Emergency food supplies and food security in Wuhan and Nanjing, China, during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Evidence from a field survey

Abstract

Motivation Detailed empirical work on the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on food security is scant. Local management of food security has received little attention. Purpose This article describes emergency food policies in Wuhan and Nanjing, China during lockdown in 2020 and their implications for household food security in the two cities. Methods and approach Policy documents and background data describe the emergency measures. Online surveys of residents of two Chinese cities were used to gauge household food security. Findings Despite the determined efforts of provincial and city governments to ensure that food reached people who were locked down in Wuhan, or subject to restrictions on movement in Nanjing, households experienced some decline in food security. Most households found they could not access their preferred foods. But a minority of households did not get enough to eat. Government had contingency plans for the pandemic that ensured that most people had sufficient, if not preferred, food. But not all households were fully covered. Policy implications A more resilient system of food distribution is needed, including a relatively closed and independent home delivery system. Grassroots organizations such as residential community committees, property management organizations, and spontaneous volunteer groups need to be brought into the management of emergency food provision.

Impacts of community-level grassroots organizations on household food security during the COVID-19 epidemic period in China

“…Wuhan was the first city that reported confirmed cases of COVID-19. Residents in Wuhan experienced both partial and complete enclosures of residential complexes between February 11th and April 8th, 2020 [ 31 ]. Partial enclosure policy required residents to stay at home and allowed one member per household to leave and return to their residential complex with limited frequency; while complete enclosure policy allowed no one to go outside their residential complex [ 31 ].…”

“…Residents in Wuhan experienced both partial and complete enclosures of residential complexes between February 11th and April 8th, 2020 [ 31 ]. Partial enclosure policy required residents to stay at home and allowed one member per household to leave and return to their residential complex with limited frequency; while complete enclosure policy allowed no one to go outside their residential complex [ 31 ]. The policy of “community group buying” was implemented as a contingent food provision policy in response to disrupted access to food outlets caused by complete enclosure [ 31 ].…”

Lockdown, resilience and emergency statecraft in the Cape Town food system

“…Studies that explore urban food systems adaptation during to Covid-19 lockdown (e.g. Zhong et al, 2021 ) describe state-led innovations that were ultimately inadequate to prevent food insecurity. Proposed interventions include shortening supply chains, economic support to healthy food businesses, protecting and supporting informal workers and food suppliers, improving food-sector recruitment and retention, keeping food local and reducing waste by redistributing surplus ( Bisoffi et al, 2021 ; FAO, 2020 ).…”

Boon or Bane? Urban Food Security and Online Food Purchasing during the COVID-19 Epidemic in Nanjing, China

“…The first confirmed case of COVID-19 was reported on 23 January 2020 in Nanjing, with a total of 93 cases reported on 18 February 2020 [49]. In Wuhan, the major sources of fresh produce (wet markets) were all closed for an extended period, whereas in Nanjing, they remained open, although the ability of households to access them was constrained by lockdown regulations [30].…”

“…In some countries, changes in food sourcing patterns were necessitated by public health measures, which shuttered food retail spaces and operators deemed to be high risk [27][28][29]. The first, but far from the only example, was the closure of wet markets in Wuhan during the lockdown of the city [30]. The closure of food markets and restrictions on informal food retailing in some countries had an extremely negative impact on incomes and food accessibility for the urban poor [27,31,32].…”