By Sara Gustafson

 Photo credit: The CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)

While global food systems have remained generally resilient to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, regional and local systems, especially in food-deficit countries, face growing challenges. These include diminished purchasing power, disruptions to domestic supply chains, and higher food import costs due to rising global prices, according to the latest AMIS Market Monitor. Understanding how COVID-19 is affecting local and global food value chains is key in establishing effective policy responses to mitigate the harmful impacts of the ongoing public health crisis. A recent webinar on COVID-19 risk, co-organized by the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) and Food Security Portal, examined the results of several recent studies on how various food value chains are responding to COVID-19.

The event was moderated by Nicholas Minot, Senior Research Fellow and Deputy Division Director of IFPRI’s Markets, Trade and Institutions Division, as well as co-leader of PIM’s research on Inclusive and Efficient Value Chains.

The first speaker was Kalle Hirvonen (IFPRI), who discussed food consumption and food security during the pandemic in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Despite Ethiopia’s large population, the country has seen remarkably low rates of COVID-19 infection. Rapid government action, including social distancing mandates and expansion of social safety nets, has contributed significantly to Ethiopia’s containment of the virus. Ethiopia never went into a full lockdown, which Hirvonen suggests may explain the study’s positive findings on food security.

 The study itself utilized household surveys which began before the outbreak of COVID-19 and continued via phone through August 2020.  The surveys captured self-reported changes in income and food and nutrition security among 600 households in the capital city of Addis Ababa. More than 50 percent of respondents reported experiencing a loss in income during the study period, with the poorest households seeing the highest losses. However, households’ dietary diversity scores saw virtually no change as a result of the pandemic.

 “Even the poorest households in Addis are consuming a much more diverse diet than we usually see in rural areas,” Hirvonen said.

 The study also found that while there was no significant change in households’ food budgets or total calorie consumption, what households were eating did shift during the pandemic. Consumption of more expensive, perishable fruits and vegetables fell between September 2019 and August 2020. At the same time, consumption of cheaper staple foods rose. This finding held true regardless of whether households reported experiencing job or income loss.

Overall, Hirvonen concluded, the findings suggest that swift government response and the populations’ high rates of adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures helped Ethiopia avoid the full lockdown scenario seen in many other countries. This may have prevented disruptions to local food supply chains and helped Ethioipa’s agricultural systems remain resilient to COVID-19.

Next, Sudha Narayanan (Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research) highlighted responses by India’s food and agriculture supply chains to the country’s strict lockdown measures.

The government of India imposed a nationwide lockdown fairly early on in the pandemic but did so in a sudden and dramatic fashion that had an immediate negative impact on food and agricultural value chains. Fishermen who went out to sea one day returned the next day to find that they could not sell their catch because markets had been closed. Truckers transporting food across the country could no longer cross state lines and often simply abandoned their deliveries. Migrant workers could no longer travel, leading to agricultural labor shortages in rural areas.

 “It was . . . cataclysmic in terms of impacts on livelihoods,” Narayanan said.

The transportation disruption and labor shortages caused by the lockdown resulted in declines in both supply and demand for food and agriculture products. These challenges have increased both the risks and the costs associated with supply chain operations. Market arrivals for 40 studied food crops collapsed, and the prices farmers received for their goods fell sharply. At the same time, consumer food prices increased significantly in urban areas. These supply chain frictions continued through the summer, even after the strictest lockdown measures were lifted.

Narayanan wrapped up with several important conclusions. First, the government plays an important role in food availability and access in India. The government procures a large volume of staple foods, specifically grains, for distribution through social safety net systems; these programs helped to keep cereal and pulse prices somewhat stable throughout the months of lockdown. Second, informal food sales also proved to be crucial during this period, helping both laborers and consumers be more resilient to supply chain disruptions. However, despite these somewhat functional channels, overall food expenditures fell by 12 percent between March and July. While producer prices have recovered generally, inflation in food and agriculture markets continues to rise. 

“We have both a health crisis and an economic crisis that are ongoing and we have to watch carefully to see how this pans out further one,” Narayanan concluded.

The final speaker was Ben Belton (WorldFish / Michigan State University). Belton presented findings on the impact of COVID-19 on Nigeria’s critical fish sector. The study utilized high-frequency phone surveys that sought to track data related to fish production, prices, producers’ access to various inputs, and assistance provided to the sector.

The surveys identified several short-term effects of Nigeria’s COVID-19 lockdown measures (defined as lasting 3-4 months), namely difficulty buying or selling fish and related products and difficulty accessing transportation for fish products. The impacts of the lockdown on fish value chain actors’ access to inputs lasted slightly longer, while demand for fish and fish products has seen the longest lasting consequences and has not yet fully recovered from Nigeria’s lockdown measures. Thus, there has been a lagged effect following the initial shock.

Employment in the fish sector dipped significantly following the outbreak of COVID-19 and the start of Nigeria’s lockdown. Employees were often unable to get to work due to travel limitations and disruptions to public transportation; at the same time, reduced sales led many firms in the fish sector to suspend their operations and hire fewer laborers.

Belton highlighted that the challenges faced by Nigeria’s fish sector have shifted throughout the study period. During the early spring, lockdown measures and movement restrictions formed the most substantial challenges to the sector’s functioning. By September, however, the most critical challenge facing fish value chain actors were input shortages and subsequent skyrocketing input prices. This again highlights the lagged effect of the outbreak of COVID-19.

Importantly, the fish value chain received very little assistance during the pandemic: less than 2 percent of respondents in the April survey reported receiving any help. Additionally, the bulk of the assistance that fisheries did receive was through informal channels (family and friends) rather than through government programs or NGOs.

“We see clearly that government safety nets were not widely implemented,” Belton emphasized. “Our recommendations then are addressing these points in future crisis situations.”

The seminar concluded with a Q&A session and closing remarks from Frank Place (PIM Director), who highlighted the importance of the studies covered by the webinar.

“Impacts in these countries will have regional and global spillovers,” Place concluded, “so there’s keen interest in understanding the effects of COVID-19 and government responses in these three examples.”

by Sara Gustafson

Photo by World Bank

While no major food shortages have followed on the heels of COVID-19 as of yet, a new article by IFPRI researchers published in Science finds that agricultural and food markets around the world are still feeling the effects of the pandemic and related lockdown measures.

Restrictions of movement have led to labor shortages, and food demand has changed in favor of less expensive and less nutritious foods as schools and restaurants shut down and swathes of people saw a loss of income. In addition, several countries imposed food export restrictions in the early months of the pandemic, disrupting trade for commodities like wheat and rice. Due to all of these impacts, the paper argues that the COVID-19 pandemic has directly and indirectly affected all four pillars of food security (availability, access, utilization, and stability).

The IMF has forecast a 5 percent drop in the global economy in 2020. This poses a significant threat to poor households around the world, who are already particularly vulnerable to income shocks and subsequent food insecurity. Early models suggest that between 90 and 150 million people could fall into extreme poverty as a result of the pandemic. Much of this increased poverty will occur in Africa south of the Sahara and South Asia. Recent surveys in Ethiopia have shown that poor households are struggling more with income losses than with shortages of available food — only 20 percent of surveyed households had enough savings to meet their food needs for more than 30 days.

Increasing poverty will have negative consequences for nutrition as well as for food security. As poor populations struggle to maintain their access to food in the face of rising poverty, many will shift their food baskets to rely more heavily on cheaper, less nutritious foods. Poor households spend nearly 50 percent of their total incomes on non-staple foods like fruits, vegetables, and animal proteins and dairy. As incomes decline, many of these households will likely reduce their consumption of these healthy foods and rely more heavily on staple foods such as wheat, rice, or maize and on cheaper processed foods. While consumption of staple foods and processed foods can help people maintain their caloric intake, it reduces their dietary diversity, consumption of critical micronutrients, and overall nutritional well-being. The impacts of lowered nutritional status will be particularly significant for children, whose growth and cognitive development depend strongly on proper nutrition.

While COVID-19’s biggest impacts are being seen in the realm of food access, the pandemic is also affecting food availability and stability. Due to national and regional differences in agricultural value chains, these impacts vary between low-income and higher-income countries.

In high-income countries, staple food production is largely mechanized; these value chains have seen less disruption from COVID-19-related social distancing measures and other practices. Production of non-staple foods, such as fruits and vegetables, in these countries depends more heavily on people, and often on seasonal migrant workers. These value chains have seen more disruption as a result of the pandemic as people’s movements have been restricted.

Non-staple value chains in high-income countries have also experienced some supply disruptions. Meat processing plants in both Europe and the United States have faced closures due to infected employees, and disruptions in international air transport have disrupted the supply of products such as horticultural exports from Africa.

In low-income countries, agriculture as a whole tends to be less mechanized and more dependent on human labor. Restrictions of movement will have greater impact on labor supplies in these countries, with potential for subsequent reductions in food production. In addition, these countries face more significant disruptions in transportation due to less well-developed infrastructure; these have caused disruptions in the supply of farm inputs and in food distribution to markets, stores, and end consumers.

In terms of stability, some policy measures taken in response to the pandemic can do more harm than good overall. For example, export restrictions can lead to instability in available food supplies, as well as to unpredictable food prices. Both wheat and rice prices have experienced increased volatility since the start of the pandemic; this volatility can also lead to uncertainty regarding supplies and can reduce agricultural investments, hampering future productivity.

Social safety nets form one crucial pathway to help reduce the detrimental effects of the pandemic on food security. Expanded or enhanced cash transfer programs have been adopted in many countries and allow consumers to better maintain their access to nutritious foods.

Policymakers should also exempt agricultural inputs, farms, food processing, and food distribution channels from lockdown measures to ensure stable and sufficient food supplies. This would also entail the guarantee of health measures to protect food value chain workers and increased  collaboration with providers of agricultural inputs, such as seeds, fertilizer, and financing.

Governments should also avoid knee-jerk responses such as export restrictions on food and agricultural products in order to keep trade flows open. This would ensure stable food supplies and reduce food price volatility.

Monitoring and surveillance systems for zoonotic diseases like COVID-19 should also be increased along the food value chain in order to prevent future pandemics.

Finally, the paper emphasizes that in order to enact these and other beneficial policies, low-income countries will need increased assistance from high-income countries and international organizations. By increasing both aid and cooperation, countries can help ensure that the global health crisis does not become a global food security crisis.

Citation of the original paper: Laborde, D., Martin, W., Swinnen, J., & Vos, R. (2020). COVID-19 risks to global food security. Science, 369(6503), 500-502.

Sara Gustafson is a freelance writer.