FOOD SECURITY AND FOOD SUPPLY

Being food-secure means having consistent access to enough food, even during natural disasters and economic crises. This can be achieved either through domestic food production or by importing food from abroad. For economic reasons, many in developing countries deal with a lack of food security every day, while for others, it only becomes a concern when disasters such as extreme weather or economic crises strike. Now climate change means that natural disasters are occurring more often, and thanks to globalization, a problem in one country can often affect people worldwide.

Seemingly¹ "natural" disasters leave countries like Bangladesh highly unstable in terms of food security. In fact, climate change has left Bangladesh at increased risk of flooding as cyclones become more common and sea levels rise. Located at the convergence of three major rivers, most of Bangladesh is less than five meters above sea level. In 2007, after prolonged² heavy rain, an estimated 26,500 farm animals were lost to floods, and fish farms a major source of food-were also affected as fish escaped back to sea. Above all, Bangladesh relies on rice, and the 2007 floods destroyed 2.2 million tons of the crop. Furthermore, with road and rail links underwater, it was impossible to distribute the rice that remained. As a result, prices rose sharply. An estimated ten million people were left without access to enough food. In response, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) spent $51 million feeding 2.3 million people for six months.

A more long-term solution, the Flood Action Plan, was funded by the World Bank and attempted to build both flood defenses and raised storage units for rice crops. However, the pace of climate change meant that sea levels rose faster than ever before, and many of these measures were ineffective. Bangladesh contributes just 0.3 percent of global carbon emissions but is set to suffer far more from climate change than most nations. It is also relied upon by other countries for manufacturing. Bangladeshi problems are world problems. Nevertheless, by 2020, further floods— alongside political and economic factors-had left twenty-five percent of people in Bangladesh food-insecure.

Another food crisis in 2008 was more obviously global. Droughts in Russia, Ukraine, and Australia led to major crop failures. These countries are major exporters³ of wheat and, without their input, a world shortage occurred. At the same time, oil prices were high due to continued demand from developed countries and increased demand from the developing world. Oil is required for intensive, mechanical agriculture, so producing crops became more expensive, and farmers passed this cost on to consumers. As an alternative to oil, the US began using more of its crops to produce biofuels (fuels made from plants or animals). This seemed like a sustainable solution, but it left even fewer crops for food, creating more scarcity⁴. Finally, in some developing countries, as populations became larger and wealthier, demand for food grew. So just when crops were needed most, they were in short supply and were expensive to produce; at the peak of the crisis, the prices of wheat and rice rose by almost one hundred percent.

A breakdown of supply followed as some countries imposed export bans and restrictions⁵; major rice producers like India and Vietnam wanted to ensure they could feed their own populations first. However, these policies tend to drive up prices elsewhere, and often their benefits are marginal, even for the countries which impose them. Wealthier people purchase and hoard⁶ large quantities of food, a practice known as "panic-buying." Businesses also stockpile⁷ large amounts of food to sell, creating a black market open to corruption. Prices become even higher and, as it becomes completely unaffordable⁸, food simply goes to waste. To fight this issue in the Philippines, those found to be hoarding food were subjected to large fines.

By 2018, hundreds of millions of people worldwide were facing severe hunger, and in 2020, COVID-19 compounded the problem as factories shut, transport infrastructures⁹ broke down, and borders closed. Food prices rose almost twenty percent in one year. By April 2021, the WFP estimated that 296 million people in the thirty-five countries where it worked were undernourished¹⁰ - 111 million more people than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some countries are far less food-secure than others, but climate change and globalization increasingly mean that national crises are not simply local problems. Furthermore, as governments and organizations try to stabilize food security and ensure food supply, they will have to think carefully about the unintended effects of their initiatives¹¹.

• marginal
• stabilize 
• mechanical 
• unstable 
• convergence 
• breakdown

Nepal: Food after the Earthquakes

In 2015, a series of huge earthquakes struck Nepal, killing over 8,800 people. After the initial destruction to buildings, lack of food security presented a longer-term threat to Nepali citizens.

Even before the earthquake, up to seventy percent of people in mountainous areas were classified as having poor or unreliable access to food. In these remote locations, stocks of grain are typically stored in people's homes. This meant that thanks to the earthquakes, eighty percent of households in the worst-affected areas lost their entire stocks of food. Even those with enough money to replace lost food found that they could not access markets in towns, as transport connections were broken by destroyed roads or landslides.

Some 3.5 million people found themselves needing food assistance. UN agencies, including the WFP and UNICEF-the UN's children's agency-launched a $415 million appeal. Initially, UN helicopters dropped high-energy biscuits to help those in immediate need, but with time, they brought more than 2,000 tons of food into the country, much of it having been sent from neighboring India. The Red Cross also raised $26 million and used these funds to distribute much-needed food and water.

Although food aid helped Nepal through one of its darkest hours, by 2021, 4.6 million people remained food-insecure, and the Red Cross was still on the ground. In fact, research by USAID showed that ten percent of homes were severely food-insecure.

Improving Nepal's infrastructure may be the best way to increase—and, most importantly, stabilize-food security. As things stand, farmers have little access to quality seeds or up-to-date agricultural technologies. Transport links also remain limited in this relatively small and incredibly mountainous country. Helping countries like Nepal requires global investment before, not after, disasters like the 2015 earthquakes.