-based sources of fish and other foods are also part of the solution), we ask whether the sustainable production of food from the sea has an important role in future supply.

Food from the sea is produced from wild fisheries and species farmed in the ocean (mariculture), and currently accounts for 17% of the global production of edible meat 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 (Supplementary Information section  1.1 , Supplementary Tables 1 – 3 ). In addition to protein, food from the sea contains bioavailable micronutrients and essential fatty acids that are not easily found in land-based foods, and is thus uniquely poised to contribute to global food and nutrition security 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 .

Widely publicized reports about climate change, overfishing, pollution and unsustainable mariculture give the impression that sustainably increasing the supply of food from the sea is impossible. On the other hand, unsustainable practices, regulatory barriers, perverse incentives and other constraints may be limiting seafood production, and shifts in policies and practices could support both food provisioning and conservation goals 17 , 18 . In this study, we investigate the potential of expanding the economically and environmentally sustainable production of food from the sea for meeting global food demand in 2050. We do so by estimating the extent to which food from the sea could plausibly increase under a range of scenarios, including demand scenarios under which land-based fish act as market substitutes.

The future contribution of food from the sea to global food supply will depend on a range of ecological, economic, policy and technological factors. Estimates based solely on ecological capacity are useful, but do not capture the responses of producers to incentives and do not account for changes in demand, input costs or technology 19 , 20 . To account for these realities, we construct global supply curves of food from the sea that explicitly account for economic feasibility and feed constraints. We first derive the conceptual pathways through which food could be increased in wild fisheries and in mariculture sectors. We then empirically derive the magnitudes of these pathways to estimate the sustainable supply of food from each seafood sector at any given price 21 . Finally, we match these supply curves with future demand scenarios to estimate the likely future production of sustainable seafood at the global level.

Sustainably increasing food from the sea

We describe four main pathways by which food supply from the ocean could increase: (1) improving the management of wild fisheries; (2) implementing policy reforms of mariculture; (3) advancing feed technologies for fed mariculture; and (4) shifting demand, which affects the quantity supplied from all three production sectors.

Although mariculture production has grown steadily over the past 60 years (Fig. 1 ) and provides an important contribution to food security 22 , the vast majority (over 80%) of edible meat from the sea comes from wild fisheries 9 (Fig. 1b ). Over the past 30 years, supply from this wild food source has stabilized globally despite growing demand worldwide, which has raised concerns about our ability to sustainably increase production. Of nearly 400 fish stocks around the world that have been monitored since the 1970s by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), approximately one third are currently not fished within sustainable limits 1 . Indeed, overfishing occurs often in poorly managed (‘open access’) fisheries. This is disproportionately true in regions with food and nutrition security concerns 1 . In open-access fisheries, fishing pressure increases as the price rises: this can result in a ‘backward-bending’ supply curve 23 , 24 (the OA curve in Fig. 2a ), in which higher prices result in the depletion of fish stocks and reduced productivity—and thus reduced equilibrium food provision.

Data are from ref. 9 . a , b , Harvests (live-weight production) ( a ) are converted to food equivalents (edible production) 10 ( b ). In b , there is also an assumption that 18% of the annual landings of marine wild fisheries are directed towards non-food purposes 47 .

a , Wild fisheries. Curves represent poorly managed (open access) fisheries (OA); management reform for all fisheries (MSY); and economically rational management reform (R). b , Mariculture. Curves represent weak regulations that allow for ecologically unsustainable production (M1); overly restrictive policies (M2); policies that allow for sustainable expansion (M3); and a reduced dependence on limited feed ingredients for fed-mariculture production (M4).

Fishery management allows overexploited stocks to rebuild, which can increase long-term food production from wild fisheries 25 , 26 . We present two hypothetical pathways by which wild fisheries could adopt improved management (Fig. 2a ). First, independent of economic conditions, governments can impose reforms in fishery management. The resulting production in 2050 from this pathway—assuming that fisheries are managed for maximum sustainable yield (MSY)—is represented by the MSY curve in Fig. 2a , and is independent of price. The second pathway explicitly recognizes that wild fisheries are expensive to monitor (for example, via stock assessments) and manage (for example, via quotas)—management reforms are adopted only by fisheries for which future profits outweigh the associated costs of improved management. When management entities respond to economic incentives, the number of fisheries for which the benefits of improved management outweigh the costs increases as demand (and thus price) increases. This economically rational management endogenously determines which fisheries are well-managed, and thus how much food production they deliver, resulting in supply curve designated R in Fig. 2a .

Although the production of wild fisheries is approaching its ecological limits, current mariculture production is far below its ecological limits and could be increased through policy reforms, technological advancements and increased demand 19 , 27 . We present explanations for why food production from mariculture is currently limited, and describe how the relaxation of these constraints gives rise to distinct pathways for expansion (Fig. 2b ). The first pathway recognizes that ineffective policies have limited the supply 28 , 29 . Lax regulations in some regions have resulted in poor environmental stewardship, disease and even collapse, which have compromised the viability of food production in the long run (curve M1 in Fig. 2b ). In other regions, regulations are overly restrictive, convoluted and poorly defined 30 , 31 , and thus limit production (curve M2 in Fig. 2b ). In both cases, improved policies and implementation can increase food production by preventing and ending environmentally damaging mariculture practices (the shift from M1 to M3 in Fig. 2b ) and allowing for environmentally sustainable expansion (the shift from M2 to M3 in Fig. 2b ).

The second pathway to sustainably increase mariculture production is through further technological advances in finfish feeds. Currently, most mariculture production (75%) requires some feed input (such as fishmeal and fish oil) that is largely derived from wild forage fisheries 1 . If fed mariculture continues using fishmeal and fish oil at the current rate, its growth will be constrained by the ecological limits of these wild fisheries 32 . Alternative feed ingredients—including terrestrial plant- or animal-based proteins, seafood processing waste, microbial ingredients, insects, algae and genetically modified plants—are rapidly being developed and are increasingly used in mariculture feeds 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 . These innovations could decouple fed mariculture from wild fisheries (but may refocus pressure on terrestrial ecosystems) and could catalyse considerable expansion in some regions 37 , 38 . This has already begun for many fed species, such as Atlantic salmon—for which fish-based ingredient use has been reduced from 90% in the 1990s to just 25% at present 39 . A reduced reliance on fishmeal and fish oil is expected to shift the supply curve of fed mariculture to the right (curve M4 in Fig. 2b ).

The final pathway is a shift in demand (aggregated across all global fish consumers), which affects all three production sectors. When the sustainable supply curve is upward-sloping, an increase in demand (rightward shift; for example, from rising population, income or preferences) increases food production.

Estimated sustainable supply curves

We estimate supply curves of food from the sea in 2050 for the three largest food sectors in the ocean: wild fisheries, finfish mariculture and bivalve mariculture. We construct global supply curves for marine wild fisheries using projected future production for 4,702 fisheries under alternative management scenarios (Fig. 3a ). We model future production with a bioeconomic model based on ref. 17 , which tracks annual biomass, harvest and profit, and accounts for costs associated with extraction and management (see Methods and Supplementary Information for details). Managing all fisheries to maximize food production (MSY) would result in 57.4 Mt of food in 2050 (derived from 89.3 Mt of total harvest, hereafter noted as live-weight equivalent), representing a 16% increase compared to the current food production (Fig. 3a ). Under a scenario of economically rational reform (in which the management approach and exploitation rate of fisheries depend on profitability), the price influences production (Fig. 3a ). At current mean global prices, this scenario would result in 51.3 Mt of food (77.4 Mt live-weight equivalent)—a 4% increase compared to current food production. These management-induced shifts in supply are ultimately limited by the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. If current fishing pressure is maintained for each fish stock when profitable ( F  current, referring to the current fishing mortality rate), food production from wild fisheries is lower for most prices than under the two reform scenarios (owing to fishing too intensively on some stocks, and too conservatively on others) 25 : this supply curve is not backward-bending, as it reflects constant fishing pressures.

a – c , Points represent current production and average price in each sector: marine wild fisheries ( a ), finfish mariculture ( b ) and bivalve mariculture ( c ). In a , supply curves for annual steady-state edible production from wild fisheries are shown under three different management scenarios: production in 2050 under current fishing effort assuming that fishing only occurs in fisheries that are profitable ( F current); the economically rational supply curve aimed at maximizing profitability (rational reform); and a reform policy aimed at maximizing food production, regardless of the economic considerations (MSY). In b , supply curves for finfish (fed) mariculture show: future steady-state production under current feed assumptions and policy reform (policy reform); sustainable production assuming policy reform and a 50% reduction in fishmeal and fish oil feed requirements (technological innovation); and sustainable production assuming policy reform and a 95% reduction in fishmeal and fish oil feed requirements (technological innovation (ambitious)). In all cases, feed ingredients are from the economically rational reform of wild fisheries.

We estimate the production potential of mariculture at a resolution of 0.217° around the world for finfish and bivalves. Ecological conditions—sea surface temperature, dissolved oxygen and primary productivity—determine the suitability of each pixel for mariculture production. We build on previous models 19 by including economic considerations (including the capital costs of vessels and equipment, and the operating costs of wages, fuel, feed, insurance and maintenance; Supplementary Tables 5 – 7 ) to determine whether farming an ecologically suitable area is economically profitable at any given price. Summing economically viable production for each sector at the global level for different prices produces two mariculture supply curves. This approach assumes that the most profitable sites will be developed first, but does not explicitly include challenges such as the cost of public regulation and the delineation of property rights. Farm design is based on best practice for sustainable production, and we therefore interpret the results as an environmentally sustainable supply. We examine a range of assumptions regarding production costs, and explore different technological assumptions with respect to the species type farmed for finfish mariculture (Methods, Supplementary Information section  1.3 , Supplementary Table 9 ). The supply curve for finfish mariculture differs substantially among future feed-technology scenarios, although all of these scenarios foretell a substantial increase in annual food supply in the future compared to the current production of the sector (6.8 Mt of food) (Fig. 3b ). However, the policy reform scenario—which assumes mariculture policies are neither too restrictive nor lax (curve M3 in Fig. 2b ), but that fishmeal and fish oil requirements match present-day conditions—produces a modest additional 1.4 Mt of food at current prices. In this scenario, marine-based feed inputs limit mariculture expansion even as the price increases considerably.

Two feed-innovation scenarios—representing policy reform plus a 50% or 95% reduction in fishmeal and fish oil requirements, which we refer to as ‘technological innovation’ and ‘technological innovation (ambitious)’, respectively—can substantially shift the supply curve.

At current prices, future supply under these scenarios is predicted to increase substantially to 17.2 Mt and 174.5 Mt of food for technological innovation and technological innovation (ambitious) scenarios, respectively (Fig. 3b ). Bivalve mariculture is constrained by current policy but not by feed limitations, and is poised to expand substantially under policy reform scenarios. At current prices, economically rational production could lead to an increase from 2.9 Mt to 80.5 Mt of food (Fig. 3c ). Even if our model underestimates costs by 50%, policy reforms would increase the production potential of both fed and unfed mariculture at current prices. For fed mariculture, this remains true even when evaluating mariculture species with different feed demands (Atlantic salmon, milkfish and barramundi).

Estimates of future food from the sea

Our supply curves suggest that all three sectors of ocean food production are capable of sustainably producing much more food than they do at present. The quantity of seafood demanded will also respond to price. We present three demand-curve estimates, shown in Fig. 4 (Methods, Supplementary Information). The intersections of future demand and sustainable supply curves provide an estimate of future food production from the sea. Because it is a substantial contributor to fish supply and—in some instances—acts as a market substitute for seafood, we also account for land-based aquatic food production (from freshwater aquaculture and inland capture fisheries; Supplementary Information section  1.4 , Supplementary Tables 10 – 12 ). Estimates of future production from this fourth sector (‘inland fisheries’) are shown side-by-side in Supplementary Fig. 3 and Supplementary Tables 13 , 14 (for quantities of food) and in Supplementary Tables 15 , 16 (for live-weight equivalents), and are discussed with the results on food from the sea.

a – c , Supply and demand curves for marine wild fisheries ( a ), finfish mariculture ( b ) and bivalve mariculture ( c ) . In each panel, the solid black line is the supply curve from Fig. 3 : for wild fisheries, the rational reform scenario is shown, and for finfish mariculture the technological innovation (ambitious) scenario is shown. Future demand refers to estimated demand in 2050; extreme demand represents a doubling of the estimated demand in 2050. The intersections of demand and sustainable supply curve (indicated with crosses) provide an estimate of the future food from the sea. Points represent current production and average price in each sector.

Even under current demand curves (green curves in Fig. 4 ), the economically rational reform of marine wild fisheries and sustainable mariculture policies (stocking densities consistent with European organic standards 40 ) under the technological innovation (ambitious) scenario could result in a combined total of 62 Mt of food from the sea per year, 5% more than the current levels (59 Mt). But we know that demand will increase as incomes rise and populations expand. Under the ‘future demand’ scenario (purple curves in Fig. 4 ), total food from the sea is projected to increase to 80 Mt. If demand shifts even more (as represented by our ‘extreme demand’ scenario; red curves in Fig. 4 ), the intersection of supply and demand is expected to increase to 103 Mt of food. Using the approach used by the FAO to estimate future needs, the world will require an additional 177 Mt of meat by 2050 (Supplementary Information section  1.1.6 )—our results suggest that additional food from the sea alone could plausibly contribute 12–25% of this need. Another possibility we consider is that future consumers will not distinguish between fish-producing sectors, such that all sources of fish (including land-based) would be substitutes for each other. Adopting that assumption alters the supply-and-demand equilibrium, and implies that the increase among all sources of fish (sea and land) relative to the present could be between 90–212 Mt of food; under this scenario, expansion of aquatic foods alone could possibly exceed the 177-Mt benchmark.

Our results also suggest that the future composition of food from the sea will differ substantially from the present (Fig. 5 ). Although wild fisheries dominate edible marine production at present, we project that by 2050 up to 44% of edible marine production could come from mariculture (rising to 76% when all fish are substitutes and land-based fish are included under extreme demand scenarios (Supplementary Fig. 3 , Supplementary Table 14 )), although all sectors could increase production. Although even more substantial increases are technically possible (for example, fed mariculture alone is capable of generating at least the benchmark 177 Mt of additional meat), actually realizing these gains would require enormous shifts in demand.

a , Composition of current (initial production) food from the sea. b – d , Composition of future (2050) food from the sea under scenarios of current ( b ), future ( c ) and extreme ( d ) demand. The sustainable supply curves assumed for these predictions are: rational reform for wild fisheries; technological innovation (ambitious) for finfish mariculture; and policy reform for bivalve mariculture, as shown in Fig. 3 . The total production of food from the sea per year is shown in the centre in each panel.

Our models rely on a number of assumptions and parameters that are uncertain, and which may interact in nonlinear ways. To test the robustness of our main conclusions, we examine a range of scenarios and run an extensive sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Information). Across a wide range of cost, technology and demand scenarios, we find that sustainably harvested food from the sea: (1) has the potential to increase considerably in the coming decades; (2) will change in composition, with a greater future share coming from mariculture; and (3), in aggregate, could have an outsized role in meeting future meat demands around the world (Supplementary Figs. 1 – 4 , Supplementary Tables 13 – 17 ).

Conclusions

Global food demand is rising, and expanding land-based production is fraught with environmental and health concerns. Because seafood is nutritionally diverse and avoids or lessens many of the environmental burdens of terrestrial food production, it is uniquely positioned to contribute to both food provision and future global food and nutrition security. Our estimated sustainable supply curves of food from the sea suggest substantial possibilities for future expansion in both wild fisheries and mariculture. The potential for increased global production from wild fisheries hinges on maintaining fish populations near their most-productive levels. For underutilized stocks, this will require expanding existing markets. For overfished stocks, this will require adopting or improving management practices that prevent overfishing and allow depleted stocks to rebuild. Effective management practices commonly involve setting and enforcing science-based limits on catch or fishing effort, but appropriate interventions will depend on the biological, socioeconomic, cultural and governance contexts of individual fisheries. Effective management will be further challenged by climate change, species composition changes in marine ecosystems and illegal fishing. Directing resources away from subsidies that enhance fishing capacity towards building institutional and technical capacity for fisheries research, management and enforcement will help to meet these challenges. Increased mariculture production will require management practices and policies that allow for environmentally sustainable expansion, while balancing the associated trade-offs to the greatest extent possible; this principle underpins the entire analysis. We find that substantial expansion is realistic, given the costs of production and the likely future increase in demand.

We have identified a variety of ways that sustainable supply curves can shift outward. These shifts interact with future demand to determine the plausible future equilibrium quantity of food produced from the sea. We find that although supply could increase to more than six times the current level (primarily via expanded mariculture), the demand shift required to engage this level of supply is unlikely. Under more realistic demand scenarios and appropriate reforms of the supply, we find that food from the sea could increase in all three sectors (wild fisheries, finfish mariculture and bivalve mariculture) to a total of 80–103 Mt of food in 2050 versus 59 Mt at present (in live-weight equivalents, 159–227 Mt compared to 102 Mt at present). When combined with projected inland production, this represents an 18–44% per decade increase in live-weight production, which is somewhat higher than the 14% increase that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the FAO project for total fish production during the next decade 41 . Under some scenarios, future production could represent a disproportionate fraction of the estimated total increase in global food production that will be required to feed 9.8 billion people by 2050. Substantial growth in mariculture will rely partly on public perceptions. Although there is some evidence of a negative public perception of aquaculture, it is highly variable by region and by context 42 , 43 , and certifications and the provision of other information can help to alleviate concerns and expand demand 44 .

These global projections will not have uniform implications around the world. For example, improved policies that shift the supply curve outward will decrease prices, but income-induced demand shifts will increase prices. Both effects increase production, but have vastly different consequences for low-income consumers. Bivalves may contribute substantially to food security by providing relatively low-cost and thus accessible food, because they have a high production potential at low costs compared to finfish production (Fig. 3 ). If all seafood is perfectly substitutable, bivalves could contribute 43% and 34% of future aquatic food under future and extreme demand scenarios, respectively (Supplementary Fig. 3 )—which suggests potential large increases in production, provided demand is high enough. Trade also has an important role in distributing seafood from high-production to low-production regions, and in overcoming regional mismatches in price. The rate of international trade of seafood products has increased over past decades, and 27% of seafood products were traded in 2016 1 , although major economic disruptions—such as the COVID-19 pandemic—can jointly reduce both supply and demand of traded seafood. On the other hand, trade may become increasingly relied upon as climate change alters regional productivity.

Substantially expanding the production of food from the sea will bring co-benefits and trade-offs, and will require national and interregional governance, as well as local capacity to ensure equity and sustainability. The improved management of wild fisheries can not only increase fish biomass, but also brings the co-benefit of improved livelihoods of fishers. However, there will be some short-term costs as overfished stocks rebuild to levels that support greater food provision. As mariculture expands, interactions with wild fisheries and other ecosystem services (via spatial overlaps, pollution and so on) must be constantly addressed. Ambitious technical innovation (that is, the substitution of marine ingredients with terrestrial-sourced proteins) can help to decouple fed mariculture from wild fisheries, but will probably refocus some pressure on terrestrial ecosystems. Climate change will further challenge food security. Estimates suggest that active adaptation to climate-induced changes will be crucial in both wild fisheries 45 and mariculture 46 . Climate-adaptive management of wild fisheries and decisions regarding mariculture production (for example, the type of feed used, species produced and farm siting) could improve food provision from the sea under conditions of climate change.

We have shown that the sea can be a much larger contributor to sustainable food production than is currently the case, and that this comes about by implementing a range of plausible and actionable mechanisms. The price mechanism—when it motivates improved fishery management and the sustainable expansion of mariculture into new areas—arises from change in demand, and acts on its own without any explicit intervention. The feed technology mechanism is driven by incentives to innovate, and thus acquire intellectual property rights to new technologies. When intellectual property is not ensured, or to achieve other social goals, there may be a role for public subsidies or other investments in these technologies. The policy mechanism pervades all three production sectors, and could make—or break—the ability of food from the sea to sustainably, equitably and efficiently expand in the future.

Sample size was a census of all available fisheries data. No experiments were conducted.

Here we describe our methods in brief: detailed methods, sensitivity analyses and robustness checks are provided in the Supplementary Information.

Sustainable supply curves

The supply of food from marine wild fisheries is jointly determined by ecosystem constraints, fishery policy and prevailing economic conditions. Estimated supply curves show the projected 2050 production quantity at a given price, incorporating harvesting costs, management costs and fishery-specific engagement decisions for individual fisheries. Current management of the 4,702 marine fisheries included in our study range from open access to strong target-based management 17 . Using data from the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database 48 , the FAO 9 and refs. 17 , 49 , 50 , we calculate three supply curves that represent summed global production from established wild fisheries for a range of prices (Fig. 3 ). The first ( F current) assumes that all fisheries in the world maintain their current fishing mortality rate if profitable (that is, fisheries for which current fishing pressure would result in steady-state profit < 0 are not fished). The second (rational reform) assumes that fisheries are reformed to maximize long-term food production (that is, adopt F MSY , the fishing mortality rate that results in maximum sustainable yield (MSY)), but only at prices for which reform results in greater future profit than that of current management. Importantly, adopting reform is associated with greater management costs for fisheries that are currently weakly managed. If a fishery is managed, its production changes, which alters the supply curve. Production occurs in a given fishery only if future profit > 0. The third supply curve (MSY) assumes that all fisheries are managed to maximize sustainable yield, regardless of the cost or benefit of doing so (Fig. 3 ). Supply curves under alternative cost assumptions yield results similar to those presented in Fig. 3 (Supplementary Fig. 1 ).

To construct supply curves for finfish and bivalve mariculture (which account for 83% of current production of edible animal products from mariculture 11 ), we use a previously published 19 global suitability dataset at a resolution of 0.217°. Ecological conditions (that is, surface temperature, dissolved oxygen and primary productivity (bivalves only)) determine the suitability of different areas for production. We build on ref. 19 by including economic considerations (for example, the capital costs of vessels and equipment and operating costs of wages, fuel, feed, insurance and maintenance; see Supplementary Information section  1.3 , Supplementary Tables 5 – 7 for more details) to determine whether an ecologically suitable area is also economically profitable to farm at a given price. For any given price, we estimate the potential production and profitability of each pixel, and determine the global set of economically viable pixels for mariculture production of finfish and bivalves; we allow for production of both kinds of mariculture in the same pixel, provided the pixel is economically suitable for both. Summing production in this manner at the global level provides a point on the supply curve, at which farm design (Supplementary Table 4 ) is based on best practices for sustainable production (that is, stocking densities consistent with European organic standards 40 ). We then derive supply curves under different assumptions regarding mariculture policy and technological innovation, which affect the parameters of the supply model.

We estimate supply curves for finfish mariculture under three scenarios, all of which assume that wild fisheries are rationally managed; this pins down the potential supply of wild fish that can be used as feed in mariculture (Supplementary Table 8 ). We display three supply curves for fed mariculture (Fig. 3 ). The policy reforms scenario represents a future in which regulatory barriers are removed, unsustainable production is prevented and mariculture continues to use feed ingredients from wild fisheries at the current rate (that is, feed conversion ratios remain static, fishmeal and fish oil inclusion rates in feed remain the same, and feed availability depends on production from wild fisheries). This scenario represents the economically rational sustainable production given the current feed context. Two technological innovation scenarios represent policy reform plus a 50% and (a more ambitious) 95% reduction in fishmeal and fish oil requirements for fed mariculture production. The supply curve for bivalve (unfed) mariculture (Fig. 3 ) reflects production in the set of pixels for which unfed mariculture can be profitably produced at any given price.

Supply meets demand

To estimate how food from the sea might help to meet future increases in demand at the global level, we require estimates of the current and future demand curves of food from the sea. The intersection of future demand curves and our estimated sustainable supply curves provides an estimate of food from the sea in 2050. As a benchmark, we assume that the three sectors are independent, but that increases in demand are parametric, so each of the three sectors experiences a proportional increase in future demand—for example, as global population and per capita incomes rise (see Supplementary Information for detailed results, assuming all aquatic foods are perfect substitutes). We assume a straightforward structure in which each sector faces an isoelastic demand (for example, see ref. 51 , with own price elasticity = −0.382; ref. 52 ; and sector-specific income elasticities estimated from ref. 51 ). Using these elasticities, the coefficient on current-demand curve in each sector (current, in Fig. 4 ) is tuned so the demand curve passes through the current price of seafood in that sector (averaged across fish from that sector) given the current global gross domestic product and population. Effectively, this approach assumes that all fish within a sector are substitutes. We do not explicitly estimate a current supply curve because it is not required to perform our calculations and—for reasons stated in the Article—we do not necessarily regard the current supply as sustainable.

To project future demand at the global level, we develop two scenarios that we term future and extreme (Fig. 4 ). The future demand represents the demand curve for food from the sea in each sector given exogenous estimates of future population size and global income in 2050 53 , 54 , which are entered as parameters in the demand curve (Supplementary Information). The extreme scenario doubles the quantity demanded at any given price in 2050, relative to the future scenario; we regard demand shifts larger than this amount as unlikely.

The Supplementary Information contains an extensive set of robustness checks and sensitivity analyses. One important alternative to the model in the Article is to allow all fish to be perfect substitutes in the future. Under that model, land-based fish production (aquaculture and capture) must be accounted for because those fish act as substitutes for food from the sea. Although this tends to increase the final estimates of food production from the sea, our qualitative findings are robust to this assumption and the Supplementary Information reports how this changes the model results described in the Article.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this paper.

Data availability

All datasets analysed during the current study are available in a Dryad repository at https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.25349/D96G6H .

Code availability

All code used to conduct the study are available in a GitHub repository: https://github.com/emlab-ucsb/future_food_from_sea .

FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (FAO, 2018).

Olsen, Y. Resources for fish feed in future mariculture. Aquacult. Environ. Interact. 1 , 187–200 (2011).

Google Scholar  

Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478 , 337–342 (2011).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309 , 570–574 (2005).

Mbow, C. et al. in Climate Change and Land (IPCC Special Report) (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 5 (IPCC, 2019).

Amundson, R. et al. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science 348 , 1261071 (2015).

Article   Google Scholar  

UNDP. Sustainable Development Goal 2, Sustainable Development Goals.   https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg2 (accessed 27 July 2020).

De Silva, S. & Davy, F. Success Stories in Asian Aquaculture (Springer 2010).

FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. FishStatJ – Software for Fishery and Aquaculture Statistical Time Series.   http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en (2019).

Edwards, P., Zhang, W., Belton, B. & Little, D. C. Misunderstandings, myths and mantras in aquaculture: its contribution to world food supplies has been systematically over reported. Mar. Policy 106 , 103547 (2019).

FAO. FAOSTAT . http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (2020).

Nijdam, D., Rood, T. & Westhoek, H. The price of protein: review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy 37 , 760–770 (2012).

Kawarazuka, N. & Béné, C. Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to household nutritional security: an overview. Food Secur . 2 , 343–357 (2010).

Allison, E. H. Aquaculture, Fisheries, Poverty and Food Security (Working Paper 2011–65) (WorldFish Center, 2011).

Golden, C. D. et al. Fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature 534 , 317–320 (2016).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Hicks, C. C. et al. Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature 574 , 95–98 (2019).

Costello, C. et al. Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , 5125–5129 (2016).

Ye, Y. & Gutierrez, N. L. Ending fishery overexploitation by expanding from local successes to globalized solutions. Nat. Ecol. Evol . 1 , 0179 (2017).

Gentry, R. R. et al. Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nat. Ecol. Evol . 1 , 1317–1324 (2017).

Troell, M., Jonell, M. & Henriksson, P. J. G. Ocean space for seafood. Nat. Ecol. Evol . 1 , 1224–1225 (2017).

Costello, C. et al. The Future of Food from the Sea http://oceanpanel.org/future-food-sea  (World Resources Institute, 2019).

Belton, B., Bush, S. R. & Little, D. C. Not just for the wealthy: rethinking farmed fish consumption in the Global South. Glob. Food Secur . 16 , 85–92 (2018).

Copes, P. The backward-bending supply curve of the fishing industry. Scott. J. Polit. Econ . 17 , 69–77 (1970).

Nielsen, M. Trade liberalisation, resource sustainability and welfare: the case of East Baltic cod. Ecol. Econ . 58 , 650–664 (2006).

Hilborn, R. & Costello, C. The potential for blue growth in marine fish yield, profit and abundance of fish in the ocean. Mar. Policy 87 , 350–355 (2018).

Hilborn, R. et al. Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 2218–2224 (2020).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Joffre, O. M., Klerkx, L., Dickson, M. & Verdegem, M. How is innovation in aquaculture conceptualized and managed? A systematic literature review and reflection framework to inform analysis and action. Aquaculture 470 , 129–148 (2017).

Abate, T. G., Nielsen, R. & Tveterås, R. Stringency of environmental regulation and aquaculture growth: a cross-country analysis. Aquac. Econ. Manag . 20 , 201–221 (2016).

Gentry, R. R., Ruff, E. O. & Lester, S. E. Temporal patterns of adoption of mariculture innovation globally. Nat. Sustain . 2 , 949–956 (2019).

The Sea Grant Law Center. Overcoming Impediments to Shellfish Aquaculture Through Legal Research and Outreach: Case Studies (NOAA, 2019).

Davies, I. P. et al. Governance of marine aquaculture: pitfalls, potential, and pathways forward. Mar. Policy 104 , 29–36 (2019).

Froehlich, H. E., Jacobsen, N. S., Essington, T. E., Clavelle, T. & Halpern, B. S. Avoiding the ecological limits of forage fish for fed aquaculture. Nat. Sustain . 1 , 298–303 (2018).

Klinger, D. & Naylor, R. Searching for solutions in aquaculture: charting a sustainable course. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour . 37 , 247–276 (2012).

Cao, L. et al. China’s aquaculture and the world’s wild fisheries. Science 347 , 133–135 (2015).

Little, D. C., Newton, R. W. & Beveridge, M. C. M. Aquaculture: a rapidly growing and significant source of sustainable food? Status, transitions and potential. Proc. Nutr. Soc . 75 , 274–286 (2016).

Shah, M. R. et al. Microalgae in aquafeeds for a sustainable aquaculture industry. J. Appl. Phycol . 30 , 197–213 (2018).

Troell, M. et al. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 13257–13263 (2014).

Froehlich, H. E., Runge, C. A., Gentry, R. R., Gaines, S. D. & Halpern, B. S. Comparative terrestrial feed and land use of an aquaculture-dominant world. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 5295–5300 (2018).

Aas, T. S., Ytrestøyl, T. & Åsgård, T. Utilization of feed resources in the production of Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) in Norway: An update for 2016. Aquacult. Rep . 15 , 100216 (2019).

European Union. Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Offic. J. EU L 250 , 1–84 (2008).

OECD & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019–2028 (OECD, 2019).

Froehlich, H. E., Gentry, R. R., Rust, M. B., Grimm, D. & Halpern, B. S. Public perceptions of aquaculture: evaluating spatiotemporal patterns of sentiment around the world. PLoS ONE 12 , e0169281 (2017).

Bacher, K. Perceptions and Misconceptions of Aquaculture: A Global Overview (GLOBEFISH, 2015).

Bronnmann, J. & Asche, F. Sustainable seafood from aquaculture and wild fisheries: insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. Ecol. Econ . 142 , 113–119 (2017).

Gaines, S. D. et al. Improved fisheries management could offset many negative effects of climate change. Sci. Adv . 4 , eaao1378 (2018).

Froehlich, H. E., Gentry, R. R. & Halpern, B. S. Global change in marine aquaculture production potential under climate change. Nat. Ecol. Evol . 2 , 1745–1750 (2018).

Cashion, T., Tyedmers, P. & Parker, R. W. R. Global reduction fisheries and their products in the context of sustainable limits. Fish Fish . 18 , 1026–1037 (2017).

Ricard, D., Minto, C., Jensen, O. P. & Baum, J. K. Examining the knowledge base and status of commercially exploited marine species with the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database. Fish Fish . 13 , 380–398 (2012).

Melnychuk, M. C., Clavelle, T., Owashi, B. & Strauss, K. Reconstruction of global ex-vessel prices of fished species. ICES J. Mar. Sci . 74 , 121–133 (2017).

Mangin, T. et al. Are fishery management upgrades worth the cost? PLoS ONE 13 , e0204258 (2018).

Cai, J. & Leung, P. Short-term Projection of Global Fish Demand and Supply Gaps (FAO, 2017).

Muhammad, A., Seale, J. L. Jr, Meade, B. & Regmi, A. International Evidence on Food Consumption Patterns: An Update Using 2005 International Comparison Program Data.  Technical Bulletin No. TB-1929 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2011).

PwC. The Long View: How will the global economic order change by 2050? https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/world-2050/assets/pwc-the-world-in-2050-full-report-feb-2017.pdf (2017).

United Nations. World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100 https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is adapted from a Blue Paper commissioned by the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy entitled ‘The Future of Food from the Sea’. We thank the high-level panel for a sustainable ocean economy, N. Frost, K. Teleki, T. Clavelle and A. Merkl for inspiration and comments. We thank SYSTEMIQ (C.C., C.M.F., T.M., E.O’R. and A.J.P.), World Resources Institute (C.C., C.M.F., T.M., E.O’R. and A.J.P.), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (L.C. and S.G.), the European Research Council (679812) (E.O.), ANID PIA/BASAL 0002 (S.G.) and GAIN-Xunta de Galicia (E.O.) for financial support.

Author information

These authors jointly supervised this work: Christopher Costello, Ling Cao, Stefan Gelcich

Authors and Affiliations

Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Christopher Costello, Christopher M. Free, Jason Maier, Ilan Macadam-Somer, Tracey Mangin, Erin O’Reilly & Andrew J. Plantinga

Environmental Market Solutions Lab, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Christopher Costello, Christopher M. Free, Ilan Macadam-Somer, Tracey Mangin, Erin O’Reilly & Andrew J. Plantinga

School of Oceanography, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Stefan Gelcich

Center for the Study of Multiple-Drivers on Marine Socio-Ecological Systems, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Instituto Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura, Guaymas, Mexico

Miguel Á. Cisneros-Mata

Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Halley E. Froehlich

Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Department of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Christopher D. Golden

Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Faculty of Agriculture, Iwate University, Morioka, Japan

Gakushi Ishimura

National Research Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan

School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Michael C. Melnychuk

Fisheries Research and Education Agency of Japan, Yokohama, Japan

Masanori Miyahara

Marine Resource Assessment and Management (MARAM) Group, Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa

Carryn L. de Moor

Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

• Rosamond Naylor

Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Department of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway

Linda Nøstbakken

Future Oceans Lab, CIM-University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain

Center for the Study of Marine Systems, National Scientific and Technical Research Council of Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Ana M. Parma

WorldFish, Bayan Lepas, Malaysia

Shakuntala H. Thilsted

Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

Jane Lubchenco

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

C.C., L.C., S.G. and A.J.P. conceived the study. C.C., L.C., C.M.F., H.E.F., S.G., T.M. and A.J.P. contributed to the study design. C.C., L.C., C.M.F., J.M., T.M., R.N. and A.J.P. contributed to the acquisition and analysis of data. C.C., L.C., M.Á.C.-M., C.M.F., H.E.F., S.G., T.M., R.N., A.J.P. and S.H.T. contributed to the interpretation of results. C.C., L.C., M.A.C., H.E.F., S.G., C.D.G., G.I., I.M.-S., J.M., T.M., M.C.M., M.M., C.L.d.M., R.N., L.N., E.O., E.O’R., A.M.P, A.J.P., J.L. and S.H.T. wrote and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Christopher Costello , Ling Cao or Stefan Gelcich .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

C.C. serves as trustee for Environmental Defense Fund and Global Fishing Watch. H.E.F. serves as a scientific advisor on the Technical Advisory Group for the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. R.N. serves on the scientific advisory board for Oceana and Nature Food . C.L.d.M. has undertaken work funded by government agencies, fishery industry organizations and regional fisheries management organizations. C.D.G. serves on the scientific advisory board for Oceana.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Dale Squires and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Tables 1-17, Supplementary Figs 1-4 and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Costello, C., Cao, L., Gelcich, S. et al. The future of food from the sea. Nature 588 , 95–100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y

Download citation

Received : 19 December 2019

Accepted : 29 June 2020

Published : 19 August 2020

Issue Date : 03 December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Dietary antarctic krill improves antioxidant capacity, immunity and reduces lipid accumulation, insights from physiological and transcriptomic analysis of plectropomus leopardus.

• Mengya Wang
• Shaoxuan Wu

BMC Genomics (2024)

The global distribution and climate resilience of marine heterotrophic prokaryotes

• Ryan F. Heneghan
• Jacinta Holloway-Brown
• Eric D. Galbraith

Nature Communications (2024)

Satellite mapping reveals extensive industrial activity at sea

• Fernando Paolo
• David Kroodsma
• Patrick Halpin

Nature (2024)

Anticipating trade-offs and promoting synergies between small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to improve social, economic, and ecological outcomes

• Elizabeth J. Mansfield
• Fiorenza Micheli

npj Ocean Sustainability (2024)

Marine aquaculture can deliver 40% lower carbon footprints than freshwater aquaculture based on feed, energy and biogeochemical cycles

• Minghao Zhuang

Nature Food (2024)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Search the United Nations

• UNAI Principles
• Map of UNAI Members
• List of UNAI Members
• Special Series
• Select UN Events
• UNAI Events
• SDGs Best Practices
• SDGs Guidelines
• SDGs Training Sessions
• SDGs Workshops
• The Why Join Guide
• Tools for Researchers
• Bulletin Board
• Submit the 2024 Activity Report
• Become a Millennium Fellow
• UNAI Voices
• Sustainable Development Goals
• UN Agencies
• UN Information Centres
• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Stories Archive
• UN Publications
• Internships
• X (Former Twitter)

The World's Food Supply is Made Insecure by Climate Change

This is the first article of the UNAI 'Food Security and Climate Change' series. Schools and departments which specialise in climate change and food security at UNAI member institutions were asked to submit articles highlighting research and work encompassing the newly adopted Sustainable Development Goals and to showcase the importance of sustainable agriculture to mitigate the dangerous effects of climate change, whilst ensuring present and future food security. Please note that the articles are for discussion, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations.

In the next 30 years, food supply and food security will be severely threatened if little or no action is taken to address climate change and the food system's vulnerability to climate change. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the extent of climate change impacts on individual regions will vary over time, and different societal and environmental systems will have varied abilities to mitigate or adapt to change. Negative effects of climate change include the continued rise of global temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, an increased frequency of droughts and heatwaves, sea-level rise, melting of sea ice and a higher risk of more intense natural disasters.

The IPCC states, Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.

Future projections in global yield trends of both maize and wheat indicate a significant decline; these declines can be attributed to the negative impacts of climate change arising from increasing greenhouse gas emissions. In many parts of less developed countries in Africa and Central America, maize is a key component in the daily diet and plays a key role in achieving food security in those areas, with nearly 950 million metric tonnes consumed annually. Wheat also plays a central role in diets.  With nearly 700 million metric tonnes consumed annually on a global basis, wheat alone provides over 20 per cent of the world's calories and protein. To ensure food security for the predicted population of 9.6 billion people by 2050 the FAO predicts that food production must increase by at least 60 per cent to meet the demand, and a report from Tilman et al. in 2011 projected that food production must increase by 100 per cent to meet the projected food demand. With yields declining, and demand for both the amount and quality of food increasing (due to increased disposable income amongst developing countries) intervention is a must.

The negative effects from climate change will cause changes in global weather patterns and cycles that will be both unpredictable and long term. It is foreseen that the fishing industry will also experience significant disruption, with salt water and fresh water fishing at risk. This situation implies a great urgency, as the children who are born in today's world will not have reached graduation age before these problems will have materialized, unless immediate action is taken. We have already seen climate effects on yields in a number of areas, including Europe and southern Asia, since the last IPCC Assessment Report in 2007. Unfortunately, it is the populations in many tropical areas and the southern parts of Europe and North Africa who will pay a great price. These population groups - especially the poor - are the most vulnerable in terms of failing harvests, higher prices and malnutrition in the near future. This multi-faceted crisis will only increase pressure in other areas of the world to increase production, whilst basic living conditions in deprived areas further decrease.  

We have to learn how we can adapt the food supply system at a global and regional level in a relatively short amount of time, whilst at the same time, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and our impact upon the environment.

Countries in the Northern Hemisphere, especially Scandinavian countries, are currently experiencing some positive effects from climate change in terms of crop yields. This is due partly to the CO 2 fertilisation effect where increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere aid plant growth, but mostly because low levels of warming extend the growth duration of mainly perennial crops such as grass pastures, but reduce the duration of the staple annual crops, such as wheat, maize and rice. However, these effects are not permanent and will not balance the global negative effects of climate change. There is no doubt in the evidence and conclusions of more than 1,000 global and regional studies, that a temperature rise of 1 to 2 degrees Celsius will generally mean a loss in yield of a number of crop varieties, both in the tropical and the temperate regions. An increase of 3 to 4 degrees later on in this century will have very severe consequences for global food security and supply. However, it is remarkable to see that the rice plant is coping a lot better with the changes than other crops.

We need to combat the negative impacts of climate change on food security in many different ways: by decreasing greenhouse emissions to reduce the climate change that will occur; improving the resilience of the global food system to climate change; and developing early warning systems that can warn us in due time when nature is about to 'run wild'.

Professor John Roy Porter is a professor of agriculture and climate change at the University of Greenwich, England. He is an internationally known scientist in crop ecology and physiology, biological modelling, and agricultural ecology who has received international awards for his research and teaching. He is a coordinating lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for the topic of food production and food security, an elected member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the EU Joint Programme Initiative on Agriculture, and Food Security and Climate and Chief Editor of the European Journal of Agronomy.

References:

Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture . PNAS , 108 (50) pp. 20260-64.

UNITED NATIONS

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

TAKE ACTION

• Lazy Person's Guide
• UN Volunteers
• Youth Engagement
• Past Contests and Scholarships
• Request a Speaker
• Visit the UN

NEWS AND MEDIA

• UN News Centre
• Press Releases
• Office of the Spokesperson
• UN in Action
• UN Social Media
• The Essential UN

ISSUES AND CAMPAIGNS

• SDG of the Month
• Observances and Commemorations
• Celebrity Advocates for the UN

Essay on the Impact of the Pandemic on the Food Supply Chain

INTRODUCTION

Background information

As of March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) proclaimed the Covid-19 pandemic to be a worldwide pandemic and developed a global strategy for preparation and reaction following that strategy (WHO, 2020a; Vasovagal, 2020). The group has provided information on the outbreak’s origins and probable propagation. COVID-19 is the fifth influenza pandemic since the outbreak of other pandemics, such as the 1918 (H1N1) and 2009 Pandemic flu (H1N1), which killed approximately 50 million people in each of those years (Liu et al., 2020). According to the WHO, the outbreak is a public health emergency that affects all sectors of the economy. As a result, everyone should join the fight against the pandemic, regardless of the industry they are located in. Following the pandemic, the highest cases have been recorded in America, Europe, and Southeast Asia, with Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa recording lower points. The global number of confirmed cases has reached 17,528,223 per million people and 687.64 per million people for linked deaths (WHO 2020b).

The first cases of COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan City’s in China, 2019, according to the reports from (WHO 2020b). The world health organization (WHO) declared the virus a world pandemic with International Concern on January 30, 2020, after assessing the severity of health dangers posed by the virus’s high intensity (Barman, Das, and De,2021). A few months after the virus first appeared on the scene, people began to experience significant worry and anxiety, which hurt their mental health.

According to the research of Chitrakar, Zhang, and Bhandari (2021), the world health organization (WHO) labelled this virus as a COVID-19 Pandemic on March 11, 2020, after seeing the effect of unanticipated and uncontrolled infection in more than 200,000 cases in 114 countries worldwide (Chin,2020). There has been a constant increase in the number of deaths worldwide to date, with approximately 7.9 million people have tested positive, and the number of infections with COVID-19 continues to climb unabated. As the number of cases rises, so does the demand on the healthcare supply chain for personal protective equipment (PPE), masks, and medications (Chin,2020).

The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic brought global harm to the food supply chain sectors across the globe. The disruptions in the food supply chain have been disrupted in the past due to natural disasters such as the Gujarat earthquake (2001) and the Japan tsunami (2011), which affected the natural ecosystems in the past. In the recent past, we have had a global tragedy due to Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, which has affected human lives and economic activity such as manufacturing and logistics (Ali et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly influenced the automotive, tourist, aviation, energy, construction, telecommunications, food, and healthcare sectors (Aday,2020).

Due to the current pandemic, governments are working hard to restrict the spread of COVID-19 in their communities. Delays in vaccine development combined with a lack of a clinical cure worsen the problem even further. When a severe infection is present, oxygen therapy is the primary treatment strategy. Treatment is symptomatic while this happens. In respiratory failure, mechanical ventilation may be required to deliver oxygen therapy, and hemodynamic support is critical in treating septic shock (Derossi et al., 2021). With such limited facilities available, meeting the demand becomes tough—especially when a global lockdown occurs.

In March and April of 2020, the lockdown was implemented in several countries to reduce the number of deaths and illnesses, and nearly 2.6 billion people were quarantined at home in the United States and other European countries (Barman, Das, and De,2021). When a lockdown occurs, workers are scarce, and logistical problems lead to supply-side shocks in the food chain. It also results in a sudden increase in the demand for food supply chains on the supply side, owing to panic buying and stockpiling by consumers (Ali et al., 2021). It’s important in the short term to inhibit pathogen growth and restrict local transmission rather than community expansion, and that’s what a lockdown resembles. Therefore, the development of the lockdowns has gravely harmed the economy and is bringing down global commerce. Supply networks and logistics connect many industries, although there were few operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Iyengar et al. (2020), the global supply chain is expected to be affected in the next three years since the outbreak has still re-occurring waves. As a result, a resilient supply chain is required, and new approaches to supply chain recovery. Managing supply chain disturbances and recovering from them requires the logistics system to be in place. Food and medical equipment will be vital during a pandemic to cushion the workers under the supply management.

The current pandemic has led to the truck-drone synchronized delivery system, projected to distribute medicine and other necessities in places with geographical inaccessibility issues (Jepsen et al., 2020)). A public distribution system simulation model is being developed by considering the three alternative scenarios under pandemic circumstances. To meet the rapid increase in demand for medical services, food products, and essentials, a phase-wise plan is also considered for reopening supply chains and manufacturing activities connecting diverse sectors.

Food supply chain

The occurrence of the COVID-19 has caused vulnerabilities in the current global supply chain leading to revenue losses, unmet demand, and supply unfulfilled (Höhler and Lansink, 2021). This is a lesson in adapting supply chain resilience and robustness to support a contracting economy. The current crisis must be thoroughly analysed, and the necessary measures must be emphasized in this regard. As a result, experts are examining the economic and human-life effects of the COVID-19 outbreak and the lockdown that followed, drawing on research from reputable organizations like the International Monetary Fund.

During the COVID-19 epidemic, all food supply chains have been significantly impacted, including fresh produce, fruits, bakery items, perishable foods, and food grains (Lowe, Nadhanael, and Roth,2021). When the country is in such a state of emergency, it’s impossible to anticipate food shortages. Due to the spread of the virus, there are regional, national, and international food contamination issues that he considered a form of food terrorism. People cannot order food from specific areas due to the fear of contamination, which may expose the consumers to contracting an infection (Khan et al., 2021).

To ensure food security for the global community at a reasonable price, there is a need to have an effective public distribution system. Wheat and rice are the two most essential staples across the globe and transport 40–42 million tons of grain per year. Deficit states relied on surplus states heavily to meet their needs. Farmers utilize the grain markets and state warehouses, and fair-price shops make up the whole supply chain network of food (Luckstead, Nayga Jr, and Snell, 2021).

Foodstuffs are supplied through fair pricing stores to those in need (customers) in rural and urban regions. During a lockdown, the global distribution systems network faces several transportation-related issues (trucks and local transportation), such as a lack of loading and unloading workers and the closure of offices. The impact of lockdown can be seen in the number of trucks that have reduced transportation operations (medium and long haulage) (Min, Zhang, and Li,2020). Uncertainties about vehicle availability and labour scarcity have made it difficult to achieve the intended goal of the supply chain. Due to a shifting scenario in warehouse and logistics activities, the examination of diverted routes has become a serious concern.

Disconnection between supply and demand

Because of the COVID-19 epidemic, markets in a wide range of sectors worldwide are scrambling to develop imaginative and innovative solutions to meet society’s pressing requirements. Because of the nature of the health crisis, most countries adopted social distancing measures and lockdowns, resulting in a collapse of market dynamics due to a major market failure: the gap between supply and demand. Vulnerabilities in food systems caused by the effects of Covid-19 can be found all over the world. For example, in Latin America and the Caribbean, the main vulnerabilities derive from reliance on the foreign market, low development, and the threat of food poverty if supply networks are disrupted (Chin,2020).

Closures of schools and other public places changed the nature of demand and consumer preferences significantly. First, the lockout paralyzed the food industry, causing a surge in demand for non-perishable goods like cereal and canned goods and an increase in e-commerce purchases. Fruits, vegetables, and other perishable goods saw a decline in trade; on the other side, mass unemployment also led to a drop in demand, which exacerbated the plight of the poorest people. With lower purchasing power and dietary changes brought on by poverty, the people tend to eat lower-priced food and are less nutritious. Countries in developing regions, such as Latin America, India, and Africa, have been particularly vulnerable to Covid-19.

According to the observations of Cavallo, Alberto (2018), moving goods has become more difficult due to transportation and supply chain restrictions brought on by policies that separate people from their goods or services. Small-scale farmers, for instance, those in China, are having difficulty selling their wares and procuring inputs, resulting in decreased income and decreased productivity. In local retail and wholesale, such as farmers’ markets and supermarkets, logistical issues can interrupt the supply chain, causing it to fall apart. Because of the dangers of generating large crowds of customers and workers during the Covid-19 pandemic, the delivery of commodities to these locations is vulnerable.

Low liquidity among small farmers may make it more difficult to access markets and cause a production drain. Low cash flow and trouble obtaining financing can make it difficult for farmers to carry out their basic activities, which generates issues with purchasing the production inputs they need. For rural farmers in developing nations, the pre-existing indebtedness situation makes financing their operations increasingly difficult. In February 2019, agricultural producers were estimated to be owed on average $600 billion in developing nations.

According to Mollenkopf, Ozanne, and Stolze (2020), credit security is a financing tool for farmers in developing nations. When farmers cannot pay a loan with liquid funds, their rural property guarantees the obligation owed. However, in times of crisis, this is not a reliable source of funding. More importantly, for farmers who lost their land, utilizing the rural property as a guarantee of payment might have a significant negative impact on their bottom line, potentially leading to a loss of rural property and all the negative repercussions that go along with it. Including deferring financial commitments, safety nets such as cash transfers for newly unemployed people, and enough credit supply

The Food Agriculture Organisation (FAO) notes that governments’ primary economic reaction has infused liquidity into the economy to support demand. On the flip side, the developed nations are using quantitative easing to hold down interest rates. As a result, several governments have implemented emergency credit expansion measures. Emerging and developing economies will have a difficult time dealing with a cash infusion (.(Hashem et al., 2020).

Dependence on the international food market

Food supply networks are particularly susceptible to changes in the international market’s dynamics during pandemics when prices fluctuate dramatically. Fuel price reductions have played a significant role for the nations that are net exporters of energy. Ultimately, this means that countries that are net energy exporters will see a reduction in their revenues due to the dramatic decline in fuel costs, reflecting the economic recession brought on by the epidemic. There is also a loss in nations that are net exporters of energy to import food, especially when these countries simultaneously have a high level of net imports of agricultural food goods. The decrease in fuel prices, on the other hand, benefits countries that are net energy importers.

Nations, particularly in the Asia regions, are vulnerable to the ups and downs of the exchange rate. The region’s currencies devalued significantly in the year 2020. Some exporting countries may benefit from this, while importers may suffer as a result of the devaluation. Countries that are both net importers of agricultural food and net exporters of energy have had the most volatility in their currency rates. Those countries already hit by lower petroleum prices will find it more difficult to import food if the currency depreciates. According to Thilmany et al. (2021), these Asian countries prioritize the supply of local markets in times of crisis; therefore, the epidemic has had a significant impact on food availability across the entire supply chain.

Problem statement

The new crown pneumonia pandemic has affected most food supply chain businesses, including production, processing, distribution, and consumption, because many countries worldwide have adopted National blockades, border closures, and social distancing measures have been implemented. Due to the reduction in demand from the closure of markets and storage facilities, farmers and producers destroyed their products. Millions of people worldwide have lost their jobs and are on the edge of extreme poverty (Tasnim, 2020)

Every company globally, including the food industry, keeps tabs on how the COVID-19 outbreak has affected its activities. The food industry is unique in that it creates items that are essential to human survival regularly. Closing one facility will leave some employees hungry, but processors and distributors are also at risk if they get sick (Mor et al., 2020). In addition, the food industry has a significant economic impact. However, the food industry faces distinct challenges in a pandemic compared to other sectors that aren’t as essential to daily life as the airline industry (Nagurney,2021). Others work tirelessly to keep up with retail demand, while others are struggling with declining revenues. Some processing plants were forced to make hard decisions during the current COVID-19 outbreak, including the temporary closure of several enterprises. It’s a reality that this pandemic showed just how intertwined diverse businesses and corporations are worldwide.

Keeping employees healthy and having a sufficient workforce are two major concerns shared by all food companies: people who refuse to work because they’re ill or afraid of contracting the coronavirus. It is essential to safeguard and sustain individuals who work in the food supply chain during this crisis. For this reason, the distribution network must be preserved to meet customer demands. To ensure the free movement of food and commodities along the supply chain, all parties must cooperate. Assuring consumer trust is crucial for food safety and security. During a crisis, customers’ access to food is directly linked to their food security rather than their food availability (Rizou et al., 2020).

For the most part, customers don’t care how their food is produced. Considerable infrastructure and human resources are required to ensure a safe and reliable global food supply, emphasizing food safety concerns during a worldwide epidemic. To meet rising consumer demand, many stores temporarily ran out of essential supplies during this recent global crisis, which increased the selling of these items. However, despite this record level of demand, the food supply chain has remained solid due to numerous supply chain actors such as farmers, producers, distributors, and merchants replenishing the shelves (Shwekeh et al., 2021).

Despite the massive scope of the outbreak, there is no evidence that COVID-19 has been spread by food. Because of this, according to Singh et al. (2021), experts from the European Food Safety Authority argue that food does not pose a risk to public health in terms of COVID-19. The hygiene controls implemented by foodservice providers are intended to keep the food free of disease, including the virus that causes COVID-19. Early outbreaks of MERS and SARS-CoV did not spread through food because of the stomach’s acidic environment. A human coronavirus outbreak could be caused by certain cooking and eating habits (Singh et al., 2021).

In summary, the COVID-19 outbreak has shown four major issues in the food industry and supply chain. First, people have to follow a balanced diet to keep their bodies and immune systems strong. This has led to the growing market for functional meals that contain bioactive ingredients. Food safety has received increased attention to preventing coronavirus transmission among food producers, retailers, and consumers. Finally, food security issues have arisen as a result of the shutdown. This has led to the ultimate issues on food sustainability (Song, Goh, and Tan,2021). The current study will seek to analyse the impact of the pandemic on the food supply chain by reviewing relevant literature, company reports, and other online sources.

 Objectives of the study

• To find out the impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain
• To find out the frameworks/models in the literature for responding to the global pandemic
• To develop policies for decision-makers and stakeholders regarding the sustainability of the food supply chain in the global crisis.

Research questions

• What is the impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain?
• What are the frameworks/models in the literature for responding to the global pandemic?
• What advice do you hope to provide decision-makers and stakeholders to enhance the sustainability of the food supply chain in the global crisis?

 Significance of the study

The study will be critical majorly to the Covid-19 policymakers across the globe. The government will benefit from the findings and recommendations to solve the issues underlying the food supply chain. The results will be insightful to the readers as they will learn the impact the pandemic has caused on the global food chain. The governments will be able to involve many stakeholders to develop comprehensive frameworks that will solve the issues in food security.

Food security was a crucial topic in international relations, particularly in security studies and global conflict management. As a result, scholarly research into the economic security implications of COVID-19 globally has not been well explored. Covid-19’s impact on global financial security can now be better understood due to this study. A significant contribution is made to international relations and, more specifically, conflict management as a result.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter highlights the steps that were taken in the examination of the study objectives.

Research design

According to Chitrakar, Zhang, and Bhandari (2021), research design forms a framework to develop a needed process to achieve the set objectives. Research design is essential to the research as it helps decision-making the data collection process, the type of data to be collected, and the analysis criteria. The current study took an exploratory research design. The design was found appropriate as it would help investigate the vast theme of Covid-19.

Research philosophy

Aday, and Aday (2020), say that research philosophy is a critical component of research technique. There are various subdivisions of research philosophies, such as positivism, interpretivism, and realism. These philosophical perspectives allow researchers to determine which strategy to take and why based on research questions. The perspective and approach of the researchers are explained from the philosophy aspect, which includes key assumptions. These assumptions will determine the research strategy and methodology.

The current study used a positivism approach based on a natural scientist working on social entities that can be observed. Data gathering and hypothesis building are the foundations of research of this research philosophy. The approach additionally allows the possible testing of hypothesis which give room for additional studies. The positivist researcher also follows a highly structured technique to facilitate the hypothesis, another aspect of this ideology. Due to the separation of resources from the research topic, the researcher cannot modify them throughout the data collection process. The research can draw data from various points. The data interpretations are made according to the developed objectives for the study. Due to testing and finding support for these assumptions in positivism, a theory might be developed on the current investigations by the researcher.

Data Collection and Target sources

The study’s participants include academics, practitioners, and policymakers in human security, economics, agriculture, and health care from both the public and private sectors. These current participants ought to have conducted investigations on the impact of Covid-19 on the food supply chains. Their studies will be examined according to the study objectives.

The target population is divided into representative groups for the study, which employs a stratified random sampling procedure. Experts, practitioners, and policymakers provide information based on personal experience or archival knowledge about the economic consequences of a health crisis such as a pandemic hits the supply chain processes.

Relevant literature, company reports, and other online sources were used to gather primary data. The sources were effective as the impact of the Covid-19 has been widespread across the globe. Therefore, to understand the scale of the impact, a wide source of data was found to be appropriate in drawing data for analysis in the current theme.

Conceptual approach and Variables understudy

Strategy to Economic Security Impacts of Covid-19 in

Covid-19’s impact on globals’ economic security can be divided into two categories. First, the virus’s direct and indirect effects on the global economy and security were evident. This covers situations where various ailments affect employees, resulting in the misery of family income sources (Höhler and Lansink, 2021).

According to Mahajan and Tomar’s (2021) research, most people in Sub-Saharan Africa do not have health insurance or universal health care, leaving them vulnerable to health shocks that could directly or indirectly contribute to poverty. When faced with a catastrophic illness, those without health insurance coverage are more likely to sell their assets in a distress sale or take out loans to fund their medical expenses. Other family members may be forced to suffer financially due to this, which could lead to poverty. From prevention to therapy, the coronavirus was extremely expensive. To keep the infection at bay, people had to purchase a mask every day and sanitisers regularly. People coming from other countries or who were found to be infected with the virus had to pay extra for quarantine, testing, and treatments. As a result, many families found themselves at risk of falling into poverty.

Secondly, Covid-19 impacts economic security because of the government’s efforts to restrict the virus’ transmission. Various nations implemented a series of restrictive measures to prevent the virus from spreading throughout the country. As a result of some of these policies, there was a decrease in people employed. The coronavirus also caused problems in the transportation industry worldwide. In addition, the government slammed the doors on its citizens in which day-to-day operations like business, trade, and travel were interrupted due to these restrictive policies.

Consequently, the virus had a wider impact on employees in the food supply chain than only their health, as most suffered economically, socially, and even politically due to the outbreak. There were a lot of businesses that had to take preventative steps to stop the virus from spreading. As a result, many companies and schools had to close, causing millions of people to lose their jobs and wages. The informal economy was hardest damaged, with many workers being placed on unpaid leave. According to Lowe, Nadhanael, and Roth’s (2021) review, most employees rely heavily on the black market to supplement their income.

Covid 19 and Economic Well-Being

The COVID-19 epidemic impacted the health and safety of many employees in the food supply chain sectors. Millions of employees now live in more economic uncertainty as a result of the outbreak. Families across the globe’s well-being were harmed due to the pandemic’s psychological, physical, social, and economic effects. The pandemic put people’s health and well-being in jeopardy. The outbreak hurt the economic and financial situation of a lot of families. In addition to the ramifications, anticipating the epidemic came at a price. For example, wearing a mask was required, which meant that everyone had to delve deep into their pockets to acquire one that couldn’t be used again.

Economic security does not have a conventional definition. Still, it includes the availability of sufficient income to allow individuals to support their own lives as well as the lives of those who depend on them. This definition of economic security includes the capability of persons earning a living wage that contributes to their overall well-being. As a result, having a sense of financial security is crucial for happiness.

Millions of people, including their families, have seen their financial well-being plummet due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, many have lost their jobs, either temporarily or permanently. As a result, they have had to cut back on their income or access to financial resources to meet their fundamental necessities.

Several pandemic-related issues have impacted peoples’ economic security. All of these shifts have occurred at once and quite quickly. For example, losing a job impacts the individual, the entire family, and those who depend on them. This made things difficult in the short and long term because some of these people will be unable to work for some time.

Imposition of curfews and lockdowns

There is a great deal of use for temporary or part-time workers, notably in planning and organizing planting, harvesting, preparing, or shipping harvests to businesses in developed and developing countries. Lockdown significantly impacts the supply chain when employees cannot work due to illness or travel restrictions on local and migrant workers. It reduces the company’s ability to produce and hurts the food safety of the workers. Although they are not the primary problem, movement restrictions (closing the national and international border) have contributed to the challenges.

Moreover, the shift in client demand is critical. In times of dietary restriction, customer satisfaction suffers as a result. As a result of the limits, customers can’t dine out and instead cook most of their meals at home. Customers also choose not to shop at supermarkets and markets because they can get the COVID-19 there. As a result of social isolation and restaurant closures, customers are turning to delivery and takeout. Due to travel and everyday cooking at home, consumers have prioritised foods with long shelf lives, such as pasta, dry or canned food, milk or milk substitutes, and other solidified food.

Lack of labour availability

According to Hashem et al. (2020), during the outbreak of the COVID-19 disaster, there was a severe shortage of personnel in many traditionally labor-intensive fields, such as animal breeding, agriculture, and planting (Nagurney,2021). Farmworker shortages were already a problem before the COVID-19 outbreak. The crisis decreases the ability of companies and agribusiness to work because of a lack of workers, sickness, and physical distance to keep up with production. It isn’t easy to provide businesses with continuous food supply when there are challenges with horticulture and food-related information delivery due to these conditions. The agricultural shift may be defined as mechanical progression and up-skilling of the labour force due to the farming activities’ time dependence and increasing efficiency needs throughout time.

Delay inactivity

Most farming chores are influenced by the time of year and climate; therefore, training must be planned and accelerated as needed. Since all supply chain cycles include the supply of agriculture products, storage, packaging, stock administration, and distribution, delay inactivity can impair output and yield throughout the production process. COVID-19-related transportation delays are another key problem in the food supply chain. A truck requires several drivers, but the epidemic has limited the number of drivers that can be employed. Some routes are also difficult for trucks to service optimally. The Canadian government and governments have raised truck drivers’ maximum service hours in other countries to protect them from exposure to COVID-19 while transporting goods (Jepsen et al., 2020).

Customer behavior

COVID infections are causing a wide range of difficulties, including both financial and health-related ones. Customers’ food consumption habits have shifted due to their desire to purchase nutritious foods without going over their allotted budget. Customers have learned an essential technique for going back to typical foods and drinks that include nutrients that provide vitamins like vegetables and fruits, olive oil, and legumes, among other things. Many clients are concerned about the impact of COVID-19 on their mental fitness. Thus they opt to get the product that enhances mental wellness instead.

Role of social media during the COVID-19 pandemic

Medical services, societal structures, and economics are all under severe strain due to the epidemic. People and medical professionals would be put at risk if there was no mindfulness, information, or alertness during this situation. Getting the latest infection measures and preventative advice to everyone at a rate that matches or beats the spread of disease is difficult. It’s critical to transmitting information about fundamental infection control issues quickly, precisely, and securely. Web-based media may be an incredible asset for influencing people’s behaviour and promoting health and prosperity if used prudently and adequately.

Since there are no other options for fixing or monitoring Covid other than social isolation and distancing, internet media have emerged as an essential platform for promoting knowledge and support for general well-being concerning public health issues. On top of all of this, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter provide easy access to data acquired by organisations like the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization (WHO) for outbreak prevention, crisis response, and disaster management. Firms’ possible exposition benefited from corporate social responsibility. The link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the rational establishment of company firms was guided by web-based media advertising devices (Rawal et al., 2020).

Effect on food supply chain issues on the tourists

The travel industry will be impacted due to the travel limitations and decreased demand caused by the COVID-19. The tourism industry has been severely affected by the spread of Covid, which has resulted in several countries implementing head-out limitations to slow its spread (Lowe, Nadhanael, and Roth,2021). As a result, restaurants and recreational points have been forced to close to contain the disease’s spread. Cafe traffic went off a cliff around the world as compared to the same period last year. The closure of cafés results from a cascading effect throughout various industries, including food production, liquor, wine, food and drink transportation, fishing, and farming.

Governments on a worldwide scale have implemented a wide range of policies to combat the disease’s spread. All of these actions have experienced the Covid-19 ramifications. The effect will seep into the financial institution’s system and produce more problems in the years to come. The food supply chain requires a lot of borrowing, which funds are usually paid in the future (Höhler and Lansink,2021). This is going to affect large consumers as the producers will miss funds to finance their production activities. The Reduced borrowing costs and tax cuts can assist diffuse the situation if the real interest and supply-side estimates are considered. The public authority should start this approach on ongoing SME energy projects with stringent measures to ensure their positions and prevent possible GDP losses.

Data Analysis

Thematic analysis of qualitative data was the primary data analysis strategy employed in this study. There was a need to use theme data analysis methodologies because the theme has been discussed from several aspects, producing different stances of qualitative data.

It was necessary to identify the themes that emerged from the research questions and those that emerged from the findings before beginning thematic data analysis. Subsequent thematic examinations were used to confirm the essential themes that had emerged from the initial round of interviews. As a result, the research was adaptable, allowing researchers to check and verify their findings, leading to more dependable outcomes. The information used in this case was derived from secondary sources. Inductive processes involving data familiarisation made the data analysis method cost and time-efficient. This implies that the researcher moved from the general observations of the data to more specific details about the theme’s features.

Ethical Considerations

This study will involve data that has been investigated by human participants from various centres of pandemic affect examinations. The university’s ethical authority examined the study’s methodology and data collection procedures to see if they violated human rights. This is a crucial step since it protects the researcher and the institution from any legal ramifications. It was further noted that any information gathered from such a study would be kept strictly confidential. The data was collected within the set time frame to ensure that ample time was set for analysis and avoid long terms interpretation biasness in the results

Study Limitations

The research largely leaned on information from government agencies, literature review, articles, and non-profit organisations. When it came to getting into the targeted government centres, the researcher was expecting a lot of red tapes; because of the COVID-19’s relative newness and expectations for trouble obtaining appropriate information. There are still myths and misconceptions which implies that the researcher faced a challenge in setting out the correct information for the study. On the other hand, the researcher can cut through the red tape by being persistent, thoroughly verifying the facts, and obtaining a reference letter from the university.

The chapters outline the findings that were examined from the research data. The findings were expressed in various themes that are related to the study objectives.

The global food supply chain

The issue of supply chain policy has reappeared, posing a threat to alter global trade. States are debating whether or not to enhance self-sufficiency or to seek security through international diversifications. Economic reasoning supports the latter strategy, which national stockpiles of the absolute necessities will supplement. The qualities that can be provided for politically sensitive industries and that may be tackled by political means have been emphasised by several academics. Included in this are sales to governments rather than private buyers, manufacturing of health and security essentials, and the size of a company’s domestic workforce, to name a few.

Causes of disruptions in the food supply chain

Food-processing facilities are hotbeds for outbreaks for a variety of reasons. It’s tough to maintain social distance at food processing factories since workers are forced to spend long shifts next to one another. Furthermore, talking or shouting in noisy environments causes more droplets to be released into the atmosphere (Aday,2020). Because employees share transportation or carpool, the infection has a chance to spread much more expansive. Furthermore, most employees earn less than the median American household income, and many lack health insurance or paid sick time. As a result, food-processing workers put their health at risk by reporting to work despite being ill, increasing the chance of contracting an infection. Another element that aids in the growth of COVID-19 is a cold and humid atmosphere inside food-processing facilities. Coronavirus may survive in cold, dark environments without ultraviolet light, increasing transmission rates (Ali et al., 2021).

Another cause of food chain disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic was centralised food manufacturing. Food processors benefited from this paradigm shift since it allowed them to boost production while also lowering expenses. However, there are also disadvantages to centralisation, such as a tight and lengthy supply chain. The use of the limited number of massive production facilities to meet demand may also cause issues, such as closing the entire plant if an outbreak occurs, leaving high-capacity manufacturing lines with fewer options.

Economic decline and reallocation of resources to financial incentives and social assistance programs also put financial pressure on governments. As a result, programs targeted at increasing farm output may be challenging to fund. If funding is not sufficient, demand for agricultural production and productivity could probably fall long-term. The decline in order will significantly negatively impact the developing countries’ newly burgeoning private sector (Barman, Das, and De,2021).

Effects of a pandemic on food supply chain

Agricultural production, postharvest handling, processing, distribution/retail/service, and consumption are all parts of the food supply chain. When it comes to food quality and safety, two systems are in place in the supply chain.

The food supply chain activities are mandated by state regulations and law, where state officials check to see if they’re being followed. Secondly, they are regulated by standards specified by market regulations or international organizations (Bellemare, Marc, 2015). Personal hygiene, use of personal protection equipment like helmets and gloves, sanitisation of surfaces and working environments, safe handling/preparation/delivery of food, and maintaining social distance are safety precautions to ensure food flow at each stage. Protective measures are crucial in the final stages of the food supply chain because the number of people who could be harmed increases as the process progresses (Cavallo, Alberto 2018).

It is typical in undeveloped and underdeveloped countries to find work that is just temporary or seasonal. This is especially true for those who work in the agricultural industry. Due to sickness or travel limitations imposed by lockdown, the absence of local or migrant labor substantially impacts the supply chain. Additionally, it reduces the ability of other people to produce safe food and their food safety if the sickness directly impacts their health or mobility (Chin, 2020).

Unemployed people in countries like France have been asked to labor in the fields because many skilled harvest workers couldn’t cross borders because of border controls (Chitrakar, Zhang, and Bhandari,2021). On the other hand, the crisis makes it difficult for farms and agricultural enterprises to function due to a lack of workers due to illness and the necessity of maintaining a physical distance during production. Due to these circumstances, food and agricultural input deliveries were delayed, and challenges supplying markets with continuous food supply arose (Derossi et al., 2021). Because they must source their needs from domestic markets rather than international ones, manufacturers rely on their core input more and are more vulnerable to disruptions. The limited shelf life of high-value foods makes them vulnerable to logistical obstacles that disrupt food supply systems (Doi, Gałęcki, and Mulia, 2021).

Most agricultural activities are influenced by the time of year and the weather; thus, a flexible plan is required to allow for quick responses when necessary. A slight delay or glitch can significantly impact the yield and output of a whole supply chain because everything is interconnected (Elleby et al., 2021). According to FAO reports, farmers have reportedly been compelled to burn or deteriorate their products due to the limitations. Dairy products and vegetables which are perishable are thrown away daily due to supply chain disruptions. In England and the USA, it is reported that approximately 5 million liters of milk are disposed of each week due to the pandemic. Tea trees were also said to be disappearing due to logistical issues in India (Fan, Si, and Zhang,2020).

Maintaining logistical efficiency is critical for the food business, particularly during global crises. The two most pressing issues in the food supply chain are obtaining raw materials from suppliers and ensuring that food flows continuously from manufacturers to end-users (Garnett, Doherty, and Heron,2020). The problems threaten agricultural enterprises’ capacity to carry on as usual. They could adversely influence food quality, freshness, and safety and limit markets’ access and affordability if they are not addressed (Hashem et al., 2020). During the fight against the epidemic, countries must do everything they can to move the food supply chain.

In agricultural systems, pandemic problems have varying impacts based on the intensity and composition of agricultural inputs and the commodity produced, and the country in question. High-income countries often use capital-intensive techniques for agricultural production, whereas output in low-income countries is primarily labor-dependent. In other words, the supply chain should continue to work smoothly, with particular attention paid to the fundamental logistic problems (Höhler and Lansink,2021).

Movement limitations (such as border closures at the national or international level) and shifts in consumer demand have posed significant obstacles. Customers cannot go out to restaurants because of the restrictions, so they cook at home instead. Furthermore, customers are reluctant to visit marketplaces and supermarkets for fear of contracting COVID-19 while shopping (Iyengar et al.,2020).

Producing, distributing, and consuming food impacts the supply chain, as do labor-intensive food processing facilities. The number of facilities that curtailed, suspended, or temporarily halted production as a result of workers who were determined to be COVID-19 positive and who were afraid to go to work for fear of becoming ill because of the epidemic was mainly in meat-processing food industries at the time.

The shutdown of food production facilities had repercussions throughout the food supply chain. As a result, farmers were obliged to eliminate and dispose of some of their products since they could not find a market. Empty shelves resulted from increased customer demand, and higher meat prices resulted from a tighter supply (Jepsen et al., 2020). Despite official guarantees, a few retailers began offering free delivery on purchases to keep people from going into a purchasing frenzy. Supermarkets also established the maximum number of customers allowed in each aisle to prevent crowding. Stores adapted their hours of operation to accommodate clients who may be more susceptible.

Effects of a pandemic on consumer behavior

The cause of food chain disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic was centralized food manufacturing. Food processors benefited from this paradigm shift since it allowed them to boost production while also lowering expenses. However, there are also disadvantages to centralization, such as a tight and extended supply chain. The use of the limited number of extensive production facilities to meet demand may also cause issues, such as closing the entire plant if an outbreak occurs, leaving high-capacity manufacturing lines with fewer options(Veselovská,2020).

Economic decline and reallocation of resources to financial incentives and social assistance programs also put financial pressure on governments. As a result, programs targeted at increasing farm output may be challenging to fund. If funding is not sufficient, demand for agricultural production and productivity could probably fall long-term. The decline in order will significantly negatively impact the developing countries’ newly burgeoning private sector (Khan et al., 2021).

Changes in consumer behavior significantly impact the food supply chain since consumers play an essential role in it. Because of the limitations and panic buying that preceded them, the COVID-19 epidemic resulted in a considerable increase in food prices and interruptions to the supply chain. When it comes to enhancing food security, specific customers will pay more attention than others to cut down on waste (Kiribati et al., 2020). To be sure, many perishable items were wasted or dumped when schools, restaurants, and processing facilities closed. Food waste increased due to transit issues during the lockdown or panic buying of perishable foods (Laborde et al., 2020). Because of this, packing materials/design, transportation methods, and storage conditions will all have to adapt to meet changing customer needs

Effects of a pandemic on global food trade

The vulnerability of food systems to disease-related concerns has been felt even before the COVID-19 catastrophe, despite its appearance. Various crises and shocks, such as the oil crisis in the 1970s, and other global pandemics, have left food systems vulnerable. In terms of production, farmers had restricted access to inputs like seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides because of road restrictions, and a labor crunch hit most regions. As a result, more than 40% of arable land has remained unused. However, the pandemic had little impact on production because agricultural lands were generally located in remote areas far from densely populated areas (Lowe, Nadhanael, and Roth,2021).

Some governments’ food trade policies have shifted due to the COVID-19 problem, restricting exports while enabling imports. Countries apply export limits primarily to maintain a stable supply of goods on the domestic market. Even though export restrictions provide this short-term benefit, they also have certain drawbacks. There are two reasons for this: first, export limitations drive down domestic prices, making it more difficult for farmers to increase agricultural production. Second, countries will be disadvantaged in the global marketplace if they lose their current position. Third, export limitations harm the reputation of exporters and encourage importers to lose faith in the worldwide market, diminishing confidence in international trade and damaging future business possibilities for exporters (Luckstead, Nayga JRM, and Snell,2021).

Trading prevents shortages and food insecurity associated with only relying on domestic production by moving products from surplus to deficit areas (Mahajan and Tomar,2021). However, due to export limitations, the COVID-19 pandemic greatly influenced the food trade and disrupted the food supply chain. Because of export restrictions, the price of staple foods like wheat, maize, and rice has risen, and people are eating less and less nutritiously (Min, Zhang, and Li,2020). Customers couldn’t even find a product made or grown in the country where they lived. Restrictions hurt producers because the worldwide market has many purchasers, making it easier to choose the best one. Local suppliers could not find buyers when export restriction regulations were implemented, resulting in excess supply, waste, and economic losses. Imported foods that need to be processed are not available because of constraints, and food manufacturing firms’ ability to respond to demand was also harmed. Food loss and waste were other problems caused by transportation concerns for air and sea shipments (Mishra, Singh, and Subramanian, 2021)

Strategies and Frameworks for food supply chain

It’s estimated that one-third of all food produced for human use was lost or discarded at various points along the food supply chain before the pandemic. As a result, in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, food waste has gotten more attention than ever before. Covid-19 had little effect on total food loss and waste output, according to the study (Mollenkopf, Ozanne, and Stolze,2020), but it increased household food waste generation by 13%.

Food safety can be improved in food processing facilities by reducing the spread of microorganisms through human error. As a result of the fourth industrial revolution, data-driven autonomous production decisions are vital in the industry. By automating repetitive tasks, such as loading/unloading, putting, and packaging, businesses can boost productivity by as much as 25%.

As a result of the COVID-19 epidemic, personnel management was also put to the test. Working circumstances must improve, policies must be adopted, and steps must be taken to limit human contact, among other things (Mor et al., 2020). There are a variety of ways that organisations can tackle these problems. To begin, anybody visiting the site should have their COVID-19 symptoms checked before they arrive. This includes employees, visitors, vendors, and contractors. At the plant’s entry, food safety has conducted a temperature screening of all employees. Controlling whether employees are wearing eye and facial protection as well as gloves is essential. Facilities should also think about shortening the workweek and rotating personnel. To reduce overcrowding, divide the total number of employees in each shift into three or four groups, with shorter breaks in between. The final step is to redesign warehouses and processing facilities so that personnel can use social distances. It’s possible to preserve social space by constructing separators or barriers that encompass the upper body.

Employees who engage in two-sided food processing should adopt a diagonal arrangement (Nagurney,2021). When a coronavirus outbreak occurs, using machines can help reduce the chance of infected workers contracting COVID-19. And by reducing the number of food employees, using technology (machines in production) can preserve social distance in food processing processes where humans are now used. By taking these safety measures against the COVID-19, the worldwide market system will be more secure.

It’s possible that decentralising food production could be adopted in the COVID-19 period to avoid the problems and hazards connected with the centralisation paradigm. Local low-scale facilities save storage and transportation expenses while also reducing environmental effects. A shorter supply chain with lower emissions and energy consumption during transit will benefit producers as production facilities move closer to customers. Decentralisation offers greater supply chain flexibility and gives clients access to more wholesome, locally sourced goods. We streamline administrative procedures and better assist disadvantaged people in our society (Nasereldin et al., 2021).

Transportation routes that are now prohibited (and viable alternatives sought) should be identified, as well as the number of workers affected by these restrictions. In the case of border restrictions, the local labour force should be prepared and activated. Through the training and development of local personnel, it would be possible to secure a dependable and long-term workforce in the future. Agricultural employees are increasingly considered crucial, and as a result, they are entitled to better working conditions and more excellent wages (Poudel et al., 2020). Agricultural inputs, on the other hand, should be viewed as necessary to assure food production. The selection and planning of collection centers should consider the collection centers’ distance from the factory. By integrating small producers closer to large collection centers (FAO, 2020b).

The performance of the supply chain is also affected by shifts in demand. As a result, projections and simulations should be used to determine demand. At the outset of the crisis, demand was exceptionally high for products such as hand sanitizers and meals. The perishable nature of food goods, on the other hand, makes them more vulnerable to the supply chain impacts of COVID-19. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, manufacturers can use statistical models to propose optimal decisions for dealing with supply and demand disruptions. Production, processing, and distribution can be adjusted based on the study’s findings (Pu, and Zhong,2020).

It is also vital to make optimal use of logistical infrastructure; in particular, logistics vehicles should not return to their starting place with their cargo unloaded. Using the notion of an ‘Urban Distribution Center,’ the food supply chain may consolidate more deliveries by one or more vehicles, allowing us to utilize our capacity better. As a result, the collection and shipping processes are more efficient as well. In addition, the supply chain’s participants should be coordinated to ensure food safety. Both private and public sector organizations require storage facilities. Markets should be open to customers, and the requirements of those with less financial resources should be taken into consideration. Establishing web-based food delivery systems will improve the buyer-seller relationship. Using a web-based supply chain management system, suppliers, facilities, collection centres, and retailers can easily share information. This solution makes it possible for businesses and customers to collaborate more quickly and easily (Rawal et al., 2020).

Food supply chain actors communicate and trade heavily with the use of digital commerce platforms. E-commerce opens up new ways to save expenses while also boosting demand. Aside from this, small farmers confront numerous difficulties in accessing markets, making them disadvantaged in the food supply chain. Because of their tiny size, smallholders cannot benefit from higher transaction fees. Small farmers can sell their commodities for a higher price and reach more clients directly and effectively thanks to digitizing procedures, eliminating intermediaries. To digitize rural markets’ services and encourage their participation in the e-commerce sector, the major e-commerce corporations work with the government. These platforms mainly provide the market with organic fertilizers at an affordable price (Reardon, Bellemare, and Zilberman, 2020).

The  Interpretive structural in Supply Chain framework

In the food supply chain management framework, raw materials and semi-finished goods from main activities like forestry, and agriculture, are used to manufacture, process, and transform the final product. Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) must be used in a hierarchical framework to identify links between various components (Udmale et al., 2020). This framework aids users in comprehending the logistics operators’ interactions in the food distribution chain. As well as supporting risk management by detecting and understanding interdependencies among food supply chain hazards at various levels such as first-tier suppliers and third-party logistics.

According to Thilmany et al., (2021), this framework effectively organizes food supply chain management risk through a step-by-step approach on numerous production phases. Making food supply chain management more efficient necessitates the utilization of information. To explain causal interactions or transitive links among many parties involved in emerging global food supply chain management. An interpretive structural modelling approach was used to understand better the enablers and limitations of food supply chain management. This research addresses a dynamic food supply chain management is addressed in this research by looking at ten enablers and eight impediments separately using various frameworks.

Producers and consumers both profit from value chains in food supply chain management. Strategic partnerships between food production, processing, and distribution were created as part of a value chain framework to increase value along the supply chain. The suggested framework is concerned with the economic performance of the food supply chain as a whole, including the organization, structure, and practices. For the previous few decades, food traceability has seen a slew of applications and has been widely adopted. Frameworks for widespread implementation, on the other hand, are rarely discussed.

Food safety and quality are increasingly ensured through tighter cooperation along the supply chain from farm to fork. For instance, in the agriculture food supply chain, illustrated a conceptual framework to establish closer vertical collaboration through contracting methodologies in food supply chain management. The development of better vertical coordination has significant effects on transaction cost economics. Garnett, Doherty, and Heron (2020) discussed a framework for vertical coordination in a global food supply chain that incorporates chain reversal and a chain management model. A benchmarking service for food supply chain projects is utilized in their framework to create an interconnected system with high performance and efficiency as an integrated supply chain. It is critical to make strategic decisions in the face of a worldwide food supply chain management to boost the overall chain’s profitability through coordinated efforts from an efficient framework. To this goal, Tasnim, ZERIN (2020) offered a framework for the food supply chain management system dynamics modelling. This framework is optimized for an end-network user’s configuration, inventory management policy, supply chain integration, and procurement methods. Despite several obstacles that hamper cooperation among food industry companies worldwide, collaboration is becoming increasingly necessary rather than an option.

Sustainability of the future global food supply chain

As a result of COVID-19, improving the sustainability and resilience of the food system has never been more critical. By studying chokepoints and vulnerabilities in the food system, the COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to identify investments and changes that will make the sector even more resilient to various future shocks and difficulties. The involvement of stakeholders will be critical in determining the entire impact of the pandemic on different population groups and the lessons to be learned. For this reason, it’s critical to analyze the current food system resilience toolkit and determine which policies have been most effective and what further measures may be required in response to system-wide shocks. To prevent the worst repercussions, it’s critical to know what makes some food and farming enterprises so adaptable.

Global food system difficulties will necessitate the application of lessons learned from the COVID-19 epidemic. Among these challenges are the ongoing emergency of climate change and the need for the food system to be resilient to various extreme weather events; they need to ensure sustainable productivity growth to feed a growing world population in a changing climate while simultaneously reducing the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions.

CONCLUSIONS

With an outbreak, it’s critical to keep agricultural and food sector supply flowing, together with health care, one of our most crucial sectors for preventing food shortages while minimizing global economic damage. Even though there haven’t been any significant issues with the food supply system thus far, the future is still unpredictable. As a result, every government must recognize the gravity of the issue and adjust its response as the epidemic spreads. In addition, the supply chain should be adaptable to changes in the food.

Recommendations for small farmers

Agricultural workers’ safety should be a priority for all countries. Employees’ disease conditions should be tracked by healthcare providers on-site. To reduce travel, countries should construct agricultural production collecting centers in easily accessible areas for small-scale farmers. Collecting stations for farm products should be designed to accommodate a large amount of storage (Rizou et al., 2020). Food loss can be minimized across the food value chain by using improved and advanced storage systems. Modern facilities and enhanced technology, on the other hand, result in greater production costs because they necessitate an influx of new capital. As a result, small and medium-sized agricultural businesses can continue operating with the help of government or donor-provided funding (Sharma et al., 2020).

Governments should employ warehouse receipt systems to make it easier for small-scale manufacturers to acquire financial loans and get the best possible price for their goods. This will make it possible for small-scale farmers to use this receipt to store their harvests in a modern storage facility and sell them at a more excellent price. It can also be utilized as a loan’s possessory collateral (Shwekeh et al., 2021). Countries should get involved in e-commerce growth and development for small investors. Internet communication allows producers to reach a wider audience and for farmers to locate lower-cost inputs.

Small producers should easily obtain credit to deal with financial difficulties and continue producing. Small-scale farmers may be eligible for incentive packages in certain nations and, therefore, should take this chance to deal with high-risk scenarios is correlated with their ability to obtain credit. They will be able to have better investment decisions in their production activities. Commercial creditors help small farmers with guaranteed loans, which shields them from the risk of government losses. Access to markets should be made more accessible by removing trade prohibitions and regulatory hurdles(Siche,2020).

Farmers must be educated on transmission channels and made aware of pandemic prevention to succeed in their efforts. It’s possible to utilize a crop diversification strategy, which can be defined as an alternative for increasing food diversity through crop rotation or intercropping to open up new marketing channels and allow harvesting throughout the year to adjust to new difficulties readily. To secure liquidity for the following season, buyers, investors, and banks should pay small farmers upfront for their products. Due to consumer interest and trust, growing organic foods can also increase sales. Partnering with large corporations or the government is another approach to assist small farms in boosting productivity and incomes through investments in adaptive technology (Singh et al., 2021).

Suggestions for government and business

Governments should also develop and implement policies to support production in the event of an emergency. Temporary input subsidy programs should be implemented to protect the area’s most vulnerable to the outbreak. Support must be provided as soon as possible for the spring planting season (Song, Goh, and Tan,2021). For migrants, it is necessary to use data collection and assessment programs to identify when and where additional migrants are required (Swinnen, and McDermott,2020). It’s critical to make it easier for migrant workers to move across borders because border closures and other restrictions hurt the availability of agricultural workers.

The government of the United States has emphasized the significance of agricultural workers, referring to them as “vital infrastructure workers” (Zielińska-Chmielewska, Mruk-Tomczak, and Wielicka-Regulska,2021). More extended stay permits should be given to seasonal employees by altering visa and residence requirements. Some governments, such as those in Belgium, have permitted firms to delay hiring or offer long-term employment contracts (Xu et al., 2021). The EU Commission established “the green lanes” for trucks transporting agri-food items to facilitate smooth border crossings. Agri-food and seasonal employees are among those who benefit from EU regulations because they can move freely between jobs and activities.

Because public and private norms define basic food safety and quality standards, employment contracts between actors in the food value chain should be equitable and unambiguous about the rights and duties of the parties. On the other hand, private standards are subject to stricter controls and impact producers’ prices and the number of goods they sell. Furthermore, these requirements have a large impact on their earnings and marketability. As a result of shifting supply and demand, legal frameworks can help protect producers’ rights while also ensuring that vulnerable populations don’t lose out due to these developments. Regulations that will be put in place in an emergency, such as the COVID-19 epidemic, can help keep transactions safe and problem-free.

Legal regulations must be strengthened to ensure the proportionality and necessity of restrictive measures and flexibility in fulfilling some administrative requirements to meet the new problems. Flexible licensing requirements for direct selling, e-commerce, and food transport can help small producers and agricultural businesses find new markets. Customers may feel that their lack of food options is due to supply chain issues. Additional infrastructure investment is required to provide more supervisory services, improved sanitation systems, and expanded digital documents and operations. To stop the spread of the virus, countries must enforce strict hygienic controls in the distribution sector. Logistics workers who transport saleable goods should have their health and safety protected (Weiss et al., 2020).

Agriculture experts have to develop models that have rapid yield forecasts and determination of national food inventories that are required. Crop yield information models can assist governments in making decisions regarding food security or grain marketing by helping them consider better management of food supplies in diverse regions and reducing non-food uses of agricultural goods (such as biofuel). Because the COVID-19 pandemic could last for a long time, agricultural companies have begun to rethink their business structures. Small businesses should use the crisis to their advantage and become more organized. Information and communication technology infrastructure development for agriculture and food should be a priority for businesses. Additionally, financial incentive packages tailored to the specific demands of the business are required.

Aday, S. and Aday, M.S., 2020. Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain.  Food Quality and Safety ,  4 (4), pp.167-180.

Ali, M.H., Suleiman, N., Khalid, N., Tan, K.H., Tseng, M.L. and Kumar, M., 2021. Supply chain resilience reactive strategies for food SMEs in coping to COVID-19 crisis.  Trends in Food Science & Technology .American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Barman, A., Das, R. and De, P.K., 2021. Impact of COVID-19 in food supply chain: Disruptions and recovery strategy.  Current Research in Behavioral Sciences ,  2 , p.100017.

Bellemare, Marc F. 2015. Rising Food Prices,Food Price Volatility, and Social Unrest.

Cavallo, Alberto. 2018. Scraped Data andSticky Prices. Review of Economics and

Chin, C., 2020. The impact of food supply chain disruptions amidst COVID-19 in Malaysia.  Journal of agriculture, food systems, and community development ,  9 (4), pp.161-163.

Chitrakar, B., Zhang, M. and Bhandari, B., 2021. Improvement strategies of food supply chain through novel food processing technologies during COVID-19 pandemic.  Food Control .

Derossi, A., Bhandari, B., van Bommel, K., Noort, M. and Severini, C., 2021. Could 3D food printing help to improve the food supply chain resilience against disruptions such as caused by pandemic crises?.  International Journal of Food Science & Technology .

Doi, H., Gałęcki, R. and Mulia, R.N., 2021. The merits of entomophagy in the post COVID-19 world.  Trends in Food Science & Technology .

Elleby, C., Domínguez, I.P., Adenauer, M. and Genovese, G., 2020. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global agricultural markets.  Environmental and Resource Economics ,  76 (4), pp.1067-1079.

Fan, S., Si, W. and Zhang, Y., 2020. How to prevent a global food and nutrition security crisis under COVID-19?.  China Agricultural Economic Review .

FAO, 2020b. Legal mechanisms to contribute to safe and secured food supply chains in times of COVID-19. Rome doi: 10.4060/ca9121en . Galanakis, C.M. , 2020. The food systems in the era of the corona virus (COVID-19) pan- demic crisis. Foods 9 (4), 523 . Hale, T. , Petherick, A. , Phillips, T. , Webster, S. , 2020. Variation in government response

Garnett, P., Doherty, B. and Heron, T., 2020. Vulnerability of the United Kingdom’s food supply chains exposed by COVID-19.  Nature Food ,  1 (6), pp.315-318.

Hashem, N.M., González-Bulnes, A. and Rodriguez-Morales, A.J., 2020. Animal welfare and livestock supply chain sustainability under the COVID-19 outbreak: An overview.  Frontiers in Veterinary Science ,  7 , p.679.

Höhler, J. and Lansink, A.O., 2021. Measuring the impact of COVID‐19 on stock prices and profits in the food supply chain.  Agribusiness ,  37 (1), pp.171-186.

Iyengar, K.P., Vaishya, R., Bahl, S. and Vaish, A., 2020. Impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the supply chain in healthcare.  British Journal of Healthcare Management ,  26 (6), pp.1-4.

Jepsen, S.D., Pfeifer, L., Garcia, L.G., Plakias, Z., Inwood, S., Rumble, J.N., Rodriguez, M.T., Puskas, J.E. and Custer, S.G., 2020. Lean on your land grant: one university’s approach to address the food supply chain workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Journal of agromedicine ,  25 (4), pp.417-422.

Khan, S.A.R., Razzaq, A., Yu, Z., Shah, A., Sharif, A. and Janjua, L., 2021. Disruption in food supply chain and undernourishment challenges: An empirical study in the context of Asian countries.  Socio-Economic Planning Sciences , p.101033.

Kiribati, N., Richardson, D., Gavrilovic, M., Groppo, V., Kajula, L., Valli, E., and Viola, F., 2020. A rapid review of economic policy and social protection responses to health and economic crises and their effects on children: Lessons for the COVID-19 pandemic response.

Laborde, D., Martin, W., Swinnen, J. and Vos, R., 2020. COVID-19 risks to global food security.  Science ,  369 (6503), pp.500-502.

Lowe, M., Nadhanael, G.V. and Roth, B., 2021. India’s Food Supply Chain during the Pandemic.  Harvard Business School Entrepreneurial Management Working Paper , (21-070).

Luckstead, J., Nayga Jr, RM and Snell, H.A., 2021. Labor issues in the food supply chain amid the COVID‐19 pandemic.  Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy ,  43 (1), pp.382-400.

Mahajan, K. and Tomar, S., 2021. COVID‐19 and Supply Chain Disruption: Evidence from Food Markets in India.  American journal of agricultural economics ,  103 (1), pp.35-52.

Min, S., Zhang, X. and Li, G., 2020. A snapshot of food supply chain in Wuhan under the COVID-19 pandemic.  China Agricultural Economic Review .

Mishra, R., Singh, R.K. and Subramanian, N., 2021. Impact of disruptions in agri-food supply chain due to COVID-19 pandemic: contextualised resilience framework to achieve operational excellence.  The International Journal of Logistics Management .

Mollenkopf, D.A., Ozanne, L.K. and Stolze, H.J., 2020. A transformative supply chain response to COVID-19.  Journal of Service Management .

Mor, R.S., Srivastava, P.P., Jain, R., Varshney, S. and Goyal, V., 2020. Managing Food Supply Chains Post COVID-19: A Perspective.  International Journal of Supply and Operations Management ,  7 (3), pp.295-298.

Nagurney, A., 2021. Optimization of supply chain networks with inclusion of labor: Applications to COVID-19 pandemic disruptions.  International Journal of Production Economics ,  235 , p.108080.

Nasereldin, Y.A., Brenya, R., Bassey, A.P., Ibrahim, I.E., Alnadari, F., Nasiru, M.M. and Ji, Y., 2021. Is the Global Food Supply Chain during the COVID-19 Pandemic Resilient? A Review Paper.  Open Journal of Business and Management ,  9 (01), p.184.

Poudel, P.B., Poudel, M.R., Gautam, A., Phuyal, S., Tiwari, C.K., Bashyal, N. and Bashyal, S., 2020. COVID-19 and its global impact on food and agriculture.  Journal of Biology and Today’s World ,  9 (5), pp.221-225.

Pu, M. and Zhong, Y., 2020. Rising concerns over agricultural production as COVID-19 spreads: Lessons from China.  Global food security ,  26 , p.100409.

Rawal, V., Kumar, M., Verma, A., and Pais, J., 2020. COVID-19 lockdown: Impact on agriculture and rural economy.  Society for Social and Economic Research .

Reardon, T., Bellemare, M.F. and Zilberman, D., 2020. How COVID-19 may disrupt food supply chains in developing countries.  IFPRI book chapters , pp.78-80.

Rizou, M., Galanakis, I.M., Aldawoud, T.M. and Galanakis, C.M., 2020. Safety of foods, food supply chain and environment within the COVID-19 pandemic.  Trends in food science & technology ,  102 , pp.293-299.

Sharma, R., Shishodia, A., Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A. and Belhadi, A., 2020. Agriculture supply chain risks and COVID-19: mitigation strategies and implications for the practitioners.  International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications , pp.1-27.

Shwekeh, A., Zaid, A., Saleh, M.W. and Mansour, M.M.K., 2021. The Impact of Economic Indicators on Food Supply Chain of Palestine.  Journal of University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, 23 (1), 264–275. DOI-10.51201/Jusst12555 .

Siche, R., 2020. What is the impact of COVID-19 disease on agriculture?.  Scientia Agropecuaria ,  11 (1), pp.3-6.

Singh, S., Kumar, R., Panchal, R. and Tiwari, M.K., 2021. Impact of COVID-19 on logistics systems and disruptions in food supply chain.  International Journal of Production Research ,  59 (7), pp.1993-2008.

Song, S., Goh, J.C. and Tan, H.T., 2021. Is food security an illusion for cities? A system dynamics approach to assess disturbance in the urban food supply chain during pandemics.  Agricultural Systems ,  189 , p.103045.

Statistics 100(1): 105–19.

Swinnen, J. and McDermott, J., 2020. COVID‐19 and global food security.  EuroChoices ,  19 (3), pp.26-33.’

Tasnim, ZERIN, 2020. Disruption in global food supply chain (FSCs) due to COVID‐19 pandemic and impact of digitalization through block chain technology in FSCs management.  European Journal of Business and Management ,  12 (17), pp.73-84.

Thilmany, D., Canales, E., Low, SA and Boys, K., 2021. Local Food Supply Chain Dynamics and Resilience during COVID‐19.  Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy ,  43 (1), pp.86-104.

Udmale, P., Pal, I., Szabo, S., Pramanik, M. and Large, A., 2020. Global food security in the context of COVID-19: A scenario-based exploratory analysis.  Progress in Disaster Science ,  7 , p.100120.

Veselovská, L., 2020. Supply chain disruptions in the context of early stages of the global COVID-19 outbreak.  Problems and Perspectives in Management ,  18 (2), pp.490-500.

Weiss, M., Schwarzenberg, A., Nelson, R., Sutter, K.M. and Sutherland, M.D., 2020. Global economic effects of COVID-19.  Congressional Research Service .

Xu, Z., Elomri, A., El Omri, A., Kerbache, L. and Liu, H., 2021. The Compounded Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic and Desert Locust Outbreak on Food Security and Food Supply Chain.  Sustainability ,  13 (3), p.1063.

Zielińska-Chmielewska, A., Mruk-Tomczak, D. and Wielicka-Regulska, A., 2021. Qualitative Research on Solving Difficulties in Maintaining Continuity of Food Supply Chain on the Meat Market during the COVID-19 Pandemic.  Energies ,  14 (18), p.5634.

Cite this page

Similar essay samples.

• Compare and Contrast Leadership Styles
• By considering a complex decision within Construction or Development, ...
• Essay on Walmart Financial Statements Disclosures
• A Paired report on PeerDB and PIER Systems.
• Essay on Tax Planning Letter
• Essay on Theology

A global food crisis

Conflict, economic shocks, climate extremes and soaring fertilizer prices are combining to create a food crisis of unprecedented proportions. As many as 309 million people are facing chronic hunger in 71 countries. We have a choice: act now to save lives and invest in solutions that secure food security, stability and peace for all, or see people around the world facing rising hunger. 

Extreme jeopardy for those struggling to feed their families

The scale of the current global hunger and malnutrition crisis is enormous. A shocking 37.2 million people face Emergency levels of hunger, while 1.3 million people are in the grips of catastrophic hunger – primarily in Gaza and Sudan but also in pockets of South Sudan and Mali. They are teetering on the brink of famine.   In the North Darfur Region of Sudan, famine has been confirmed in a camp sheltering hundreds of thousands of displaced people.

Many food crises involve multiple overlapping issues driving hunger, that are building year on year. The interplay between conflict, economic shocks and the impact of the climate crisis is vital to understanding the scale of the challenge.  The global community must not fail on its promise to end hunger and malnutrition by 2030.   

WFP is facing multiple challenges – the number of acutely hungry people continues to increase at a pace that funding is unlikely to match , while the  cost of delivering food assistance is high  because food and fuel prices have increased.  

Unmet needs heighten the risk of hunger and malnutrition. Unless the necessary resources are made available,  lost lives and the reversal of hard-earned development gains  will be the price to pay. 

What is driving the global food crisis?

But why is the world  hungrier than ever? 

This seismic hunger crisis has been caused by a deadly combination of factors. 

Conflict is still the biggest driver of hunger, with 70 percent of the world's hungry people living in areas afflicted by war  and violence. Events in countries such as Palestine and Ukraine are further proof of how conflict feeds hunger – forcing people out of their homes, wiping out their sources of income and wrecking countries’ economies. 

The climate crisis is one of the leading causes of the steep rise in global hunger.  Climate shocks destroy lives, crops and livelihoods, and undermine people’s ability to feed themselves.  Hunger will spiral out of control if the world fails to take immediate climate action. 

Global fertilizer prices have climbed even faster than food prices. The effects of the war in Ukraine, including higher natural gas prices, have further disrupted global fertilizer production and exports – reducing supplies, raising prices and threatening to reduce harvests.  High fertilizer prices could turn the current food affordability crisis into a food availability crisis . 

On top of increased operational costs , WFP is facing major drops in funding,  reflecting the new and more challenging financial landscape that the entire humanitarian sector is navigating. Almost half of WFP country operations have already been forced to cut the size and scope of food, cash and nutrition assistance by up to 50 percent.

Hunger Hotspots 2024

Hunger and malnutrition surging across west and central africa, says report.

Story | 12 April 2024

Hunger in Gaza: Famine findings a ‘dark mark’ on the world, says WFP Palestine Country Director

Story | 18 March 2024

Hunger hotspots

From the Central American Dry Corridor and Haiti, through the Sahel, Central African Republic, South Sudan and then eastwards to the Horn of Africa, Palestine, Syria, Yemen and all the way to Afghanistan,  conflict and climate shocks are driving millions of people to the brink of starvation. 

In 2023, the world rallied  US$8.3 billion for WFP to tackle the global food crisis.  But it is not sufficient to only keep people alive. We need to go further, and  this can only be achieved by addressing the underlying causes of hunger. 

The consequences of not investing in resilience activities will reverberate across borders. If communities are not empowered to withstand shocks and stresses, this could result in  increased migration and possible destabilization and conflict.  Recent history has shown us this: when WFP ran out of funds to feed Syrian refugees in 2015, they had no choice but to leave the camps and seek help elsewhere, causing one of the  greatest refugee crises in recent European history.  

Let's stop hunger now

WFP’s changing lives work helps to build human capital, support governments in strengthening social protection programmes, stabilize communities in particularly precarious places, and help them to better survive sudden shocks without losing all their assets. 

In just four years of the  Sahel Resilience Scale-up, WFP and local communities turned 158,000 hectares of barren fields in the Sahel region of five African countries into farm and grazing land.  Over 2.5 million people benefited from integrated activities.  Evidence shows that people are better equipped to withstand seasonal shocks and have improved access to vital natural resources like land they can work.  Families and their homes, belongings and fields are better protected against climate hazards.  Support serves as a buffer to instability by bringing people together, creating social safety nets, keeping lands productive and offering job opportunities – all of which help to break the cycle of hunger. 

As a further example, WFP’s flagship microinsurance programme – the R4 Rural Resilience initiative –  protects around 360,000 farming and pastoralist families from climate hazards that threaten crops and livelihoods  in 14 countries including Bangladesh, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guatemala, Kenya, Madagascar and Zimbabwe. 

At the same time, WFP is working with governments in 83 countries to boost or build  national safety nets and nutrition-sensitive social protection, allowing us to reach more people than we can with emergency food assistance.  

Humanitarian assistance alone is not enough though. A  coordinated effort across governments, financial institutions, the private sector and partners is the only way to mitigate an even more severe crisis in 2024.  Good governance is a golden thread that holds society together, allowing human capital to grow, economies to develop and people to thrive.  

The world also needs deeper political engagement to reach zero hunger.  Only political will can end conflict in places like Palestine, Yemen, and South Sudan and Ukraine,  and without a firm political commitment to contain global warming as stipulated in the  Paris Agreement , the main drivers of hunger will continue unabated. 

Tackling hunger

Help families facing unprecedented hunger

Advanced search

Aquaculture

Feeding 9 Billion

• Sign In

Previous story

The Evolution of Diet

A Five-Step Plan to Feed the World

When we think about threats to the environment, we tend to picture cars and smokestacks, not dinner. But the truth is, our need for food poses one of the biggest dangers to the planet.

Agriculture is among the greatest contributors to global warming, emitting more greenhouse gases than all our cars, trucks, trains, and airplanes combined—largely from methane released by cattle and rice farms, nitrous oxide from fertilized fields, and carbon dioxide from the cutting of rain forests to grow crops or raise livestock. Farming is the thirstiest user of our precious water supplies and a major polluter, as runoff from fertilizers and manure disrupts fragile lakes, rivers, and coastal ecosystems across the globe. Agriculture also accelerates the loss of biodiversity. As we’ve cleared areas of grassland and forest for farms, we’ve lost crucial habitat, making agriculture a major driver of wildlife extinction.

The environmental challenges posed by agriculture are huge, and they’ll only become more pressing as we try to meet the growing need for food worldwide. We’ll likely have two billion more mouths to feed by mid-century—more than nine billion people. But sheer population growth isn’t the only reason we’ll need more food. The spread of prosperity across the world, especially in China and India, is driving an increased demand for meat, eggs, and dairy, boosting pressure to grow more corn and soybeans to feed more cattle, pigs, and chickens. If these trends continue, the double whammy of population growth and richer diets will require us to roughly double the amount of crops we grow by 2050.

Unfortunately the debate over how to address the global food challenge has become polarized, pitting conventional agriculture and global commerce against local food systems and organic farms. The arguments can be fierce, and like our politics, we seem to be getting more divided rather than finding common ground. Those who favor conventional agriculture talk about how modern mechanization, irrigation, fertilizers, and improved genetics can increase yields to help meet demand. And they’re right. Meanwhile proponents of local and organic farms counter that the world’s small farmers could increase yields plenty—and help themselves out of poverty—by adopting techniques that improve fertility without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. They’re right too.

But it needn’t be an either-or proposition. Both approaches offer badly needed solutions; neither one alone gets us there. We would be wise to explore all of the good ideas, whether from organic and local farms or high-tech and conventional farms, and blend the best of both.

I was fortunate to lead a team of scientists who confronted this simple question: How can the world double the availability of food while simultaneously cutting the environmental harm caused by agriculture? After analyzing reams of data on agriculture and the environment, we proposed five steps that could solve the world’s food dilemma.

Step One: Freeze Agriculture’s Footprint

For most of history, whenever we’ve needed to produce more food, we’ve simply cut down forests or plowed grasslands to make more farms. We’ve already cleared an area roughly the size of South America to grow crops. To raise livestock, we’ve taken over even more land, an area roughly the size of Africa. Agriculture’s footprint has caused the loss of whole ecosystems around the globe, including the prairies of North America and the Atlantic forest of Brazil, and tropical forests continue to be cleared at alarming rates. But we can no longer afford to increase food production through agricultural expansion. Trading tropical forest for farmland is one of the most destructive things we do to the environment, and it is rarely done to benefit the 850 million people in the world who are still hungry. Most of the land cleared for agriculture in the tropics does not contribute much to the world’s food security but is instead used to produce cattle, soybeans for livestock, timber, and palm oil. Avoiding further deforestation must be a top priority.

Step Two: Grow More on Farms We’ve Got

Starting in the 1960s, the green revolution increased yields in Asia and Latin America using better crop varieties and more fertilizer, irrigation, and machines—but with major environmental costs. The world can now turn its attention to increasing yields on less productive farmlands—especially in Africa, Latin America, and eastern Europe—where there are “yield gaps” between current production levels and those possible with improved farming practices. Using high-tech, precision farming systems, as well as approaches borrowed from organic farming, we could boost yields in these places several times over.

We can no longer afford to increase food production through agricultural expansion.

It would easier to feed the planet if more of the crops we grew ended up in human stomachs., increasing yields on underperforming farms could significantly boost the world’s food supply., crop allocation.

100% calories

Agriculture's footprint.

We can be more efficient about where we grow, what we grow, and how we grow.

Pan and zoom on maps.

Where Agriculture Exists

Nearly all new food production in the next 25 years will have to come from existing agricultural land.

feed and fuel

How Our Crops Are Used

Only 55 percent of food-crop calories directly nourish people. Meat, dairy, and eggs from animals raised on feed supply another 4 percent.

Where Yields Could Improve

Improving nutrient and water supplies where yields are lowest could result in a 58 percent increase in global food production.

Step Three: Use Resources More Efficiently

We already have ways to achieve high yields while also dramatically reducing the environmental impacts of conventional farming. The green revolution relied on the intensive—and unsustainable—use of water and fossil-fuel-based chemicals. But commercial farming has started to make huge strides, finding innovative ways to better target the application of fertilizers and pesticides by using computerized tractors equipped with advanced sensors and GPS. Many growers apply customized blends of fertilizer tailored to their exact soil conditions, which helps minimize the runoff of chemicals into nearby waterways.

Organic farming can also greatly reduce the use of water and chemicals—by incorporating cover crops, mulches, and compost to improve soil quality, conserve water, and build up nutrients. Many farmers have also gotten smarter about water, replacing inefficient irrigation systems with more precise methods, like subsurface drip irrigation. Advances in both conventional and organic farming can give us more “crop per drop” from our water and nutrients.

Step Four: Shift Diets

It would be far easier to feed nine billion people by 2050 if more of the crops we grew ended up in human stomachs. Today only 55 percent of the world’s crop calories feed people directly; the rest are fed to livestock (about 36 percent) or turned into biofuels and industrial products (roughly 9 percent). Though many of us consume meat, dairy, and eggs from animals raised on feedlots, only a fraction of the calories in feed given to livestock make their way into the meat and milk that we consume. For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef. Finding more efficient ways to grow meat and shifting to less meat-intensive diets—even just switching from grain-fed beef to meats like chicken, pork, or pasture-raised beef—could free up substantial amounts of food across the world. Because people in developing countries are unlikely to eat less meat in the near future, given their newfound prosperity, we can first focus on countries that already have meat-rich diets. Curtailing the use of food crops for biofuels could also go a long way toward enhancing food availability.

A World Demanding More

By 2050 the world’s population will likely increase by more than 35 percent.

To feed that population, crop production will need to double.

Why? Production will have to far outpace population growth as the developing world grows prosperous enough to eat more meat.

Step Five: Reduce Waste

An estimated 25 percent of the world’s food calories and up to 50 percent of total food weight are lost or wasted before they can be consumed. In rich countries most of that waste occurs in homes, restaurants, or supermarkets. In poor countries food is often lost between the farmer and the market, due to unreliable storage and transportation. Consumers in the developed world could reduce waste by taking such simple steps as serving smaller portions, eating leftovers, and encouraging cafeterias, restaurants, and supermarkets to develop waste-reducing measures. Of all of the options for boosting food availability, tackling waste would be one of the most effective.

Taken together, these five steps could more than double the world’s food supplies and dramatically cut the environmental impact of agriculture worldwide. But it won’t be easy. These solutions require a big shift in thinking. For most of our history we have been blinded by the overzealous imperative of more, more, more in agriculture—clearing more land, growing more crops, using more resources. We need to find a balance between producing more food and sustaining the planet for future generations.

This is a pivotal moment when we face unprecedented challenges to food security and the preservation of our global environment. The good news is that we already know what we have to do; we just need to figure out how to do it. Addressing our global food challenges demands that all of us become more thoughtful about the food we put on our plates. We need to make connections between our food and the farmers who grow it, and between our food and the land, watersheds, and climate that sustain us. As we steer our grocery carts down the aisles of our supermarkets, the choices we make will help decide the future.

Jonathan Foley directs the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota. Jim Richardson’s portraits of farmers are the latest in his body of work documenting agriculture. George Steinmetz’s big-picture approach reveals the landscapes of industrial food.

The magazine thanks The Rockefeller Foundation and members of the National Geographic Society for their generous support of this series of articles.

All maps and graphics: Virginia W. Mason and Jason Treat, NGM Staff. A World Demanding More, source: David Tilman, University of Minnesota. Agriculture's Footprint, source: Roger LeB. Hooke, University of Maine. Maps, source: Global Landscapes Initiative, Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota.

• 1996-2014 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY.
• ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
• TERMS OF SERVICE
• PRIVACY POLICY

The Future of Food

Food Supply Essays

Intersections of nutrition, environment, and health, a reflective essay on the challenges and opportunities of digitalization, work, and leadership as a digital consultant in transportation and food supply in axfood.se., food insecurity in nigeria, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

FOOD SECURITY:

Strengthening Africa’s food systems

Hailemariam Dessalegn

Ahunna Eziakonwa

Food security in Africa: Current efforts and challenges

Former Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Board Chair, Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa

Africa’s food systems are at a crossroad. Several challenges and exogenous shocks— including extreme weather events and climate change, recurrent outbreaks of pests and diseases, limited availability and adoption of yield-increasing technologies—have exposed fragilities of Africa’s food systems, undermining the ability to meet the food demand of a burgeoning population.

“Africa’s food systems must become more resilient and guarantee access to healthy and affordable diets for all. Tested systemic models have demonstrated that agriculture transformation is possible in input and output market systems, and that it can be scaled across the continent.”

More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have disrupted the supply chain for agricultural inputs, fuel, and food. The state of food security in the continent is worsening, with over 20 percent of the continent’s population (roughly 257 million people) undernourished. 1 Africa bears the heaviest burden of malnutrition, 2 while the African Union’s Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) Biennial Review report (2019-2021) further reveals that Africa is not on track to meet its goal of ending hunger by 2025. 3 In 2022, over 20 million people and at least 10 million children faced severe food shortage in Africa due to crop failure and four consecutive dry seasons. 4 East Africa alone lost close to 2 million livestock in a year due to recurrent drought and low response capacity. 5 Moreover, projections by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa point to Africa’s annual food imports increasing significantly; by a factor of seven from $15 billion in 2018 to $110 billion by 2025, and by a factor of three from the current $43 billion. 6

Current efforts by AGRA and other African-led institutions

Given these worrying food security trends, Africa’s food systems must become more resilient and guarantee access to healthy and affordable diets for all. Tested systemic models have demonstrated that agriculture transformation is possible in input and output market systems, and that it can be scaled across the continent. Besides engaging in immediate recovery efforts, such as our $11 million investments to tackle the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has supported African countries to build capacities for the design of agricultural sector strategies and evidence-based policy reforms. At a country level, AGRA has made significant strides in helping resource national agriculture programs, working closely with ministries of agriculture to design 11 flagship programs. Some of the early dividends of this work include:

• Enhanced capacity of African governments to design and implement policies, and hence respond to emergent agricultural and food systems challenges. AGRA recognizes that “business as usual” is no longer sustainable and has therefore developed a program called “sustainable farming” to ensure that farmers concomitantly achieve three major livelihood objectives, namely: Food security, protecting ecosystem services, and resilience to climate and other shocks. It employs context-specific farming system solutions with emphasis on improving water and nutrient efficiency of crops, replenishing over extracted nutrients through application of judicious amounts of fertilizer, and diversifying the farming systems with climate resilient crops and management practices.
• To improve climate resilience, AGRA invested in the development of African scientists and African research institutions. AGRA has thus far trained more than 500 national research system breeders at PhD and MSc level, to create local capacity of genetic development.
• Responding to the climate risks, Africa has capacity to breed and release varieties of crop that are climate adaptive; early maturing, and drought tolerant like cassava, maize, rice, groundnuts, cowpeas, high iron beans, and b-carotene rich sweet potato that can be scaled.
• Recognizing the malfunctional extension system in Africa, the introduction of private-sector led village-based agricultural advisors’ engagement has helped to reduce post-harvest losses by about 30 percent in countries such as Mali, Mozambique, and Nigeria.
• Together with the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), AGRA is building the Regional Food Balance Sheet (RFBS) to address the dearth of reliable, timely, and accurate data and guide food and nutrition related decision making in Africa.
• Together with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Commission and other partners, AGRA has established the ECOWAS Rice Observatory (ERO) with respective national chapters, where rice-related matters of trade policy, market development, and farmer support will be discussed, and solutions identified.
• Within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, AGRA has established Chinyanja Triangle Soybean Trade initiative and linked a total of 22,179 smallholder farmers to regional trade markets, supplying over 7,070 million metric tons (MT) of soybeans valued at more than $4 million unlocking trade financing valued at $2.5 million which will support aggregators to source soybeans from smallholder farmers at competitive prices.

Critical next steps

Beyond this progress, strategic and urgent measures are still needed to enhance the resilience of Africa’s food systems and bolster the ability to deliver on food security and nutrition objectives. Some of these actions include:

• Accelerating the adoption and implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) in order to avert food supply disruptions, as experienced during the pandemic.
• Providing an enabling policy environment for the financial sector to supply more business and financial tools to Agri-SMEs.
• Supporting the establishment of Strategic Grain Reserves (SGRs) as a buffer against unexpected exogenous shocks. Social Protection Programs are also priorities and should be implemented with clear graduation targets for the beneficiaries.
• Moving towards sustainable farming: Although Africa owns about 60 percent of the world’s potential land for agricultural expansion, 7 by 2050, about 45 percent of the additional food should come from sustainable intensification (i.e., producing more food and fiber per unit of land and water).
• African food systems should be diversified, moving from the major global commodities: Rice, wheat, and maize; and more investment must be made towards African indigenous and resilient crops including sorghum, millets, teff, and cassava.
• Increasing investments in market infrastructure and other incentive mechanisms to support African farmers to adopt climate smart policies, technologies, and practices, including afforestation and rehabilitation of degraded lands, wetlands, and protected areas to enhance carbon sequestration and reduce carbon losses.
• Investment in irrigation infrastructure is critical. Rainfed food production sits at the center of 70 percent of Africa’s livelihoods. This heavy reliance on rainfed systems exposes farmers to recurrent drought and other extreme events, hence water-centered adaptation must be a priority for Africa.
• Increased availability of clean and renewable energy for rural Africa, the absence of which is currently contributing hugely to deforestation and climate change exposure.
• Institutional capacity: Africa’s level of exposure and vulnerability is connected to its low institutional capacity and governance systems. We need to ensure that national systems have the capacity to convert climate policies and commitments into action.
• Early warning systems and associated climate advisories that are demand-driven and context specific, combined with climate change literacy and awareness, can help make the difference between coping and informed adaptation responses.

Securing Africa’s food sovereignty

United Nations Assistant Secretary General, UNDP Director, Regional Bureau for Africa

The war in Ukraine laid bare a vexing and persistent structural vulnerability in most African countries. 8 The continent, with 60 percent of the world’s unused arable land, cannot feed itself because of low yields, poor farm management practices, and distortions in agricultural markets. 9 Consequently, the continent is overly dependent on food and fertilizer imports to feed its people. Africa’s farmers find it increasingly difficult to enhance productivity, create jobs, and boost wealth in the agricultural sector. 10 The Ukraine crisis should be a wake-up call. African countries must embrace a food systems approach to scale-up food production, overhaul farm management practices, and improve food marketing to move beyond food security and attain food sovereignty. 11 This will not only ensure the availability of affordable food, but it will also help countries attain a number of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including: SDG #2 zero hunger, SDG #3 good health and wellbeing, SDG #5 gender equality, SDG #8 decent work and economic growth, and SDG #10 reduced inequalities.

The 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP27) highlighted the challenges Africa continues to face with regards to tackling the effects of climate change. While we are buoyed by the groundbreaking decision to establish a loss and damage fund, the failure to reach global consensus on tangible action that will reduce emissions reminds us of the difficult road ahead. 12 Without this thorny issue being resolved, our efforts to attain food sovereignty will remain stymied.

Food sovereignty speaks to the ability of a country to feed itself. In Africa, this must involve increasing production and ensuring that farming systems are more resilient to price and environmental shocks. The 2006 Abuja Declaration of African agriculture ministers called for an increase in Africa’s average fertilizer application rates from 20 kg/ha to 50 kg/ha to boost production. Africa’s average application rates are still at 2006 levels, while the global average is slightly over 130 kg/ha. [UNDP. 2022. “Towards Food Security and Sovereignty in Africa.” Regional Bureau for Africa Working Paper. United Nations Development Programme.] While it is evident that fertilizers are not the proverbial silver bullet, it is clear that better farming practices could be a crucial first step in Africa’s journey towards food sovereignty. Recent UNDP research suggests that meeting the 2006 Abuja target could more than double Africa’s food production in a couple of years.

In order to accomplish this, Africa does not need to be overly dependent on fertilizer imports from Ukraine and Russia. The continent produces sufficient potash and ammonia to sustain a thriving fertilizer industry. In addition, existing fertilizer blending facilities (in 19 African countries) and manufacturing plants (in 10 African countries) operate well below capacity. Concerted investments in infrastructure, technology, and skills, including through public-private partnerships, could boost fertilizer production. Leveraging the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) could also widen and deepen Africa’s market and facilitate the availability of affordable fertilizer across Africa. In Nigeria, for example, if fertilizer-producing plants were working at full capacity (Dangote’s full capacity is 3 million tons and Indorama’s 1.4 million tons), the country could meet its own 1.5 million tons of fertilizer consumption, while also meeting the rest of the region’s needs.

“Food sovereignty speaks to the ability of a country to feed itself. In Africa, this must involve increasing production and ensuring that farming systems are more resilient to price and environmental shocks.”

A case for food sovereignty

Food sovereignty in Africa is not just about production and trade. It is also about resilience and ensuring that the continent’s food production is not held hostage by natural and market shocks. The use of technology, fertilizer, and improved farm management practices could revolutionize Africa’s food sector. In addition, African countries must take steps to reverse their dependence on food aid and food imports. Free or cheap food imports have made local food production in Africa less competitive and, in turn, shifted consumer preferences away from local brands to foreign ones. As a result, Africa is now the most food-import-dependent region in the world, dedicating more than 13 percent of its import expenditure to buying food and agricultural commodities. This contributes to overall fiscal stress.

Revolutionizing food production in Africa will improve the continent’s development prospects and build resilience. Using fertilizers produced in Africa and fully integrating research from Africa’s agricultural research institutes could help the continent attain food sovereignty by minimizing imports. This would make Africa’s food markets more resilient during global shocks and prevent the pass-through of global price shocks into domestic inflation. It would also have the added benefit of relieving stress on scarce foreign exchange earnings.

Assuming Africa had adhered to the 2006 Abuja Declaration and gradually increased fertilizer application rates from 20 kg to 50 kg per hectare between 2010 and 2020, food production could have grown cumulatively by 209 percent instead of just 24 percent. Such an increase would have had a salutary impact on reducing hunger and addressing malnourishment.

The increased agricultural productivity would also significantly impact women and girls, helping Africa make more progress on SDG 5 regarding gender equality. Research by the Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that women comprise 43 percent of the agricultural labor-force in developing countries and are mainly concentrated in harvesting and weeding.7 Boosting food production could therefore also contribute to decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), especially for women and girls.

Policy options

Some African countries are already improving food production and attaining food sovereignty. Malawi’s 2006-2010 agricultural development program, which has been described as “pro-poor,” increased yields, raised incomes, and made the crops more resilient to drought. 13 Ethiopia’s 2005 productive safety net policy program (PSNP) targeted households and communities that are chronically food insecure and offered insurance, as well as investment in public goods such as soil and water conservation.

“Free or cheap food imports have made local food production in Africa less competitive and, in turn, shifted consumer preferences away from local brands to foreign ones. As a result, Africa is now the most food-import-dependent region in the world, dedicating more than 13 percent of its import expenditure to buying food and agricultural commodities.”

Despite progress in a few countries, Africa needs coordinated policy changes and sustained action to increase food production, improve distribution, ensure affordability, and reduce dependency. 14 African leaders should prioritize incentives to increase domestic and regional food supply. This will include using appropriate inputs to boost and scale up production to cater to national and regional markets. An important goal in this context is the full operationalization of the AfCFTA to facilitate the free movement of labor, inputs, and food across the one-Africa market. From a policy perspective, Africa must shift the narrative from food supply to developing resilient food systems . 15 Africa’s default must no longer be only trying to address food availability. Policies must focus on ensuring that the entire continental food value chain is robust, profitable, and leaves no one (and no community) behind.

Africa’s development partners also have a critical role to play. 15 While temporary aid is needed, the primary need is to fully support programs that de-risk and boost critical investments in Africa’s food sector. This will facilitate financial and technical resources to modernize food production, storage, and marketing in Africa. Africa’s development partners can also promote efforts to maximize regional food trade, by reducing disincentives and inefficiencies in global markets—such as dumping, subsidies, and tariff structures that would disadvantage or discourage domestic production in African countries.

Africa has a long history of food dependency, a legacy of food-aid policies and low domestic productive capacity. 15 As a result, much of its food is imported, implying that any major global shock can lead to severe trade disruptions, increased hunger, and pass-through inflation, eroding both household and public budgets. Africa’s food sovereignty pathway involves enhancing agricultural productivity by improving farm management techniques.

UNDP analysis shows that Africa could easily produce the fertilizer inputs it needs, and that meeting the 2006 Abuja Declaration targets would boost food supply, while positively impacting the SDGs. 15

Ensuring Africa’s food sovereignty—implying increased availability and affordability—is key to the continent’s own economic sovereignty, sustainable development, and achieving the SDGs. 15

• 1. Armstrong, Martin. 2022. “A fifth of people in Africa are suffering from chronic hunger. This map shows where the situation is most severe.” World Economic Forum. August 2022.
• 2. FAO. 2022. “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022.” The Food and Agriculture Organization.
• 3. AU. 2021. “3rd CAADP Biennial Review Report.” The African Union.
• 4. UNICEF. 2022. “At least 10 million children face severe drought in the Horn of Africa.” United Nations Children’s Fund.
• 5. Bloomberg. 2022. “’On Brink of Catastrophe’: Horn of Africa Drought Kills Over 1.5 million Livestock.” Bloomberg. February 2022.
• 6. UNECA. 2021. “Regional Dialogue: African Food Systems: Seventh Session of the Africa Regional Forum on Sustainable Development.” Background paper. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. March 2021.
• 7. Wim Plaizier. 2016. “2 truths about Africa’s agriculture”. World Economic Forum.
• 8. UNDP. 2022. “The impact of the war in Ukraine on sustainable development in Africa.” United Nations Development Programme.
• 9. UNECA. 2013. “Eighth African Development Forum (ADF-VIII) Governing and Harnessing Natural Resources for Africa’s Development.” United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
• 10. UNDP. 2022. “The impact of the war in Ukraine on sustainable development in Africa.” United Na¬tions Development Programme.
• 11. UNDP. 2022. “Towards Food Security and Sovereignty in Africa.” Regional Bureau for Africa Working Paper. United Nations Development Programme
• 12. World Economic Forum. 2022. “What did COP27 accomplish and what actions can we expect as a result?” World Economic Forum.
• 13. Arndt, Channing, Karl Pauw, and James Thurlow. 2015. “The Economy-wide Impacts and Risks of Malawi’s Farm Input Subsidy Program.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 98, Issue 3 p. 962-980.
• 14. UNDP. 2022. “Towards Food Security and Sovereignty in Africa.” Regional Bureau for Africa Working Paper. United Nations Development Programme.

By Jeanine Milly Cooper

Liberian Minister of Agriculture Jeanine Mill Cooper explains how the country is increasing the availability of rice.

By Danielle Resnick

Danielle Resnick provides recommendations to help mitigate the recurring food price crises in Africa and enhance food security.

By Satu Santala

Satu Santala makes the case for greater investment and innovation in Africa’s food systems.

Next Chapter

03 | Education and Skills Equipping a labor force for the future

Foresight Africa: Top Priorities for the Continent in 2023

On January 30, AGI hosted a Foresight Africa launch featuring a high-level panel of leading Africa experts to offer insights on regional trends along with recommendations for national governments, regional organizations, multilateral institutions, the private sector, and civil society actors as they forge ahead in 2022.

Africa in Focus

What should be the top priority for Africa in 2023?

BY ALOYSIUS UCHE ORDU

Aloysius Uche Ordu introduces Foresight Africa 2023, which outlines top priorities for the year ahead and offers recommendations for supporting Africa at a time of heightened global turbulence.

Foresight Africa Podcast

The Foresight Africa podcast celebrates Africa’s dynamism and explores strategies for broadening the benefits of growth to all people of Africa.

• Media Relations
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy

Population Growth and Global Food Supplies

• First Online: 08 April 2020

Cite this chapter

• Christopher Ritson 6  

Part of the book series: Contemporary Issues in Technology Education ((CITE))

765 Accesses

3 Citations

Nineteenth-century classical economist Thomas Malthus predicted a bleak future for mankind because of his argument that population growth had a natural tendency to outpace growth in food supplies. Interest in the ideas of Malthus was reawakened by the explosion in international food prices during the 1970s—the ‘World Food Crisis’—but this quickly subsided when prices fell and we entered an era of ‘cheap food’. However, international food prices exploded again in 2008 and since then have remained relatively high and volatile. This time, the cause may have been a major shift in the long term balance between supply and demand for food on world markets. Although most experts predict a gradual decline in the rate of growth in the world’s population, this still means many more mouths to feed by the end of the century. In principle, there can be enough food, but more enlightened international policies will be required if global inequality does not lead to a Malthusian future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Higher food prices can reduce poverty and stimulate growth in food production

Globalization and Malnutrition: Geographical Perspectives on Its Paradoxes

Economic Growth and Global Change

Boserup, E. (1981). Population and technology . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Google Scholar  

Brown, L. (2012). Full planet, empty plates: The new geopolitics of food security . New York: W.W. Norton.

Devereux, S. (2001). Sen’s entitlement approach: Critiques and counter-critiques. Oxford Development Studies, 29 (3), 245–263.

Article   Google Scholar  

Malthus, T. (1803). An essay on the principle of population . London: Johnson.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth . London: Pan Books.

Morgan, D. (1979). Merchants of grain . New York: Viking.

Ritson, C. (2016). The concept of food security and the future of world food prices. Discussion paper 37, Centre for Rural Economy, Newcastle University.

Sen, A. K. (1981). Poverty and famines . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Download references

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Francis Naab for his help in constructing the diagrams.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Christopher Ritson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Ritson .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Roehampton, London, UK

Marion Rutland

Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia

Angela Turner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ritson, C. (2020). Population Growth and Global Food Supplies. In: Rutland, M., Turner, A. (eds) Food Education and Food Technology in School Curricula. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39339-7_17

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39339-7_17

Published : 08 April 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-39338-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-39339-7

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

What the War in Ukraine Means for the World’s Food Supply

By Michael J. Puma and Megan Konar

Dr. Puma is the director of the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University’s Climate School, where he has done extensive research on global food security. Dr. Konar is an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Illinois, where she studies food supply chains and their links to water use and sustainability.

As we watch Ukrainian refugees arrive by car and foot in Poland, it’s hard not to recall World War II, when the region was ravaged by fighting, famine spread and millions of Ukrainians died of starvation.

We’re nowhere near that point; this time, however, food disruptions won’t remain an insular crisis. What is happening in Ukraine now already is radiating outward and threatening food availability in less prosperous nations that have come to depend on exports of grains and other food products from Ukraine and Russia.

The Black Sea region today is a vital hub of global agricultural production and trade, and Ukraine is one of the world’s breadbaskets. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Russia were net grain importers. Now the two countries account for 29 percent of global exports of wheat. They also contribute 19 percent of global corn and 80 percent of global sunflower oil exports.

After only days of fighting, global commodity markets have been roiled. Shipping in the Sea of Azov was brought to a standstill last week. Wheat futures jumped 12 percent on the Chicago Board of Trade. This increase topped already inflated prices.

Staple grains supply the bulk of the diet for the world’s poorest. Higher prices threaten to place a significant strain on poor countries like Bangladesh, Sudan and Pakistan, which in 2020 received roughly half or more of their wheat from Russia or Ukraine, as well as Egypt and Turkey, which imported the great majority of their wheat from those combatants. Nations in the Middle East and North Africa saw food prices spike in 2010 when Ukraine restricted its exports of wheat, squeezing what had been consistent supplies of food to those countries and contributing to political instability throughout the region.

Pandemic-related supply chain disruptions have already inflated prices for food and other basic staples. Many low-income food-importing countries have also seen an increase in malnourishment rates.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Food guides for travelers /
• Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Oblast /

10 good meals in Yekaterinburg, Russia

Table of contents

• 1. Cutlets are a word to explore
• 2. Creamed potatoes are smooth and warming
• 3. Dumplings are an inevitable choice
• 4. Caesar salad is the King
• 5. Macaroni are rather simple
• 6. Meat kebabs are a way to relax
• 7. Omelettes are a fun way to be European
• 8. Syrniki are simply everywhere
• 9. Pelmeni are always strong
• 10. Borsch is superb all the time

The largest city in the Ural Federal District, Yekaterinburg is located right in the middle of that mysterious Asian part of Russia with its vast steppes and monumental mountains. It's worth exploring the ambience alone, no one can quite forget being there, and the weight of the name of Empress Catherine I and the legacy of Peter the Great (who founded the city and named it after her) can be felt in the air. The food here can also be royal if you choose to find the right places and dishes.

In the culinary arts, the term cutlet is used to refer to a boneless, thin cut of meat — chicken, veal, pork, or lamb — that cooks very quickly and is usually pan-fried. Most cutlets are made by pounding the meat until there's even thinness and are often dusted with flour or coated in breadcrumbs before cooking.

If you think that cutlets are something rather generic to start the list of the rural food with, you couldn't be more wrong. Depending on the restaurant, there's a chance you'll encounter the most unique  cutlets you can imagine. How about bear cutlets? How about regular pork variations with a special combination of herbs? Or maybe a mushroom mix within? All of that can be found in Yekaterinburg restaurants, along with more simple, standard options for a great and nutritious meal at any time of the day.

Khmeli Suneli has some great cutlets.

The most common household food in all of Russia since the introduction of potatoes has always been mashed or creamed variation, as solid or creamy as the cook prefers. It's rather ironic that one of the most popular foods in the city of Catherine I, founded by her husband Peter, is creamed potatoes . The irony lies in the fact that, according to the popular belief, it was Peter the Great himself who introduced the food after his great voyage to Europe. Needless to say, Russians are still grateful. Add spices, meats, and herbs - and you have an amazing Ural food experience.

You need to find a decent restaurant first, of course.  Stroganov-Gril' is a safe bet.

It is a broad range of dishes from all over the world. They are small balls of dough that is made with flour and water and wrapped around a filling. Fillings are so versatile, it can be any meat, fish, seafood, fruit, etc. Dumplings can be boiled, baked, steamed or fried.

If there's one thing you can learn from our Russian lists, it's that Russians love their dumplings. Maybe it's the simplicity of putting mixes of meats and herbs into the dough and cooking them, the diversity this allows for, or the relative cheapness of the resulting dish, but  dumplings can be found almost everywhere, and their quality varies depending on the focus of the restaurant chef or a home-cooking enthusiast. There doesn't even have to be meat. Some make dumplings with spoon sweets, for example. Herbs, spices, sour cream, and other options are always available.

Some of the most exciting dumplings can be found at Malinovka , including vegan options.

It's a very simple green salad, a mix of croutons, parmesan cheese and romaine lettuce. The dressing is so addictive. It's made with eggs, lemon juice, black pepper, Worcestershire sauce, anchovies, and mustard. This salad was introduced by Caesar Cardini, a restaurateur from the USA and Mexico.

Another stable food of Russian cuisine is the salad most people don't know isn't named after Julius Caesar. The actual  Caesar salad is called that after Caesar Cardini, an Italian immigrant who operated restaurants in Mexico and the United States. The dish itself consists of romaine lettuce and croutons with a dressing of lemon juice, olive oil, egg, sauce, anchovies, garlic, mustard, cheese, and black pepper. For historical and cultural reasons, this salad has enjoyed great popularity across the country.

Great Caesar salad with chicken, for example, can be found at Carbonara.

Another household Russian food that's not Russian in origin but has become common is macaroni. The word itself is plural in the Russian language and the ways to make  macaroni vary from just boiling them on a stove or adding oils, spices, secondary dishes, cheese as the most popular ingredient that's either melted or shredded, as well as mats, vegetables, and sometimes even bread. The last one sounds crazy but is actually a popular bachelor food.

Sorriso Osteria Bar is well-recommended for macaroni.

They are small cubes of meat grilled on a skewer. The dish comes from Persian and Middle Eastern cuisines. The traditional meat is lamb, mutton, chicken or beef.

It's unclear how the tradition of grilling meat on a skewer became so popular in Russia, but the fact remains simple -  meat kebabs are amazingly common and sought after, both in home-cooking and in restaurants. The ways to prepare the dish also vary, affecting the taste and state of meat, from raw to very well done, and sauces, spices, side dishes and drinks can be pretty much anything you want. Therefore, the most important thing when visiting Yekaterinburg is finding the right place to enjoy the food.

ODjah  offers great kebabs.

Eggs are mixed with milk, cream or water, fried in a pan till a light golden color is reached. Vegetables, mushrooms, pieces of cheese, meat may be added.

Here's another European influence that overtook the Russian tables and cookbooks. Omelettes are French in origin, but the Russians make them in so many exciting ways - it's work checking out, at least. The basis is still the same -  omelettes are made from beaten eggs fried with butter or oil in a frying pan without stirring. The trick is in adding chives, vegetables, mushrooms, meat, and other ingredients that change the consistency of the result and may give the omelette a unique taste.

Decent omelettes with coffee and tea can be found at  Tesla Coffee .

Syrniki is a Russian dessert cooked from quark with eggs, flour and sugar. The mixture is fried in the shape of patty cakes on the sunflower seed oil to become crispy. They are usually cooked for breakfast and served with sour cream, berries or condensed milk.

It looks like not a single Russian food list can avoid these ubiquitous things.  Syrniki are simple to make and delicious if you apply the right touch to make them. This dish has always been popular due to its versatility and accessibility, but as restaurant food, it's only recently reared its cheesy head to find a place among the seemingly more distinguished desserts and aperitifs. The fact that they are healthier plays to its strengths, so not recommending these curd cheese pancakes would be a shame.

Great syrniki can be found at Gorozhane .

Many countries call dumplings their invention. Chinese jiao-tzu, Asian manti, Italian ravioli, Georgian khinkali, Japanese gedza and, of course, Russian dumplings - pelmeni, are small boiled pies with meat.

Aside from dumplings, pelmeni is the second most popular dough-based dish in Russia. Most people don't even care about the complicated oriental origins of the food and just experiment with adding spices, sour cream, even cheeses and sweets to the original recipe, making  pelmeni as universal as sliced bread in some areas of home cooking and restaurant service. It's not easy finding a really good restaurant serving pelmeni as tasty as those you make yourself, but the search is worth it.

Pelmeni Club is a natural choice here.

Borsch is a native Ukrainian and Polish dish. A distinctive feature of this soup is its color - red or dark red, it all depends on the beet, which is added there. Borsch is a very rich soup, its broth is brewed from beef meat, and then vegetables such as cabbage, carrots, onions, potatoes are added to it. Today there are many varieties of borsch, but, of course, this is one of the most favorite dishes in Russia and Moldova.

Of course, no one can forget the borsch, the essentially Russian, even though it's probably Ukrainian, soup made with beetroot that is a thing of mystery and admiration across the land, and making it right is a craft in its own right. The classic variation requires combining meat or bone stock with sautéed  cabbage, carrots, onions, potatoes, and tomatoes. It's served hot with different accompanying foods.  Borsch is the main course of any meal, so be sure to leave enough space for it.

Khutorok has some of the most amazing borsch.

Yekaterinburg is interesting, modern, yet it still remembers its traditions. It's a place that can truly be called alive. Enjoy visiting it and checking out the local food when you get the chance.

Great food and best restaurants in Yekaterinburg

Tasty dishes and restaurant features in Yekaterinburg

You may be interested in

Explore our collection of recipes

• Advertisement

World Exhibitions Trade Fairs, Conferences, Seminars, Workshop Business Directory

IEC Ekaterinburg-Expo (Yekaterinburg-Ekspo) Yekaterinburg, Russia

2exhibitions 2 weeks ago Venue 928 Views

IEC Ekaterinburg-Expo : Venue Name Category:  Venue Location: IEC Ekaterinburg-Expo (Yekaterinburg-Ekspo) – Ekspo Bul’var, 2, Yekaterinburg , Sverdlovsk Oblast 620060 Russia Phone: +7 (343) 215-79-98 Email: hello[at]ekb-expo.ru www: ekaterinburgexpo.ru Timings: 09:00 AM – 20:00 PM

IEC Ekaterinburg-Expo (Yekaterinburg-Ekspo): About

International exhibition center Ekaterinburg-EXPO , being built under the patronage of the Government of Sverdlovsk region, will not only be the biggest exhibition center of the Urals, but also one of the largest and most modern exhibition centers in Russia. International Exhibition Center Ekaterinburg-EXPO is a multipurpose platform for various regional, Russian and international events. Exhibitions and congresses, conferences and equipment display, fashion shows and sports events – choose your format! Nowadays IEC Ekaterinburg-EXPO is the largest exhibition complex in Russia on the border between Europe and Asia. There are four exhibition halls – 50,000 m² and 60,000 m² for outdoor exhibitions. It’s an ideal ground for large-scale exhibitions, even for heavy equipment demonstration.

• Congress Center MTS Live Hall with an area of ​​41.6 thousand m²
• 4 pavilions of 10 and 20 thousand m²
• 6000 parking spaces
• More than 500 thousand people annually
• Celebrated 10th anniversary on December 1, 2021

About the complex:

Ekaterinburg-Expo is the largest center for business and entertainment events of any level.

The Expo opened in 2011 as a venue for Innoprom , but has since grown into a multifunctional complex with large pavilions, its own congress center, a large food court and many halls of various configurations.

For 2022, the total area of ​​IEC Ekaterinburg-Expo is 150,000 m², which includes:

• 4 exhibition pavilions of 10 and 20 thousand m² with a capacity of up to 20,000 people
• MTC Live Hall is a multifunctional congress center
• With a concert hall for up to 5,000 people
• Halls of various configurations from 10 to 5,000 people
• Food court, cafes and restaurants
• Own lighting and sound equipment
• Parking for 6,000 spaces and a helipad

4 pavilions with a total area of ​​50 thousand m² are suitable for concerts, festivals, sports events and any other events and can accommodate up to 20,000 spectators.

High-tech equipment and developed infrastructure of the complex allow holding events of any format. And with the help of modern engineering systems and safe structures, the organizers can implement even the most technically complex project.

New Congress Center:

MTS Live Hall is called the most modern platform in the Ural-Siberian region.

It is the only convention center in the area with a 5,000-seat concert venue, conference rooms, VIP rooms, and a restaurant area with panoramic views.

We have our own lighting and sound equipment. This gives us the opportunity to make the best shows in the MTS Live Hall, control the climate and lighting in all areas of the site, and also provide the best soundtrack for the event.

Location Map:

Top 10 Events @ IEC Ekaterinburg-Expo

• Translogistica Ural 2024 : Yekaterinburg Russia Logistics & Commercial Transport Expo
• AGROPROM Ural 2024 : Russia Animal Husbandry & Crop Production Expo
• Furniture&Woodworking Ural 2024 : Yekaterinburg Furniture, Equipment & Components Expo
• 100+ TechnoBuild Russia 2024 : Ekaterinburg International Construction Forum & Expo
• Avtotech Ural : Yekaterinburg Automotive Expo
• Build Ural : IEC Yekaterinburg, Russia
• FoodTech Ural : IEC Yekaterinburg, Russia
• INNOPROM Yekaterinburg : Russia Expo
• InterFood Ural : Yekaterinburg Food & Packaging
• Stumbleupon

Tags Europe Best 10 World Trade Centers Europe Top 10 Exhibition Centers Russia Best 10 World Trade Centers Russia Top 10 Exhibition Centers Yekaterinburg Best 10 World Trade Centers Yekaterinburg Top 10 Exhibition Centers

Related Articles

Istanbul Lutfi Kırdar International Convention and Exhibition Center

11 hours ago

Crocus Expo: Moscow Exhibition Centre

Baku Expo Center, Azerbaijan

EXPOFORUM Exhibition Center St. Petersburg, Russia

2 weeks ago

Poznan International Fair, Poland

3 weeks ago

International Exhibition Centre Kyiv, Ukraine

July 16, 2024

Dubai World Trade Centre – DWTC: Dubai, UAE

Dubai World Trade Centre is the UAE’s leading event venue and the largest event and …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• Did Anastasia escape her executors?
• How did Anastasia die?
• How did Nicholas II change the world?

Yekaterinburg

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Yekaterinburg - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)

Recent News

Yekaterinburg , city and administrative center of Sverdlovsk oblast (region), west-central Russia . The city lies along the Iset River, which is a tributary of the Tobol River , and on the eastern slope of the Ural Mountains , slightly east of the border between Europe and Asia . Yekaterinburg is situated 1,036 miles (1,667 km) east of Moscow .

Near the village of Shartash, which was founded in 1672 by members of the Russian sect of Old Believers, an ironworks was established in 1721 and a fortress in 1722. In 1723 the new settlement was named Yekaterinburg in honor of Catherine I , the wife of Peter I the Great . The town grew as the administrative center for all the ironworks of the Urals region, and its importance increased after 1783, when the Great Siberian Highway was built through it. After 1878 the Trans-Siberian Railroad linked the city with Siberia. After the Russian Revolution of 1917 (October), Yekaterinburg achieved notoriety as the scene of the execution of the last tsar , Nicholas II , and his family in July 1918. In 1924 it was renamed Sverdlovsk in honor of the Bolshevik leader Yakov M. Sverdlov, but the city reverted to its original name in 1991.

Modern Yekaterinburg is one of the major industrial centers of Russia, especially for heavy engineering. The Uralmash produces heavy machinery and is the city’s largest enterprise; it once employed some 50,000 workers, though it now has a small fraction of that number. Engineering products manufactured in the city include metallurgical and chemical machinery, turbines, diesels, and ball bearings . During the Soviet period the city was a major center of biological and chemical warfare research and development . There is a range of light industries, including a traditional one of gem cutting. Food processing is also important. The city, laid out on a regular gridiron pattern, sprawls across the valley of the Iset—there dammed to form a series of small lakes—and the low surrounding hills.

Yekaterinburg is an important railway junction, with lines radiating from it to all parts of the Urals and the rest of Russia. The city is the leading cultural center of the Urals and has numerous institutions of higher education , including the Urals A.M. Gorky State University (founded 1920), a conservatory, and polytechnic, mining, forestry, agricultural, law, medical, and teacher-training institutes. The Urals branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and many scientific-research establishments are also located there. Boris Yeltsin , the first democratically elected president of Russia, was educated and spent much of his political career in the city. Pop. (2005 est.) 1,304,251.

U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Russia

Social / search.

Yekaterinburg & Sverdlovsk Oblast

History, Politics, and Economics

Yekaterinburg lies at the crossroads between Europe and Asia, east of the slopes of the Ural Mountains in central Russia. The continental divide is 30 kilometers west of the city. Yekaterinburg is Russia’s third or fourth largest city with a population of 1.5 million. It was founded in 1723 and is named for Peter the Great’s wife, Catherine I. Peter recognized the importance of Yekaterinburg and the surrounding region for the rapid industrial development necessary to bolster Russia’s military power.Today, Yekaterinburg is primarily known both as a center of heavy industry and steel-making, the Russian equivalent of Pittsburgh, and as a major freight transportation hub. Its major industries include ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, chemicals, timber, and pulp and paper. Yekaterinburg has long been an important trading center for goods coming from Siberia, Central Asia and Europe. The city also has a reputation as a center of higher education and research. The Urals Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences is located there with its 18 institutes and numerous research facilities linked to industry. Yekaterinburg is also well known as a center for the performing arts. Its Opera and Ballet Theater dates back to 1912. The Urals Philharmonic Orchestra is the largest symphony orchestra in central Russia.

Yekaterinburg is the capital of Sverdlovsk Oblast (an oblast is the equivalent of a American state). Economically, Sverdlovsk is among 10 of the 89 administrative subdivisions of the Russian Federation that are net contributors to the federal budget. Sverdlovsk has produced many prominent political figures, including Russia’s first President, Boris Yeltsin, and Russia’s first elected Governor, Eduard Rossel. Since the establishment of the Russian Federation, Sverdlovsk Oblast has been one of the nation’s leaders in political and economic reform. In 1996, Sverdlovsk became the first oblast to conclude agreements with the Federal Government granting it greater political autonomy and the right to conduct its own foreign economic relations.

Economic reform has gathered momentum in Sverdlovsk Oblast. The majority of Sverdlovsk’s industries have been privatized. 75% of enterprises are at least partially owned by private interests. About three-quarters of retail sales and industrial output is generated by private enterprise. Services have grown to 40 percent of oblast GDP, up from only 16 percent in 1992. About 25,000 small businesses are registered in the oblast. Small businesses make up about one-third of the construction, trade and food service.

Industry and Natural Resources

Sverdlovvsk Oblast, like most of the Urals region, possesses abundant natural resources. It is one of Russia’s leaders in mineral extraction. Sverdlovsk produces 70% of Russia’s bauxite, 60% of asbestos, 23% of iron, 97% of vanadium, 6% of copper and 2% of nickel. Forests cover 65% of the oblast. It also produces 6% of Russia’s timber and 7% of its plywood. Sverdlovsk has the largest GDP of any oblast in the Urals. The oblast’s major exports include steel (20% of its foreign trade turnover), chemicals (11%), copper (11%), aluminum (8%) and titanium (3%). In terms of industrial output, Sverdlovsk ranks second only to Moscow Oblast and produces 5% of Russia’s total. Ferrous metallurgy and machine-building still constitute a major part of the oblast’s economy. Yekaterinburg is well known for its concentration of industrial manufacturing plants. The city’s largest factories produce oil extraction equipment, tubes and pipes, steel rollers, steam turbines and manufacturing equipment for other factories.

Non-ferrous metallurgy remains a growth sector. The Verkhnaya Salda Titanium Plant (VSMPO) is the largest titanium works in Russia and the second largest in the world. A second growth sector is food production and processing, with many firms purchasing foreign equipment to upgrade production. The financial crisis has increased demand for domestically produced foodstuffs, as consumers can no longer afford more expensive imported products. Many of Yekaterinburg’s leading food processors — including the Konfi Chocolate Factory, Myasomoltorg Ice-Cream Plant, Myasokombinat Meat Packing Plant and Patra Brewery — have remained financially stable and look forward to growth.

Foreign Trade and Investment

Sverdlovsk Oblast offers investors opportunities mainly in raw materials (metals and minerals) and heavy industries (oil extraction and pipeline equipment). There is also interest in importing Western products in the fields of telecommunications, food processing, safety and security systems, and medicine and construction materials. Both Sverdlovsk Oblast and Yekaterinburg city officials have encouraged foreign investment and created a receptive business climate. The oblast has a Foreign Investment Support Department and a website which profiles over 200 local companies. The city government opened its own investment support center in 1998 to assist foreign companies. Despite local efforts, foreign investors face the same problems in Yekaterinburg as they do elsewhere in Russia. Customs and tax issues top the list of problem areas.

Sverdlovsk Oblast leads the Urals in attracting foreign investment The top five foreign investors are the U.S., UK, Germany, China and Cyprus. About 70 foreign firms have opened representative offices in Yekaterinburg, including DHL, Ford, IBM, Proctor and Gamble, and Siemens. Lufthansa airlines has opened a station in Yekaterinburg and offers three flights per week to Frankfurt.

America is Sverdlovsk’s number one investor with $114 million in investment and 79 joint ventures. The three largest U.S. investors are Coca-Cola, Pepsi and USWest. Coca-Cola and Pepsi both opened bottling plants in Yekaterinburg in 1998. USWest has a joint venture, Uralwestcom, which is one of Yekaterinburg’s leading companies in cellular phone sales and service. America is Sverdlovsk Oblast’s number one trading partner. In 1998, Boeing signed a ten-year titanium supply contract valued at approximately $200 million with the VSMPO titanium plant. Besides the U.S., Sverdlovsk’s top trading partners include Holland, Kazakhstan, Germany and the UK.

Yekaterinburg, like most of Russia, has a continental climate. The city is located at the source of the Iset River and is surrounded by lakes and hills. Temperatures tend to be mild in summer and severe in winter. The average temperature in January is -15.5C (4F), but occasionally reaches -40C (-40F). The average temperature in July is 17.5C (64F), but occasionally reaches 40C (104F). Current weather in Yekaterinburg from  http://www.gismeteo.ru/ .

• Sverdlovsk Oblast Map
• Yekaterinburg Map

Footer Disclaimer This is the official website of the U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Russia. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.