Covid-19 threatens the lives and livelihoods of people globally. Following the outbreak, countries around the world took measures to lock down markets and restrict movements to prevent the spread of the virus. Although vital in containing the disease, these measures also cause a high cost to the poor and vulnerable in developing countries, as it disrupts their employment, earnings, and purchasing power.

Poor people in developing countries often rely on income from daily casual labor and the informal sector that only allows them to have little savings and food stock for the future. Besides, poor institutions and lack of social safety nets in the developing world often fail to protect the vulnerable during crises.

Thus, economic lockdowns in developing countries threaten the poor in terms of livelihood, hunger, and economic welfare. It is estimated that more than a quarter of a billion people could face starvation during the pandemic, which could further increase their vulnerability to various diseases. Therefore, protecting the vulnerable from starvation and malnutrition during the pandemic is a new challenge that many developing countries now face.

In a new study, we provide evidence on food insecurity (lack of access to sufficient and nutritious food to meet dietary needs) within poor households during Covid-19. We conducted a telephone survey in April of 9,847 rural households in southwestern Bangladesh to find out which ones struggle with food security during the pandemic and how they cope with such adversity. We also followed up with 2,402 of them in May, almost a month after our initial survey, to understand how food insecurity within households deteriorates over time. Our survey households have very similar characteristics to average rural households in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh ranks very poorly in the global food security ranking (83 out of 113 countries in 2019 – worse than neighbors India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Myanmar) and the country has been adversely hit by the pandemic. For example, 13 million of its working population has already been permanently laid off from work and an additional five million people are expected to be in extreme poverty due to Covid-19. Thus, the food security situation in Bangladesh is similar to that in many other developing countries and requires immediate attention from policy-makers.

Most households experienced a negative income shock and were food-insecure immediately after lockdown

From our initial survey (wave 1), we find that 90% of the households have experienced partial or complete income loss following lockdown, more than 80% of the households experienced mild to severe food insecurities, and more than 50% of the households experienced moderate to severe food insecurities.

The findings show that households with no change in income are mostly food-secure, but food insecurity appears to increase with income loss (see Figure 1). Moreover, moderate to severe food insecurity is higher among households that experienced a complete loss of income than households that only experienced a partial loss of income.

Households that are primarily in occupations without job security, such as farm and daily casual laborers, were initially affected the most in terms of food insecurity. On the other hand, households that own businesses and are involved in public sector jobs are the least affected in terms of food insecurity. This suggests that households with higher job security tend to be more food-secure than households with very low job security.

Figure 1: Food insecurity and income loss during the first wave

Savings, loans, and food stocks are the main coping strategies

Figure 2 shows that households primarily rely on previous savings, food stocks, and loans to cope with income loss. In particular, households with higher savings and food stocks are relatively less food-insecure, and households are more likely to take out loans when they are more food-insecure. Moreover, household borrowings increased for severely food-insecure households, which took out more loans than households with mild to moderate food insecurities. Support from government was very low.

Figure 2: Coping strategies by food insecurities during the first wave

Food insecurities appear to be dispersing rapidly into groups that were formerly food-secure

Using the follow-up responses from 2,402 rural households (out of the 9,847 households from the first wave), we find that food insecurity among households deteriorated further during the pandemic and lockdown.

Figure 3 shows that the proportion of food-secure and mildly insecure households dropped in the second wave (roughly by 10 percentage points), while the number of severely food-insecure households drastically increased during the second wave (roughly by 30 percentage points), implying a probable shift.

Moreover, among the households that were food-secure in the first wave, roughly 88% of such households experienced a deterioration in food security: they became food-insecure from being secure. In contrast, among the households that were food-insecure in the first wave, only 1.5% experienced an improvement in food security (becoming food-secure from being insecure).

Our analysis suggests that food insecurities are dispersing rapidly into groups that were formerly food-secure. The traditional coping mechanisms such as using informal borrowing or lending, past savings, and help from friends, relatives or neighbors can work for only a short period of time. With no indication of improvement in food security among the affected households, the pattern of such transmission suggests that food insecurity would inevitably catch-up with the remaining food-secure households if drastic measures are not taken by policy-makers to arrest the spread at the earliest opportunity.

Figure 3: Food insecurity across the two waves

Concluding remarks

Despite reports in the national and international media, data are lacking on how food security is evolving during the Covid-19 pandemic, and how to target households most at risk of acute food insecurity. Our rapid household surveys present evidence of the relationship between income loss and food insecurity during the pandemic.

Overall, the results suggest that most rural households lost their income and only a few of them are food-secure during the pandemic. We also learn about the major coping strategies undertaken and the rapid dispersion of food insecurities across households.

Our study identifies households most at risk of severe hunger and food insecurity in an already vulnerable population. This should help governments, NGOs and humanitarian agencies to make effective decisions during emergencies in resource-poor settings, on the optimum content and duration of food support, and on ideal target recipients.

Food insecurity is affecting intake of nutritious food at a time when having such a diet is critical for staying healthy and maintaining a strong immune system to provide protection from coronavirus. Furthermore, food insecurity will not only further damage health and physical wellbeing but may also affect mental health and psycho-social wellbeing, particularly among women and children. Action is needed to identify and provide immediate support to households with a critical need for food.

The post Food insecurity during Covid-19 appeared first on Globaldev Blog.

While lockdowns have been seen as vital for containing the Covid-19 pandemic, they have also contributed to precipitating an unprecedented economic crisis, one that is hitting developing countries harder in terms of both health and the economy. The United Nations (UN) estimates that more than a quarter of a billion people could face starvation during the pandemic.

The lockdown measures pose a serious trade-off in terms of economic welfare and hunger. The poor need to work to survive. The existing social protection schemes in many developing countries are weak and have further weakened due to the economic slowdown resulting from the pandemic. According to the UN World Food Programme’s Executive Director, David Beasley, ‘In a worst-case scenario, we could be looking at famine in about three dozen countries.’

Thus, at present, the biggest concern should be ensuring food security to the poorest section of the population, who are already facing food shortage. Here, we sketch an approach to help the vast majority of poor people overcome the chronic food insecurity during this pandemic. We use Bangladesh as a case study, but the basic principle applies to many other developing country contexts, including India.

In Bangladesh, around 13 million people are already out of work with no fallbacks and an additional five million people are expected to be in extreme poverty due to Covid-19. The government has been taking a number of measures, though on a limited scale, to support poor people through emergency distribution of food or cash.

According to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), about 20% of the country’s population is living below the poverty line. As people who stand near the poverty line are also vulnerable and likely to suffer from food security, we estimate that nearly 30% of the people or five crore* or one crore households are now acutely food-insecure.

To ensure the basic minimum food security for them, we propose that all these households should be provided with 6,000 Bangladeshi takas per month, a figure consistent with our recent surveys and other estimates, such as by BRAC and PPRC. This means that Bangladesh needs about 6,000 crore takas to feed its poorest 30% who are starving or might be in that position in the coming days. To continue such measures for a year will require about 72,000 crore takas. The total package that the government has announced so far (100,000 crore takas) can help these poorest five crore people for the next 18 months.

In the absence of government subsidies or transfers, could we still make sure that these poorest 30% people do not suffer from hunger? The answer is simple: yes.

Here is how it would work in three alternative scenarios. The detailed calculation is in the table at the end of this column (in which the numbers have been rounded up for convenience). In 2018–19, the country’s GDP was $320 billion (272,000 crore takas), with per capita income of about $2,000. If we exclude the poorest 30%, the remaining 70% command more than 85% of GDP.

During this crisis, the people who remain near the median income (30-60^th percentile) will also remain in economic hardship, but we expect that they will not be chronically food-insecure (that is, they will be able to eat three meals a day).

But considering the income level of the top 40%, we think that they can help to secure food for the poorest 30%. These 40% contribute 200 billion out of 320 billion of GDP. To secure food for the next six months for the poorest five crore people, we need 36,000 crore takas or $4.2 billion. This means that the people who are in top 40% of income groups will need to sacrifice only 1.7% of their income from the last year.

With the richest able to contribute more, we estimate that the top 10% need to contribute only 2.25% of their income, while the next 30% contribute 2% of their income (see the first scenario in the table). In the second scenario, the richest 10% will almost double their contribution (4%) while the next 10% income group will contribute 2% of their income. In the third scenario, we propose that the top 10% income earners contribute everything, in which case, they need to sacrifice only 5% of their income.

Each of these scenarios shows approximately an equal amount of money to feed the poorest five crore people for the next six months. To provide support for a 12-month period for these 30% poorest, the top 10% earners will need to contribute only 10% of their income from last year.

We recognize that the income of the rich is also affected by the pandemic. There is evidence that the distribution of wealth in Bangladesh or other developing countries are more unequal than that of income. While our estimate is based on income, the greater wealth inequality means that these wealthy people have more capacity to help the poor.

At the same time, the role of the government in delivering food and cash should be expanded. Considering the economic growth in Bangladesh over the last three decades, the government can mobilize the funds using budgetary resources to feed the poorest during the crisis. As an economic response to Covid-19, cash transfer programs have been extended to many developing and developed countries, for example, in Kenya.

There are many alternative ways of financing the fiscal stimulus other than taxes, which is politically more challenging, especially during the pandemic. These include (but are not limited to) the central bank buying government bonds, offering money to the government account, and then writing it off.

We are arguing here in particular for the role of private generosity. We show here that the voluntary contributions from the wealthy would be enough to tackle the food crisis. On social media, we also see outpourings of generosity during this pandemic to provide direct support to the poor. As the risks of leakage and misallocation are also higher through government, private charities or local NGOs can facilitate such private cash donations.

Note: One US$ is equivalent to 85 takas; the figures are approximate

Note: The income distribution is arranged according to the poorest to the richest category; The figures are approximate

Note: The figures are approximate

Scenario 1: Starting from near-rich group to the richest, each will contribute 2% of their per capita income but the richest 10% people will have to contribute 2.25%

Scenario 2: The richer 10% people will have to contribute 2% and the richest 10% people will have to contribute 4% of their per capita income

Scenario 3: Only the richest 20% people will contribute 5% of their per capita income

*In the Indian numbering system, 1 crore equals 10 million. “5 crore individuals” equals 50 million people.

The post Covid-19 and the food crisis in Bangladesh: a proposal for action appeared first on Globaldev Blog.