Oxford study develops model to help countries identify vulnerabilities and outline measures to help strengthen resilience against food crises.

Global food systems are fragile. Recent shocks such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have raised prices and exacerbated food insecurity. In response governments are increasingly trying to shield themselves from future food crises, whether caused by conflict, climate shocks, disruptions to global trade or failed harvests.

But new Oxford-led research suggests many countries may be focusing on the wrong kind of resilience. The findings challenge food-security strategies that focus mainly on increasing domestic food production while overlooking their dependence on shocks to production abroad and energy supplies. The conclusions are particularly relevant for countries such as the UK, where recent debates over food security have focused on improving self-sufficiency. 

The analysis found that spikes in energy and fertiliser prices, such as those caused by the wars in Ukraine and Iran, can rapidly spread through global food systems because modern agriculture depends heavily on fuel, fertiliser and transport. Export bans and transport-related disruptions also caused severe regional impacts. 

Countries reliant on a narrow group of suppliers and holding low grain reserves were often hit hardest during severe global shocks. Extreme weather and poor harvests pushed food prices up by as much as 50 to 100 percent in some countries, depending on how exposed and diversified their food systems were. By contrast, countries with more diverse suppliers and flexible trade networks were better able to switch suppliers and cushion the impact of crop failures.

“No country can build a fortress against global food shocks. And producing all food within your own border is unfeasible for many countries, and leaves them exposed to the vagaries of their weather."
 

“No country can build a fortress against global food shocks. And producing all food within your own border is unfeasible for many countries, and leaves them exposed to the vagaries of their weather. Countries with diverse suppliers, reserves and more flexible trade networks are often far better placed when crises hit,” said Jasper Verschuur, lead author and Research Associate at the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford.

The study highlights the importance on stress-testing the global food system and has developed a model which allows multiple simultaneous shocks to be analysed. In the most severe compound-shock scenarios, where poor harvests collided with wars, trade disruption and energy shocks, almost every country in the world experienced food-security losses simultaneously, though the impacts were distributed unevenly.

“The real danger comes when shocks compound. A poor harvest, war or spike in fertiliser prices can now ripple rapidly through global trade networks and raise food prices far beyond the countries where the disruption began. What matters is not just how much food a country produces, but how prepared it is for instability,” said Professor Jim Hall, Director of the Oxford Martin Systemic Resilience Initiative at the University of Oxford.

Key findings

• Global trade in food is essential to ensure global food security, and the food system needs to be stress tested to ensure it is resilient.
• This study has developed a modelling approach which can be a useful tool to locate countries’ food system strengths and vulnerabilities, and identify strategies to increase resilience.
• Energy and fertiliser price shocks often caused broader global impacts than direct trade disruptions because they affected producers worldwide simultaneously.
• Extreme weather and poor harvests alone shifted global food prices by 10 to 15 percent but some countries experienced domestic food-price shocks of up to 50 to 100 percent.
• Countries with diversified supply networks and bigger food reserves were often more resilient during moderate shocks whereas countries dependent on concentrated suppliers and low reserves were disproportionately affected during severe crises.
• In the worst compound-shock scenarios, almost every country experienced food-security losses simultaneously although not equally.