Managing shock and uncertainty: a comparative institutional analysis of divergent contexts of national food reserve systems

Abstract

The global food system is interconnected and rapidly changing. Numerous, often unpredictable, risks mean that countries must build resilience to withstand the shocks and disruptions. Strategic food reserves serve as one critical instrument in this effort. Although there is a substantial body of literature examining existing national reserve systems, there is limited literature that applies institutional theory to compare them across divergent contexts and to assess the multiple factors influencing their establishment, motivation, design, and governance. This paper examines how national food-reserve systems evolve in response to fundamentally different risk environments, under which institutional conditions, and for whom these reserves are designed. It employs a comparative case study analysis of three deliberately contrasting cases in structure, mandate, and governance: China, Ethiopia, and Qatar. The types span narrow humanitarian cereal stocks, multi-commodity portfolios, and whole-population insurance models, as well as purely state-administered systems and those relying on coordinated public–private arrangements. The results compare and contrast differences in strengths and weaknesses, and draw inferences and lessons to inform both the reform of existing reserves and the establishment of new ones. The findings illustrate that food-reserve effectiveness is contingent on how well design choices align with the threats a country faces and the population it seeks to protect. The paper offers transferable analytical lessons to guide policymakers in designing context-sensitive and institutionally coherent reserve systems.

1 Introduction

The intensity, scale and impact of global change have resulted in decision makers creating a host of new ways for framing decision making from TUNA (turbulent, uncertain, novel, ambiguous) to the most recently proposed BANI framework (brittle, anxious, non-linear, and incomprehensible). What these suggest is that there has been a marked change in global dynamics that requires decision makers and governance systems to design for resilience (Mitchell, 2013; Sundararaman et al., 2021). Decision makers may have previously aspired for efficiency and leanness; these changes require them to consider redundancies and adaptive capacities (Hunt, 2016; Nowell et al., 2017). However, governments cannot design for everything; decisions must be made that are suited to context, aligned with national strategies, and tailored to resources and capacities. This paper focuses on food security as one example of how governments seek to enhance resilience, and specifically through a comparative analysis of strategic national food reserve systems.

The concept of food reserves is not new. Since harvests are unpredictable and consumption is a necessity that is not demand-responsive, stockpiling during times of abundance to safeguard against famine when crops fail has been the straightforward and logical solution (Murphy, 2009, p. 3). In the Biblical and Islamic literature, for example, food reserves were a key mechanism for avoiding famine during the time of the Pharaoh (Akbar, 2022; Ismail et al., 2022). Despite millennia of experience addressing food insecurity and decades of measurable progress, global hunger and food insecurity have increased in recent years (World Bank, 2025, p. 13). During 2024, 343 million people across 74 countries faced this challenge, while up to 757 million people were undernourished in 2023, a significant increase from 581 million globally in 2019 (World Bank, 2025, p. 13). Risks to global food security are not a result of demographics or agricultural production alone, but of disruptions to local, national and regional trade networks, as evidenced by the effect of conflict and public health emergencies (Kakaei et al., 2022; Saccone and Vallino, 2025) as well as natural disasters, slow-onset threats such as climate change, and the growing fragility and instability of the global food system (Puma et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2023).

Nations derive strength from self-sufficiency and autonomy, and preparedness for potential shocks has evolved into a strategic priority rather than merely a reactive or preventive measure (Amhamed et al., 2023; Brankov et al., 2021). Therefore, establishing robust national food reserve systems as a resilience strategy to ensure food security amid the polycrisis, in which multiple geopolitical, natural, and socioeconomic disruptions are interconnected, has become essential (Favas et al., 2024; Fraser et al., 2015). The utilization of food reserves as a mechanism to improve food security and mitigate risk has been used by demographically large and small net food-importing nations,¹ from China and Indonesia to Qatar and Singapore (Gilbert, 2011, pp. 19–20; Lassa and Shrestha, 2014; Ng and Ataman Aksoy, 2008; World Bank, 2025). Despite this diversity, most studies in the food reserves literature, however, examine each factor or case in isolation: either by focusing on single aspects such as price volatility (HLPE, 2011), the rationale for establishing food reserve funds (Lines, 2011), political dynamics (Xing et al., 2024), or by exploring how various elements interact, but only within the boundaries of a single country case study.

This paper examines how strategic food reserve systems function across different national contexts, adopting a comparative perspective to highlight variations in their structures, designs, and governance. A key question this paper addresses is why these strategic reserves exist, how they are designed, and how they change over time. By examining a range of systems that vary in their commodities, beneficiaries, and governance structures, this paper highlights key distinctions, strengths, and limitations to draw meaningful lessons that can guide decision-makers. The comparative analysis underscores that no single model of reserve is universally applicable; instead, reforms or new designs should be in line with the specific circumstances, capabilities, and available resources of each geographical, economic, and political context, rather than simply replicating existing models.

Guided by institutional change theory, this study argues that strategic food reserve systems are best understood as evolving institutional responses to uncertainty and power, rather than as static technical instruments. Through this lens, the study draws on lessons from three distinct food reserve experiences to guide the design and reform of other reserve systems across similar contexts. The literature review first outlines the major local and global challenges to achieving food security through the analysis of several human and natural pressures, including wars, geopolitical instability, trade restrictions, public health crises, and natural disasters. It then presents the conceptual framework and historical development underlying national food reserve systems, with a particular focus on the motivations behind their establishment, the types of commodities they hold, and their beneficiaries. The research methodology employs a comparative case study design and relies solely on secondary data from three selected national food reserves. Finally, the discussion identifies the key challenges and lessons learned, and summarizes them in key findings to guide future research and policy.

2 Theoretical and methodological framework

2.1 Situating strategic food reserves within institutional change theory

According to a 2025 World Bank report, the establishment of national food reserves is not determined by a country's income level but rather by its specific exposure to risks and the need to safeguard against potential supply-chain disruptions (Wood et al., 2023, pp. 31–32). Hence, both high- and low-income countries establish food reserves for different reasons, which influence the design, storage capacity and location, infrastructure, operations, and governance model. It's important to emphasize that food reserves are not mere technical or logistical mechanisms, as often portrayed in academic and policy analyses, but strategic institutions to enhance nations' resilience and sovereignty, yet constantly influenced by power dynamics within them. Therefore, this research's conceptual framework is situated at the intersection of institutional change and new institutional theories (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Ostrom, 1990; Thelen, 1999), which posit that institutions are not static, rational, and technical arrangements but evolving entities shaped by historical conjunctures and transformative events. Through this understanding, strategic food reserves are not purely physical infrastructures or rational mechanisms for managing supply shocks through cost–benefit logic; they belong to a broader process of institutional evolution and response, that is continuously molded by uncertainty, power dynamics, and legitimacy pressures.

Consequently, the research argues that no universal model of food reserve system can succeed across all contexts and that each reserve evolves within distinct socioeconomic, political, and environmental settings that determine its institutional design, management and capacity.

It examines how different configurations of uncertainty and power relations shape the evolution of strategic food reserves across national contexts. To achieve this objective, it employs a comparative case study analysis of reserves operating under varying degrees of uncertainty and shaped in their establishment by critical, transformative historical events. This approach facilitates the production of context-sensitive insights and transferable lessons that could guide policymakers to design more adaptive and resilient systems.

The literature on institutional change theory offers substantial insights on economic performance and governance design (Caballero et al., 2015; North, 1990); nevertheless, this research explores the process of change itself by laying the foundation for other countries transitioning from no reserve to one that is resilient, contextually appropriate and in response to different shocks and uncertainties. Additionally, it foregrounds cultural sensitivity as a central element by emphasizing how the country's identity, norms and social conditions shape the institutions' governance systems. Furthermore, power relations and legitimacy are imperative conceptual lenses for understanding political complexity and economic uncertainty, and their impact on mixed governance models.

2.2 Comparative case study methodology rationale and design

The study adopts Goodrick's (2014) definition of the comparative case study methodology as an approach to analyze and synthesize differences, similarities, and patterns across two or more cases that share a common focus or objective, in this case, the establishment and evolution of strategic national food reserve systems. This methodology used across nations has proven especially effective in public policy, enhancing the practical facets of policy analysis and, in turn, informing and supporting policymakers more effectively (Peters, 2017). This is owing to the method's inherently process-oriented nature, which is designed not only to trace what phenomena emerge, but also why and how they develop and evolve (do Amaral, 2022, p. 50). According to Bartlett and Vavrus (2019), there are three axes in which units of analysis (case studies) can be compared upon: the vertical (compares over levels and scales), the transversal (compares over time) and the horizontal, which explores how similar phenomena or policies unfold across different socially produced and complexly connected locations. This paper aligns most closely with a horizontal comparison, highlighting similarities and differences across national reserve systems while also attending to valuable contextual information about each (Bartlett and Vavrus, 2016, p. 53).

The rationale behind selecting the cases is built in response to (Gerring, 2004, p. 348) assertion that

“research designs invariably face a choice between knowing more about less and knowing less about more.”

Accordingly, the study utilizes a comparative case study analysis methodology (Bartlett and Vavrus, 2017; do Amaral, 2022; Ragin, 2014) that enables a meaningful and balanced cross-case contrasts by using a reasonable level of breadth through comparison of a small set of varied cases, while doing justice to the complexity of each case by providing the necessary depth and detailed context. This will allow for a powerful comparative mechanism that avoids both overgeneralization and over specificity in case studies (Peters, 2017).

The selection criteria are designed to capture diversity across geographical regions, income levels, demographic scales, and climatic conditions, while paying particular attention to varying degrees of uncertainty and to critical historical junctures or transformative events that shaped the establishment and reform of these systems. These cases are assessed across governance arrangements, institutional and design features, storage infrastructure and capacity, commodity composition, beneficiaries, and release mechanisms, followed by a comparative analysis that synthesizes cross-case insights. The cases examined are the strategic national food reserve systems of Qatar, Ethiopia, and China.

The reserve in Qatar exemplifies a small yet diversified commodities model within a high-income, import-dependent state, developed only recently in response to a political and supply-chain shock, under a mixed governance system. Ethiopia, on the other hand, represents a low-income country facing recurrent waves of drought and conflict, where food reserves function primarily as humanitarian and stabilization instruments. The third case, China, represents an upper- to middle-income economy with a large population and extensive agricultural resources, managing reserves amid complex political power dynamics and market pressures.

While existing literature on comparative case study analysis of national food reserve systems tends to focus on similar contexts such as grain systems in low-income and developing countries or aid-dependent contexts (e.g., European Commission, 2018; Murphy, 2009; Rashid and Lemma, 2011; World Bank, 2025), no prior study has applied the comparative framework across cases that spans the full spectrum of income level, governance model, beneficiary and commodity type, as this paper does with Qatar, Ethiopia, and China. Together, these cases reflect contrasting structural and environmental realities and will be examined in terms of their motivations for establishment, governance models, institutional variations, design structures, storage infrastructure and technologies, storage size and capacity, types of commodities, primary beneficiaries, and release mechanisms.

2.3 Research data source and limitations

The paper draws on secondary data identified through purposive searches of academic literature, national policy documents, and reports by international food security agencies, including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the World Bank, as well as gray literature from organizations such as IATP and UNCTAD. Several limitations arise due to variability in data availability across the examined cases. First, existing literature and available data tend to focus predominantly on grain reserve systems, often at the expense of a more comprehensive examination of overall national food stocks (Fraser et al., 2015, p. 447). Second, Qatar's National Food Security Strategy 2030 had not been made publicly available by the date of publication. Accordingly, where the official strategy document could not be cited, the study draws on statements made by government officials as reported in reputable media outlets. Similarly, certain operational details of China's reserve system are not publicly disclosed; in such cases, the study relies on announcements by senior government officials reported by state-run and internationally recognized press agencies.

Another constraint lies in the paper's limited capacity to include a broader range of relevant cases. Despite the purposeful selection of contexts intended to be representative of various reserve models, the number of cases is intentionally limited to ensure methodological efficiency and maintain a meaningful balance between cross-case breadth and depth. Nevertheless, this limitation presents an opportunity for future research to build upon this analysis by incorporating additional cases from other pertinent contexts. Additionally, while the research draws on both English and Arabic sources, it remains limited by the inaccessibility of materials published in other languages of the countries studied, namely Amharic and Mandarin. Finally, while the scope of this paper does not include an assessment of the effectiveness of the selected systems, it aims to review existing critiques. It highlights the limitations identified in the scholarly literature.

3 Literature review

Dealing with shocks and uncertainties has increased the demand for resilient food stockpiling strategies that can respond to disruptive, unexpected events. According to a recent report published in April 2025 by the World Bank, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the UN World Food Program (WFP), establishing strategic food and grain reserves to ensure food security has become a vital need (World Bank, 2025). This paper focuses on strategic national food reserve systems, which serve as the primary institutional mechanism for organizing the management of national food stockpiles and implementing a range of food security interventions. These systems encompass various types of reserves, including emergency food reserves (EFR) or emergency food stockpiles (EFS) intended for food aid during periods of crisis or shock (Lassa et al., 2019), and buffer stocks used to stabilize markets (Abokyi et al., 2018; Bigman and Reutlinger, 1979). Such reserves typically focus on staple grains that are suitable for long-term storage. However, other reserves comprise a broader range of commodities, including processed foods with varying shelf lives, designed to support a balanced diet and enhance self-sufficiency (Maunder, 2013).

The literature review begins by addressing the need to develop national resilience frameworks in the face of disruptive events, with particular emphasis on food security as one of the most persistent global vulnerabilities. It then examines the principal factors shaping global food security, including armed conflicts, geopolitical disputes, economic instability, public health crises, and environmental degradation. It subsequently turns into a detailed exploration of the definitions, characteristics, and historical development of food reserve systems worldwide, considering their varying scales, global, regional, and national. Special attention is given to the strategic national model: the motivation for its establishment and expansion, the types of commodities involved, and the beneficiaries it serves. The review concludes by articulating the gap it seeks to address and its distinct contribution to existing knowledge on strategic national food reserve systems.

3.1 Global and local challenges to food security

The contemporary world has grown increasingly complex across all dimensions, leading to an emerging global culture of preparedness for unforeseen circumstances. At both global and local levels, preparedness and resilience frameworks have become increasingly visible across various critical sectors converging within an interconnected system to give rise to new institutional models for anticipatory response (Kruczkiewicz et al., 2021). These frameworks encompass critical sectors such as energy security and economic strategy (Cochrane et al., 2024); resilient infrastructure planning, environmental management, governance, stakeholder communication, and supply chain systems (Al-Jebzi and Cochrane, 2025; Schwarz et al., 2023); as well as public health systems, ethical considerations, and policy development (Bourrier and Deml, 2022; Maccaro et al., 2023), among others.

When a crisis or shock disrupts the global food supply chain, ensuring access to food becomes a country's immediate priority as a short-term emergency response. However, over the past few decades, deep-rooted vulnerabilities and contradictions in the organization of food security and economics have emerged (Clapp, 2020). The FAO estimated that between 720 and 811 million people experienced hunger in 2020 (FAO et al., 2021, p. 10), a hardship exacerbated by the war in Ukraine in 2022, which has caused significant supply chain disruptions and higher food commodity prices (World Bank, 2022). Although domestic prices have declined substantially in 2025, they may remain high and misaligned with global prices in many countries due to conflicts and local market conditions. The US-Israel war with Iran in 2026 has delivered another shock to global commodity and food markets, with disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz projected to push average commodity prices up 16% in 2026 (World Bank, 2026, p. 1).

The food supply, security and distribution sectors are also vulnerable to various disruptions from both human and natural causes. Human-driven factors include: (1) economic shocks, such as trade restrictions and export bans, which strain supply chains locally and globally; and financial crises that drive up costs and interrupt trade networks; (2) conflicts, wars, and insecurities, which increase vulnerabilities and severely impact availability. On the other hand, (3) public health emergencies, such as the global COVID-19 pandemic, and (4) natural and environmental disruptions arising from climate and weather shocks, were among the key drivers of acute food insecurity between 2016 and 2023, according to the Global Report on Food Crisis in 2024 (FSIN, 2024). These factors, when combined, pose serious risks to food systems by disrupting production, distribution, and access and perpetuating cycles of food insecurity.

The first example of food trade disruption we will review is economic shocks. Trade restrictions, export bans, and similar policies have repeatedly shown how they can threaten food security. More countries are setting export limits, which reduces the amount of food available on global markets, pushing prices up and making food supplies less stable. For instance, during the food price spikes in 2007–2008 and 2022, many countries responded with emergency measures, including bans on the export of essential commodities, which raised prices and exacerbated food insecurity in import-dependent regions (Eather et al., 2022; Fell and Duver, 2022; Diwani, 2025).

Globalization and the international food trade have significantly intensified between 1986 and 2020, as the number of countries participating in these networks during that period rose from 177 to 223 (Silvestrini et al., 2023, p. 3). Additionally, analysis of 246 economies from 1993 to 2018 reveals a marked expansion of international crop trade networks (iCTNs)² for rice, maize, wheat and soybeans, with notable growth in their size, participation, and trade volume (Zhang and Zhou, 2024). This shift in global trade and food consumption was impacted by several factors, including income growth, urbanization, improved transportation, and evolving consumer demands (Regmi, 2001). For example, developed countries now import more high-value, processed foods than before, a preference driven by diet diversification and an increased demand for convenience (UNCTAD, 2024), while rising incomes in developing countries have increased their demand for meat products (OECD/FAO, 2025).

Conflicts, insecurity and political risks have emerged in certain contexts as the primary threat to food security (Xing et al., 2024). They are considered the primary driver of acute food insecurity affecting 139.8 million people across 20 countries (FAO et al., 2026, p.25), since the two—food and conflict—engage in a reciprocal dynamic, where weaknesses in one can intensify problems in the other (Hendrix and Brinkman, 2013). For instance, food security interventions can mitigate tensions and reduce the likelihood of violent conflict, yet acute food insecurity often acts as a catalyst for social unrest and functions as a risk multiplier (Hendrix and Brinkman, 2013). In addition to fracturing infrastructure, markets, and institutional capacities, conflicts disrupt agricultural activities that are essential for stable food systems, by compelling pastoralists, urban workers and farmers to abandon their livelihoods, which often lead to prolonged food insecurity that persists long after the end of violence (World Bank et al., 2025, pp. 15–16). Conflicts also result in large-scale disruptions to food production and trade, as exemplified by the war in Ukraine, which led to the shutdown of its Black Sea ports and consequently disrupted the transport of up to 20 million tons of wheat in 2022, impacting roughly 10% of global wheat exports (World Bank, 2022, p. 10). Additionally, the recent 2026 US–Israel war on Iran caused unprecedented disruptions to global supply chains, halting fertilizer exports through the Strait of Hormuz, which risks reducing fertilizer application rates and crop yields, worsening food price inflation, and deepening food insecurity in vulnerable regions (World Bank, 2026, pp. 5–6, 34–35).

Geopolitical, non-military conflicts can also disrupt food distribution, as they often trigger tensions between nations that compromise import-export mechanisms. This poses risks for countries that are net importers and rely heavily on external food supplies, as the blockade on Qatar was a notable example, as it relied back then on imports for 85% of its vegetables and 72% of its dairy supply (Wellesley, 2019). Conversely, political alliances can also serve to facilitate food distribution during times of crisis, as seen in Qatar's ability to withstand the initial shock through its strong ties with countries such as Turkey and Iran, both of which responded swiftly by delivering fresh produce by air (Al-Thani, 2021; Seyam, 2023). Today, Qatar aims to produce 60% of its vegetables domestically and has already achieved full self-sufficiency in dairy (Mohamed et al., 2025; Wellesley, 2019).

As for non-human factors, global public health events have also proven to be highly disruptive, by impeding operations related to the import, export, and distribution of food, as was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 which disrupted food security and food choice (Muniatlo and Mellor, 2023), in addition to labor, transportation, and market access (Laborde et al., 2021). The same occurred during the outbreaks of the west African Ebloa epidemic 2013–2016 (De la Fuente et al., 2020), the Zika Virus in Latin America and the Caribbean (Nery et al., 2021), and the Monkeypox (Mpox) crisis which disrupted access to food and livelihoods due to infrastructure breakdowns and delays in the distribution of essential resources, despite drawing on resilience and preparedness strategies developed during the COVID-19 pandemic (Institute of Development Studies, 2022; Massaro et al., 2018). Similarly, the emergence of MERS-CoV significantly affected camel agriculture, animal handling, and movement in the region.

In Saudi Arabia, for example, the outbreak of MERS-CoV heightened zoonotic transmission risks and disrupted agricultural production, food systems, and veterinary practices (Hemida et al., 2017).

Beyond the public health challenges that constrain food access, the accelerating environmental crisis and climate change add a critical dimension that directly impacts agriculture—the sector most vulnerable to disruption given its inherent dependence on natural resources and stable climate conditions. Data from the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) shows that over 65% of agricultural losses are caused by droughts, while floods, cyclones, volcanic activity, and storms each account for around 20% (FAO, 2023, p. 18). For example, many rural communities that rely on trade and agricultural production to sustain their livelihoods have been displaced due to droughts and floods. From Colombia to Somalia, these displaced rural populations can no longer produce or sell food, a challenge further compounded by movement restrictions and ongoing conflict (FAO, 2023, p. 14). Additionally, wildfire poses a serious threat; for example, in south-eastern Australia, more than 10 million hectares were destroyed during the 2019–2020 fire season, equivalent to one-quarter of the agricultural land at the time (Bishop et al., 2021). While wildfires across the European Union in 2022 were the 2nd-worst year for burnt area since 2006, destroying hundreds of thousands of hectares of land (San-Miguel-Ayanz et al., 2023).

These compounding vulnerabilities expose a critical gap between the types of shocks nations face and their capacity to respond to them. While humanitarian aid and market stabilization measures are essential for responding to shocks, they are usually reactive and can take weeks or months to yield results or to mobilize and activate. Furthermore, not all shocks are predictable due to their recurrent nature, such as droughts or seasonal shortfalls; others, like pandemics or wars, are difficult to anticipate and require a faster response, which leaves less time for preparation. This is precisely the gap that national food reserves aim to fill, as a resilience buffer that buys time for proper national institutional readiness and response. Therefore, establishing and maintaining context-sensitive national reserves is not merely a food security priority but a fundamental pillar of national resilience and security.

3.2 Historical overview of food reserves: definitions, characteristics, and types

Strategic food reserves are food stocks prepared to maintain stable food supplies during temporary scarcity and to address emergency food insecurity caused by external shocks. These reserves represent the first line of defense in the face of food crises, when traditional supply channels are unable to meet urgent needs due to a number of unfortunate social, economic, political, or policy factors, as described in the previous section, including extreme weather conditions, social crises and conflicts, price shocks and inadequacy of farm inputs technology or labor (Lassa et al., 2019; Lynton-Evans, 1997; Manduna, 2024; Zorya et al., 2025). These reserves have emerged as a key food security intervention that is significantly effective in the short term (Kalkuhl et al., 2016, p. 23). They help ensure food availability, provide an essential buffer during emergencies, and stabilize food prices, particularly in vulnerable or remote regions (World Bank, 2025).

Food reserve systems operate at national/local, regional, and global/international levels and serve different contexts, such as humanitarian purposes or strategic and buffer stocks/market stabilization, serving distinct yet complementary roles in safeguarding food security. Regional reserves are collaborative arrangements among neighboring countries that aim to enhance collective food security through coordination, and mutual support, it helps in deterring governments from exploiting reserves for short-term political advantage and allow for cost sharing for countries with low income and limited resources (Manduna, 2024; Sampson, 2012) as seen in initiatives across East and South Asia (APTERR, 2021; SAARC, 2020) and the ECOWAS regional food security reserve in West Africa (ECOWAS Regional Agriculture Food Agency, 2025). However, they frequently face challenges in governance, coordination, and trust among participating countries (World Bank, 2025, pp. 80–82).

Global reserve mechanisms, including humanitarian stocks, internationally coordinated reserves, and virtual reserves (Von Braun and Lin, 2009; Von Braun and Torero, 2012; Weber and Schulken, 2024), seek to stabilize prices and respond to large-scale shocks by leveraging stocks held in major exporting regions (IATP, 2012, pp. 10–11). The WFP is an example of an operating international humanitarian system that plays a significant role in emergency food reserves (Shaw, 2007), yet global reserves are constrained by complex coordination, budget allocation, currency fluctuations, and operational difficulties (World Bank, 2025, p. 77; Wright, 2010).

Evidence from past experience shows that strategic national reserves remain the most effective and viable mechanism for ensuring food security, consistently outperforming regional and global systems despite the supportive roles they play (World Bank, 2025). Accordingly, the study prioritizes the in-depth review and analysis of strategic national reserve systems.

3.3 National food reserve systems

National food and grain reserves are often established to serve multiple purposes in the face of food emergencies, natural hazards, and to help stabilize market prices (Murphy, 2009, pp. 6–10). Currently, around 30 countries, roughly 15% of all nations, maintain national food reserve systems (World Bank, 2025, p. 30). Although most countries that hold public stocks are low- to lower-middle-income nations and net food importers, income level is not the primary factor driving the establishment of national food reserves. Rather, such decisions are primarily influenced by each country's specific exposure to risks, including global supply chain vulnerabilities, rising geopolitical tensions, and the escalating impacts of climate change (World Bank, 2025, pp. 31–32). This is evident in several high-income countries that maintain public stocks as safeguards against potential disruptions, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Norway, South Korea, and Japan, alongside the recent impact of the China-US trade friction (Han et al., 2025), the Russia-Ukraine conflict (Filho et al., 2023), and the US-Israel war on Iran (Naja et al., 2026) on food security and reserves.

In some cases, countries establish food reserves because they are landlocked, which makes them highly vulnerable to inconsistent access to grain imports and price volatility. Being landlocked often means that the time and cost of importing food during emergencies are significantly higher, as seen in Uzbekistan, a doubly landlocked country (World Bank, 2025, p. 33). Other nations, such as the United States and members of the European Union, maintain public stocks to serve multiple objectives, combining emergency protection with price stabilization measures (World Bank, 2025, p. 33). However, the success of these reserves depends on having clear, well-defined, and fiscally manageable objectives. When managed as buffer stocks with too many or conflicting goals and high fiscal demands, they often fail to enhance food security due to the inefficient use of public resources and complicated management structures (Dorosh et al., 2025, p. 10).

The institutional arrangements and governance model for managing food reserve systems vary across countries and reserve levels. In most cases, these reserves are managed by government bodies, such as in Zambia, for instance, where the Food Reserve Agency (FRA), a government institution established under the Ministry of Agriculture in 1996, serves as the central government instrument for the procurement and management of national food reserves to safeguard national food security and stabilize farmers' incomes (Chapoto, 2019, p. 9). Another food reserve system governed by a governmental body can be seen in Brazil through the National Supply Company (CONAB), a public entity controlled by the federal government, tasked to ensure adequate food supplies and stabilize market during crises and support smallholder and family farming (Wijeratna, 2011; Rashid and Lemma, 2012). This governance system has proven effective in stabilizing market prices during the dramatic 2008 spike in global rice prices (Lilliston, 2009, pp. 2–3). Although Brazil's CONAB and Zambia's FRA operate under very different contexts, they both suggest that the effectiveness of government governance models depends on the clarity of mandate and institutional design.

Another, less common, approach to managing food reserves is a mixed governance model, in which private entities contribute by storing public stocks through public–private partnerships. A notable example is the 2010 partnership in Punjab, India, where LT Foods Limited, a Delhi-based company with extensive global experience in marketing and storing Basmati rice, was awarded a 30-year concession by the Punjab State Grain Procurement Corporation (PUNGRAIN) to build and monitor 50,000 tons of storage capacity through a competitive bidding process advised by the World Bank Group (World Bank, 2025, pp. 40–41). This collaboration is considered among the most successful projects due to the transparency of the bidding process, the clearly defined roles of each party in the government-private sector contract, and the willingness and openness of both sides to renegotiate terms over the long term. This demonstrates that the clarity and transparency of the mandate are critical determinants of the success or failure of any project, regardless of the number of parties involved.

Another variation within national food reserve systems lies in the types of stored commodities. These choices depend on factors such as a country's dietary patterns, agricultural production systems, available storage infrastructure, financial capacity to establish and maintain diversified stocks, the objectives of the reserves, and the particular vulnerabilities they are designed to address. The most widely adopted type of food reserve is the strategic grain reserves, defined as

“publicly owned inventories of food grains held in anticipation of episodes of acute food insecurity caused by trade and supply-chain disruptions.” (World Bank, 2025, p. 3)

They are established to support farmers and communities during emergencies and other times of need, while others serve as buffer stocks for market stabilization. Despite their importance in alleviating stress and food insecurity during crises and shocks, only 30 countries actively use grain reserves as of 2025 (World Bank, 2025, p. 30). Other national food reserves include a range of perishable and non-perishable commodities, such as those of resource-rich yet net food-importing Qatar. The country developed a National Food Security Strategy (2018–2023) to establish a strategic food reserve encompassing the most critical food items, intended to support the entire population in the short term and during prolonged disruptions. This strategy aims to reduce exposure to external shocks by securing 3–5 supply partners for each critical commodity (QNFSS, 2020, p. 3; UN Food Systems Summit, 2021).

The beneficiary scope of strategic food reserves varies considerably by national income level. While wealthier states, including Gulf nations, maintain reserves of sufficient scale to support their entire populations during disruptions, lower-income countries typically operate with more constrained capacities, and available stocks are primarily intended to serve the most vulnerable segments of society in times of crisis (Tothova, as cited in Chandrasekhar, 2025),³ considering the costs and complex logistics of running and maintaining these reserves. For example, in Ethiopia, strategic grain reserves managed by the Emergency Food Security Reserve Administration (EFSRA) were established in response to the devastating 1973–1974 famine. These reserves, primarily storing cereal grains such as maize and wheat, were designed to buffer the country against food insecurity caused by shocks, such as droughts, and by delays in food aid to vulnerable communities (Rashid and Lemma, 2011). On the other hand, in Qatar, the government has developed a food reserve sufficient to sustain the country for 6 months in the event of emergencies—such as during the blockade and the COVID-19 pandemic—which guarantees the provision of a healthy, nutritionally balanced diet with adequate caloric intake for the entire population (QNFSS, 2020, p. 10; Mohamed et al., 2025).

With rising geopolitical instability, frequent trade disruptions, fragile supply chains, and the growing pressures of climate change, many countries are turning to the establishment or enhancement of strategic food reserves. Especially national reserves, since they have proven to be effective and responsive mechanisms during emergencies, particularly when imports are delayed or when a rapid food supply response is required. While existing literature offers extensive documentation of individual country experiences and draws comparisons across similar or regional contexts, little systematic analysis is available to explore which design elements are transferable across income levels and geopolitical contexts, and under what conditions. This paper offers a comparative analysis of global case studies to identify what elements are considered essential or secondary in different contexts, and how nations can overcome challenges based on their available resources and capacities.

4 Case studies' analysis

This paper examines three national food reserve systems: Qatar, China, and Ethiopia. The selection criteria are based on a diversified range of contexts, see Table 1. While each country in the table represents a different combination of income level, population size, exposure to shocks, location, climatic constraint, and net trade position, they all depend on their national strategic food reserves as a critical tool for managing uncertainty. Each reserve will be analyzed with respect to its motivations for establishment, governance models, institutional variations, design and storage infrastructure, types of commodities, primary beneficiaries, and release mechanisms.

The reserve system in Qatar is driven by sovereignty and strategic resilience concerns, in a country that was almost entirely dependent on food imports before the 2017 blockade and continues to face pressure to protect its population against food shortages and external supply-chain disruptions. Ethiopia's system is guided by a humanitarian rationale to safeguard vulnerable communities from recurrent droughts, famine, climate change, and political instability. Finally, the reserve system in China is shaped by a broader, more complex risk context that underscores the government's commitment to ensuring, at all times, the affordability and accessibility of food for its population.

Collectively, these national reserve systems provide an analytically useful lens for interpreting the institutional and design divergences across the three cases.

4.1 Qatar

Qatar, a country with a population of approximately 3.15 million⁴ and a land area of approximately 11,636 square kilometers, is inherently exposed to agricultural challenges associated with its arid desert climate, water scarcity, and sandy soil (Karanisa et al., 2021; Planning Statistics Authority, 2023). These environmental constraints have rendered Qatar a small net food-importing nation that depends heavily on international trade, global supply chains, and the uninterrupted flow of imports. Additionally, the country is situated in a geopolitically tense region, making it vulnerable to disruptions in food supplies. In 2017, a blockade imposed by some neighboring countries exposed vulnerabilities in Qatar's logistics and supply chain systems (Mawani Qatar, 2017). In response, the country implemented an effective crisis management strategy that prioritizes diversifying economic partnerships and strengthening domestic industries through collaboration with local stakeholders and the strategic use of international soft power (Albasoos et al., 2021; Seyam, 2023).⁵ These strategies laid the foundation for a resilient supply chain network that helped the country withstand disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 (Ben Hassen et al., 2020).

The Qatar National Food Reserve System, initially established under the 2008 Qatar National Food Security Program (QNFSP), has undergone substantial evolution in response to the blockade and the pandemic. Strategic food reserves and early warning systems, designed to ensure the continuity of food supplies during crises, now constitute one of the three core pillars of Qatar's new Food Security Strategy 2030, announced in 2024 (QNFSS, 2020; Government Communications Office of Qatar, 2024). This pillar complements the strategy's broader focus on strengthening domestic agricultural production and markets, international trade and investment, and infrastructure development (Mohamed et al., 2025). According to Hamad Hadi al-Hajri, Assistant Director of the Food Security Department, the National Food Security Strategy 2030 aims to store essential food commodities in quantities sufficient to cover periods ranging from 2 to 8 months, depending on the type of commodity (Varghese, 2025). Unlike Qatar's strategic food reserve, which was established in direct response to a single acute geopolitical event, the other two reserve systems examined in this study evolved more gradually, over centuries in China's case, and through successive humanitarian crises in Ethiopia's, which exemplifies the diversity of causes and temporal trajectories that shape national food reserve development.

The governance system in Qatar is based on strategic collaboration between the public and private sectors to ensure food security and resilience against supply disruptions. The private sector is tasked with maintaining reserves of a wide range of products, functioning as a decentralized commercial buffer stock against shocks. The private sector is contractually obligated to maintain a two-month supply of seven types of perishable items (including fruits, vegetables, dairy, and meat) and selected dry goods, guaranteeing a full diet for 2–4 weeks for the full population (QNFSS, 2020, pp. 10–11). Simultaneously, the public sector is responsible for storing key perishables (onions, carrot, potato, apples, dates, red meat, and frozen poultry) and a 6-month supply for six categories of essential non-perishable commodities (wheat, edible oils, legumes, sugar, rice, and powder milk) for the entire population, in addition to agricultural inputs (agricultural chemicals, fertilizer, seeds, fodder, and animal medicine) serving as a centralized storage reserves and a safeguard against potential trade and production disruptions (QNFSS, 2020, pp. 11–12; UN Food Systems Summit, 2021).

The reserve system covers many commodity types, but this comes at a high cost. Perishable items need to be continuously cycled in and out, which adds logistical complexity and cost. However, the upside is that a more diverse product range increases resilience to shocks and allows the government to intervene more effectively in the market. For instance, if the government opts to steadily release tomatoes from its reserves into the marketplace, prices can be easily managed and eventually stabilized. That's a positive outcome of state authority over the timing and scale of market intervention, which supports not only the availability of food commodities but also their affordability.

To strengthen its food storage capacity, the country developed the Strategic Food Security Facilities (SFSF) at Hamad Port, covering approximately 530,000 sq m. The SFSF is equipped to store, process, refine, and prepare three main food commodities: sugar, rice, and edible oils (Perumal, 2020). The reserve employs a release mechanism strategy, governed by a trigger-and-release protocol and an integrated alert system that responds within 48 h (Ataullah, 2025). Accordingly, the system in Qatar ensures that the entire population receives a healthy, nutritionally balanced diet with adequate caloric intake during supply shocks, crises, or emergencies.

4.2 China

China had one of the earliest known grain reserve systems, called the “Ever-Normal Granary,” established by the emperor in 498 A.D. to maintain food security against famine and stabilize prices, the oldest model of its kind in the world (Murphy, 2009, p. 6; Xing et al., 2024, p. 2075). Today, the country maintains the world's largest grain reserves, holding more than half of global stocks of major staples as of 2022, while also ranking among the world's leading importers of agricultural commodities (Dong et al., 2024, p. 8, 12; USDA, 2025). The reserve system in China is designed to ensure national security, stability of market prices and implement emergency relief plans in response to natural disasters, such as the 2008 8.0-magnitude earthquake in Wenchuan County, Sichuan Province, as well as public health crises and soaring meat prices following the African swine fever (ASF) outbreak in 2018 and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, thereby ensuring a sufficient grain supply (FAO et al., 2025, p. 53).

The country's strategic reserves are spread across various sectors. The majority of the reserves are publicly held by the government, such as central and local reserves, with the remainder owned by private actors, including industry stakeholders and farmers, such as enterprise reserves, which include corporate social responsibility reserves and corporate commercial inventories, agricultural reserves, and household reserves (Jiang and Ji, 2024). Reserves policies and management have evolved over the years; for example, in 2018, China established the State Administration of Grain and Reserves (SAGR) that oversees strategic reserves of corn, wheat, grain and rice, along with oilseeds, cotton, sugar, and energy resources such as natural gas and petroleum, which were previously managed by multiple agencies and companies (USDA, 2018, p. 1). Meanwhile, Sinograin, the China Grain Reserves Corporation established in 2000, continues to manage the central grain and cotton reserves in accordance with government policies (USDA, 2018, p. 2) and aims to build 120 storage facility projects with a total capacity of 10.85 million tons (Reidy, 2021). Similar to Qatar, China relies on a variety of public-private sector arrangements, though its private-sector obligations are enforced through a social responsibility framework rather than contractual supply agreements. Additionally, the country recognized the need to establish a complementary mixed food reserve system that integrates central, local, and socially responsible reserves to enhance overall food storage efficiency (Jiang and Ji, 2024).

In China, rising internal and external political risks affect food security and reserves (Xing et al., 2024), including the prolonged trade conflict with the U.S. (Chu, 2025). Consequently, Beijing adopted strengthened measures as a strategic response to geopolitical uncertainties. In 2024/2025, the country intensified its food security efforts by increasing its stockpile budget to maintain a minimum reserve threshold and prevent food stocks from falling below critical levels (Chu, 2025), and raising the target of its grain production to approximately 700 million tons of staple cereals per year, sufficient to feed its 1.4 billion citizens, supported by improved yields and expanded planting areas (Donley, 2024; USDA, 2025).

Although the official state-run press agency of China, Xinhua, does not clarify how long the reserves are capable of feeding the population (Xinhua, 2023), Liang Yan, deputy head of the reserves administration, announced that the stocks of rice and wheat are sufficient to cover over 1 year of the country's consumption (Daly and Singh, 2021). The stockpiles in China are primarily for national food security purposes, and the grain commodities include rice, corn, and wheat, as well as soybeans (soya), oilseeds, sugar, and pork (Dong et al., 2024; Singh and Zhang, 2021; USDA, 2018).

Despite numerous political, economic, and natural risks and uncertainties, the country's reserves are sufficient to meet the needs of the entire population and encompass a wide range of commodities, including grains, oils, and meat. This success can be attributed to the sophisticated and well-developed governance system, primarily managed by the government, which also enforces a social responsibility framework requiring the private sector to maintain and operate its own reserves. In addition, the ability to foster effective public–private collaboration plays a pivotal role in sustaining this resilience, as it expands the scale of social responsibility reserves and motivates enterprises to maintain food stockpiles as a strategic element of the complementary reserve framework, supported by a carefully calibrated government subsidy system that ensures sustainability without placing an excessive burden on the state (Jiang and Ji, 2024).⁶

4.3 Ethiopia

Food insecurity in Ethiopia, a country of more than 135.5 million people,⁷ is shaped by a mix of recurring drought and conflict compounded by low agricultural productivity, and inconsistent government policies, leaving millions dependent on food aid and emergency assistance at any given time (Cochrane, 2021; Devereux, 2000, p. 1; FEWS Net, 2024).

Ethiopia's reserve system is best read not as a static model but as a long-running institutional experiment in how a low-income, shock-prone state uses limited public stocks to manage recurrent crises through successive transformations in mandate, institutional management and capacity. The first major shift was conceptual, moving from a price-stabilization logic to a strictly humanitarian buffer-stock model. The country's engagement with grain reserves began in the early 1950s with the establishment of the Grain Marketing Board (GMB), which was later transformed into the Agricultural Marketing Corporation (AMC) under the socialist Derg regime in 1974 (Rashid and Lemma, 2011, p. 2). Both institutions, created under different political regimes, were undermined by heavy-handed political controls over production and private trade, and eventually failed to face large-scale emergencies and administrative overreach (Rashid et al., 2019, pp. 8–9).

The creation of the Emergency Food Security Reserve in 1982 marked a deliberate break with this approach. With support from FAO, WFP, and bilateral donors, the national reserve was carved out as an explicitly humanitarian instrument and grain buffer to protect food-insecure populations and enable rapid response through the Emergency Food Security Reserve Administration (EFSRA; World Bank, 2012, p. 29). Unlike conventional marketing boards, EFSRA did not buy and sell grain commercially, its core mandate was to maintain emergency stocks that could be rapidly lent to well-established relief and rehabilitation agencies working in the country, to bridge the typical four-month gap between the approval and arrival of food aid (Disaster Prevention Preparedness Commission, 2004, pp. 20–22; FAO, 2011, p. 499). Borrowers were required to replenish the reserve once their own consignments arrived. This conceptual narrowing of the mandate, from stabilizing prices to bridging response gaps, underpins most of the system's later strengths. The reserve's effectiveness depends on predictable donor financing and unobstructed humanitarian access; without these, even well-designed stock management cannot ensure timely delivery. In Ethiopia, donors play a vital role in humanitarian reserves, financing reserves and warehouse construction and taking part in technical discussions, final decisions, and overall management. In Ethiopia, these responsibilities rest with government ministries. It is important to note that the reserve's reliance on donor support makes it the most financially vulnerable of the three cases examined in this study, in contrast to Qatar and China, where reserves are funded entirely through state budgets or mixed public-private agreements.

In response to recurring droughts, the reserve underwent a series of institutional changes. In 1993, it gained semi-autonomy as the Strategic Food Reserve Agency (SFRA), with a broader formal mandate (Rashid et al., 2019, p. 12; World Bank, 2025, p. 59), while continuing to prioritize emergency operations. This humanitarian approach has resulted in tens of millions of Ethiopians benefiting indirectly from the reserve over the last 2 decades. For example, between 2001 and 2015, only about 2,500 deaths were recorded among 45.4 million affected people across 48 disasters, compared with more than 413,000 deaths among 34.6 million people affected by 59 disasters between 1960 and 2000, an improvement attributed to broader advancement in disaster risk management, of which the reserve is a contributing element (Rashid et al., 2019, p. 7).

In 2019–2020, SFRA was merged into Ethiopia's Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector (DRMFSS), which is responsible for managing disaster risk and directing all humanitarian aid, while reserve operations are handled as a specialized function within this broader sector (Endale, 2020, p. 42; Rashid et al., 2018). The reserve holds stocks built from donor and government contributions, but does not handle their distribution or trade them commercially. These institutional reforms have had ambiguous effects. On one hand, embedding the reserve within the disaster-risk management apparatus improves alignment with early warning and humanitarian planning. On the other hand, adding price and market functions to a system that was initially designed for quick humanitarian response risks politicizing and diluting its mandates (Cochrane and Tamiru, 2016).

The size and management of the storage are also central to how this model works. The reserve was designed as a revolving buffer, starting with 180,000 tons, which was increased in 2005 to 407,000 MT to feed about 6.8 million people for 4 months (Rashid et al., 2019, p. 11; World Bank, 2012, p. 29). Grains are not meant to sit idle in warehouses for years; rather, they are regularly lent out and replenished. Evidence from 2005 to 2008 shows that the majority of stocks were less than 9 months old, with a large share cycled within 3 months. This rapid rotation system has sharply reduced storage losses and costs often seen in countries where public stocks remain in warehouses for more than a year (World Bank, 2012, p. 30). Other countries, however, attain effectiveness through a different approach, by maintaining stocks large enough to feed entire populations for over a year, as China does with its 1.4 billion citizens. This highlights that the governance model and operational system that oversee reserves determine their impact more than size alone. In 2019/2020, it was proposed to raise Ethiopia's reserve target to 1.5 million MT; however, the high storage costs and the need for frequent rotation cycles have made this difficult to achieve, and by 2020, only about half had been reached (Endale, 2020, p. 42; Rashid et al., 2019, p. 15). Commodity choice in this system is deliberately conservative. The reserve holds mainly cereals, wheat, maize, and sorghum chosen for their caloric density, availability in Ethiopian markets, and compatibility with existing milling and distribution infrastructure (Häberli, 2013, p. 8; Mulugeta, 2015, p. 16). This cereal focus mirrors grain storage capacity, national dietary patterns, and the most critical commodities during food security emergencies. This conservative commodity choice contrasts sharply with Qatar's multi-commodity storage, which illustrates how a reserve's breadth is not always a matter of strategic choice but also a result of a country's wealth, infrastructure, and resource capacities.

The location of the reserves is determined mainly by the availability of existing storage facilities, while physical grain management is carried out through a network of seven large strategic warehouses in Ethiopia: Adama, Kombolcha, Mekelle, Shashemene, Shinile, Wolayta, and Woreta (Endale, 2020, p. 42). The beneficiary structure is layered. On paper, the reserve is supposed to serve “disaster-affected populations,” which include people severely impacted by drought and conflict and facing acute food insecurity (Boateng, 2024; Jing et al., 2025). In practice, however, the reserve's immediate clients are implementing agencies and programs⁸ that borrow grain, distribute it to households, and then repay once external resources arrive.

The Ethiopian reserve, however, remains heavily dependent on humanitarian and external assistance and is consequently highly vulnerable to disruptions in its flows (Getachew and Harter, 2025). For example, U.S. AID has been repeatedly disrupted in 2023,⁹ after large-scale diversion was uncovered (USAID Office of Inspector General, 2025), and again in 2025, when broader freezes and budget cuts further strained humanitarian pipelines and early-warning systems (Harter, 2025). Tigray was hit especially hard (Goddard, 2024), which affected more than 2.4 million people (Gettleman and Tigrai, 2024; Getachew and Harter, 2025). These political and economic disruptions reveal how quickly even a well-designed and logistically sophisticated reserve system can falter. The availability of grain at the national level does not guarantee its smooth movement from warehouses to households when access is constrained and administrative blockages are imposed.

Therefore, the effectiveness of a humanitarian grain stock depends heavily on complementary systems, social protection, and predictable donor financing, rather than on stock management alone. Additionally, a humanitarian grain reserve is most effective when its mandate is sharply defined, its scale modest, and its operations deliberately simple and agile, with a rapid rotation system that can punch far above its apparent size and outperform far larger systems that attempt to do everything at once (Rashid and Lemma, 2011; World Bank, 2012).

5 Key findings

The food reserves analyzed in this study represent three divergent logics of governance and justification, shaped less by income level or scale than by the type of threat each state seeks to manage and the population it aims to protect. Table 2 Ethiopia's reserve clarifies what a humanitarian reserve can realistically do in a low-income, shock-prone context. It is designed to bridge the recurrent gap between crisis onset and aid arrival by moving grain quickly during droughts and conflicts, to backstop Productive Safety Net Program when imports are delayed, and to minimize storage time and costs rather than maximize stock size. On the other hand, Qatar's reserve functions as a national insurance mechanism against external supply shocks in a high-income, import-dependent system. Finally, China's case is a large-scale multi-purpose economic and geopolitical stabilizer embedded in a long state tradition of grain management. Although all three systems fall under the broad category of “national food reserve,” their motivations, institutional management, commodity choices, and beneficiary structures diverge sharply, producing distinct strengths and vulnerabilities.

Motivation is the clearest line of demarcation. Qatar's system emerged from the sudden realization of vulnerability during the 2017 blockade, which exposed the risks of extreme import dependence in a high-income, resource-scarce Gulf state. Its reserve strategy is therefore defensive and forward-looking, built around geopolitical uncertainty, regional tensions, and the need to guarantee full dietary access during disruptions to global supply chains. China's motivation is older and more structural, linked to domestic stability and global power shifts. While the current reserve system is a continuation of centuries of granary practice, it is now used to control price volatility, reduce political risk, and shield 1.4 billion people from supply interruptions, trade tensions, and climate change. Ethiopia's reserve, by contrast, was developed in response to recurrent famine crises and humanitarian catastrophes. Its purpose remains strictly to save lives through a small, rapidly rotating stock that fills expected gaps in food aid distribution and prevents local shocks from turning into national disasters.

Because motivations for reserve establishment diverge, the governance system has taken very different shapes across the three case studies. Qatar combines centralized public storage with mandated private-sector reserves of essential perishable and non-perishable commodities, creating a collaborative strategic governance system that can supply the entire population. Food availability is ensured through the expansion of domestic food production, diversification of import routes, and strong logistics, while food quality is maintained through the rotation of stocks in the market rather than being held as a large, static emergency pool. China employs a much more hierarchical model, centred on the State Administration of Grain and Reserves (SAGR), with operational support from the state-owned Sinograin, and complemented by local government and enterprise-held reserves. The system is deliberately multilayered to ensure redundancy across regions and actors. It combines food security, price stabilization, and farm-income support, with the state holding large stocks and actively intervening in markets. However, this broad mandate makes transparency, efficiency, and governance more complex. Ethiopia's reserve is embedded within the country's disaster risk management framework and relies heavily on donor support. The effectiveness of its operations and responses is the outcome of complementary systems, including social protection programs, donor financing, and humanitarian agencies that borrow grain from the reserve and distribute it to affected households.

Commodity and beneficiaries' choices follow governance and mandate. Qatar's reserves are universal: the system is calibrated to feed the entire resident population for extended periods, and commodities are deliberately mixed to include non-perishables, perishables, and agricultural inputs, because its objective is to preserve access to a nutritionally adequate diet during sudden disruptions. It therefore requires substantial physical capacity, diversified commodities, and sophisticated coordination with retailers and the private sector. China's beneficiaries are universal as well; its reserves support consumers, farmers, and industrial supply chains simultaneously. The reserve maintains a broad commodity basket which reflects both the scale of its agricultural economy and the sensitivity of staple prices. Ethiopia restricts itself almost entirely to cereals because its reserves are designed to provide caloric protection to serve vulnerable households during emergencies such as drought, conflict, or sudden food-aid disruptions. This distinction, universal vs. targeted beneficiaries, helps explain why Ethiopia can operate effectively with a more limited reserve, and why its performance depends as much on early-warning systems and aid pipelines as on the physical shelf.

6 Conclusion

Across these contrasts, a common insight emerges: implementing best fit, not best practice. These cases demonstrate how crucial it is to match reserve design to context, and how the effectiveness of the reserve system depends less on absolute size than on alignment among mandate, governance, and design. These cases also show that successful systems prioritize the circulation of stocks over their accumulation, collaboration rather than parallel operation, and clear, attainable goals that do not create future conflicts of interest.

Qatar's strength lies in its ability to mobilize both public and private resources in order to maintain diversified buffers capable of withstanding geopolitical shocks. China's lies in its long institutional memory, centralized authority, and capacity to maintain large stockpiles that stabilize both markets and politics. Ethiopia's lies in its disciplined humanitarian focus, rapid rotation, and integration with social-protection programs, which enable a modest reserve to have a significant impact. Taken together, the three cases illustrate how food reserves reflect the political economies that build them. High-income import-dependent states design universal systems to shield against uncertainty and external shocks; large middle-income producers maintain multi-functional reserves that stabilize markets, while low-income, shock-prone states rely on focused humanitarian buffers whose success depends on mandate clarity and international support. These contrasts clarify why governance systems, beneficiary scope, and commodity types are not peripheral details but the core determinants of how reserves function, what risks they can absorb, and how reliably they protect populations under stress.

These cases also identify questions for future study. For example, what is the rationale behind the government's decision-making not to have a strategic food reserve and what alternative mechanisms are employed to ensure food security? Additional case studies can deepen understanding of why strategic food reserves are designed, when, and how they are. A database of comparable traits might enable new research directions. As disruptions to food systems intensify, these research directions can help decision-makers better understand how to make food systems more resilient in an uncertain world.

References

• 1

  AbokyiE.FolmerH.AsieduK. F. (2018). Public buffer stocks as an agricultural output price stabilisation policy in Ghana. Agricult. Food Secur.7:69. doi: 10.1186/s40066-018-0221-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AkbarA. (2022). A historical-contextualist approach to the Joseph chapter of the Qur'an. Open Theol. 8, 331–344. doi: 10.1515/opth-2022-0213

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AlbasoosH.HassanG.Al ZadjaliS. (2021). The Qatar crisis: challenges and opportunities. Int. J. Res. Busi. Soc. Sci. 10:January. doi: 10.20525/ijrbs.v10i1.1013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  Al-JebziR.CochraneL. (2025). Flood risks and resilience planning in Qatar for expected climatic change: a systematic review of the literature. Sustain. Environ.11:1. doi: 10.1080/27658511.2025.2483030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  Al-ThaniA. F. (2021). Qatar's food security during the GCC diplomatic crisis: new agricultural trade agreements and their implications. J. Stud. Res.10:1. doi: 10.47611/jsr.v10i1.1165

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  AmhamedA.GenidiN.Abotaleb SodiqA.AbdullatifY.HushariM.et al. (2023). Food security strategy to enhance food self-sufficiency and overcome international food supply chain crisis: the state of Qatar as a case study. GRN Tech Res. Sustain.3:3. doi: 10.1007/s44173-023-00012-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  APTERR. (2021). Celebrating 10th Anniversary of APTERR: Moving Together towards Sustainable Food Security. Bangkok: ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve. Available online at: https://www.apterr.org/images/PDF/2021/10TH_ANNIVERSARY_OF_APTERR.pdf (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AtaullahS. (2025). Food strategy aims to store 11 commodities for up to 8 months. The Peninsula Qatar. Available online at: https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/21/04/2025/food-strategy-aims-to-store-11-commodities-for-upto-8-monthscom (Accessed February 8, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BarrettC. B.LentzE. C. (2009). “Food insecurity,” in: International Studies Compendium Project, eds. R. A. Denemark et al. (London: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing), 1–44. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228246826_Food_Insecurity (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BartlettL.VavrusF. (2016). Rethinking Case Study Research. A Comparative Approach. New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315674889

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BartlettL.VavrusF. (2017). Comparative case studies: an innovative approach. Nordic J. Comparat. Int. Educ. 1, 5–17. doi: 10.7577/njcie.1929

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BartlettL.VavrusF. (2019). Comparative Case Study Research. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.343

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Ben HassenT.El BilaliH.AllahyariM. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on food behavior and consumption in Qatar. Sustainability. 12:6973. doi: 10.29117/quarfe.2020.0296

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BigmanD.ReutlingerS. (1979). Food price and supply stabilization: national buffer stocks and trade policies. Am. J. Agric. Econ.61, 657–667. doi: 10.2307/1239913

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  BishopJ.BellT.HuangC.WardM. (2021). Fire on the Farm: Assessing the Impacts of the 2019–2020 Bushfires on Food and Agricultures in Australia. Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  BoatengO. A. (2024). “Africa's long fight for humanitarian self-sufficiency,” in Handbook on Humanitarianism and Inequality, Ch. 31, eds. S. Roth, B. Purkayastha, and T. Denskus vol. 13 (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing), 443–457. doi: 10.4337/9781802206555.00042

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  BourrierM.DemlM. J. (2022). The legacy of the pandemic preparedness regime: an integrative review. Int. J. Public Health67:1604961. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2022.1604961

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  BrankovT.MatkovskiB.JeremićM.DurićI. (2021). Food self-sufficiency of the SEE countries; is the region prepared for a future crisis?Sustainability13:8747. doi: 10.3390/su13168747

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  CaballeroG.BallesterosM.Fernández-GonzálezR. (2015). Political economy of Elinor Ostrom: institutional analysis, commons and polycentric governance. Rev. Españ. Ciencia Polít.38, 13–40.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  ChandrasekharA. (2025). Does Your Country Have Enough Food Reserves to Withstand a Crisis? SWI swissinfo.ch. Available online at: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/agribusiness/does-your-country-have-enough-food-reserves-to-withstand-a-crisis/89654114 (Accessed August 3, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  ChapotoA. (2019). The Role of Strategic Food Reserves in Enhancing Food Security in Developing Countries: The Case of Zambia (Working Paper No. 10). European Commission, Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation, Unit C1.

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  ChuM. M. (2025). China raises 2025 budget for grain stockpiling, targets higher domestic output. Reuters. Available online at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-raises-2025-budget-grain-stockpiling-targets-higher-domestic-output-2025-03-06/ (Accessed February 3, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  ClappJ. (2020). Food, 3rd Edn. Bristol: Policy Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  CochraneL.MohannadiD. A.ShannakS.WadaY.EisaE. A.HejaziM. (2024). Future energy breakthroughs: implications for the hydrocarbon economies of the Arabian Gulf. Global Challenges8:2400151. doi: 10.1002/gch2.202400151

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  CochraneL.TamiruY. (2016). Ethiopia's productive safety net program: power, politics and practice. J. Int. Dev. 28, 649–665. doi: 10.1002/jid.3234

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  CochraneL. J. R. (2021). Ethiopia and Food Security: What We Know, How We Know it, and Future Options. Los Angeles, CA: Tsehai Publishers.

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  DalyT.SinghS. (2021). Explainer: what China keeps in its secretive commodity reserves. Reuters. Available online at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/what-china-keeps-its-secretive-commodity-reserves-2021-08-05/ (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  De la FuenteA.JacobyH. G.LawinK. G. (2020). Impact of the West African Ebola epidemic on agricultural production and rural welfare: evidence from Liberia. J. Afr. Econ.29, 454–474. doi: 10.1093/jae/ejaa002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  DevereuxS. (2000). Food Insecurity in Ethiopia, A Discussion Paper for DFID. Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Sussex. Available online at: https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/FoodSecEthiopia4.pdf (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields,” in: The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eds Powell and DiMaggio (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), 63–82. doi: 10.2307/2095101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission. (2004). Ethiopia—National Information on Disaster Reduction: Report for the World Conference on Disaster Reduction (Kobe-Hyogo, Japan, 18-22 January 2005). Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission. Available online at: https://www.unisdr.org/2005/mdgs-drr/national-reports/Ethiopia-report.pdf (Accessed April 13, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  DiwaniM. (2025). Empirical effects of short-term export bans: the case of rice sectors in India, Thailand and Vietnam. J. Ekonomi.7, 119–140. doi: 10.58251/ekonomi.1637248

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  do AmaralM. P. (2022). “Comparative case studies: methodological discussion,” in Landscapes of Lifelong Learning Policies across Europe. Palgrave Studies in Adult Education and Lifelong Learning, eds. S. Benasso, D. Bouillet, T. Neves, and M. Parreira do Amaral (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-96454-2_3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  DongK.PrytherchM.McElweeL.KimP.BlanchetteJ.HassR. (2024). China's Food Security: Key Challenges and Emerging Policy Responses. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Available online at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-food-security-key-challenges-and-emerging-policy-responses (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  DonleyA. (2024). China Making Strides in Grain Self-Sufficiency. World Grain. Available online at: https://www.world-grain.com/articles/20859-china-making-strides-in-grain-self-sufficiency Accessed August 17, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  DoroshP.MinotN.RashidS. (2025). Food price stabilization: theory and lessons from experience. Food Policy137:102945. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102945

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  EatherJ.DuverA.FellJ. (2022). Food Security: The Role of International Trade and Support. ABARES Insights, Australian Government, Department of Agricultural, Fisheries, and Forestry. doi: 10.25814/95ap-fj06

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  ECOWAS Regional Agriculture and Food Agency. (2025, January). Situation of the Regional Food Security Reserve (Technical Note No. 1). ARAA.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  EndaleA. (2020). Searching for new solutions to an old problem. Ethiopian Business Review. Available online at: https://ethiopianbusinessreview.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/EBR-86-.pdf (Accessed November 23, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  European Commission. (2018). Using Food Reserves to Enhance Food and Nutrition Security in Developing Countries. Synthesis Report. Brussels: Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development.

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  FAO IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. (2021). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021: Transforming Food Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition and Affordable Healthy Diets for All.Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. doi: 10.4060/cb4474en

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  FAO IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. (2025). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2025—Addressing High Food Price Inflation for Food Security and Nutrition. Rome: FAO IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. doi: 10.4060/cd6008en

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  FAO WFP, and GNAFC. (2026). 2026 Global Report on Food Crises—Joint Analysis for Better Decisions. Rome: FAO and WFP. doi: 10.4060/cd9424en

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  FAO. (2011). Safeguarding Food Security in Volatile Global Markets (A. Prakash, Ed.). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/4/i2107e/i2107e25.pdf (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  FAO. (2023). The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security 2023. Available online at: https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/cd76116f-0269-43e4-8146-d912329f411c (Accessed November 23, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  FavasC.CrestaC.WhelanE.SmithK.MangerM. S.ChandrasenageD.et al. (2024). Exploring food system resilience to the global polycrisis in six Asian countries. Front. Nutrit.11:1347186. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1347186

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  FellJ.DuverA. (2022). Food Security: The Impact of Export Restrictions. ABARES Insights, Australian Government, Department of Agricultural, Water and the Environment. doi: 10.25814/nqtv-n935

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  FEWS Net. (2024). Ethiopia Food Security Outlook Update: Food access expected to improve for millions in October with meher harvest, June 2024–January 2025 Famine Early Warning System Network. Available online at: https://fews.net/east-africa/ethiopia/food-security-outlook/june-2024 (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  FilhoW.FedorukM.EustachioJ.BarbirJ.LisovskaT.LingosA.BaarsC. (2023). How the war in Ukraine affects food security. Foods. 12. 3996. doi: 10.3390/foods12213996

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  FraserE.D.G.LegwegohA.KCK. (2015). Food stocks and grain reserves: evaluating whether storing food creates resilient food systems. J. Environ. Stud. Sci.5, 445–458. doi: 10.1007/s13412-015-0276-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  FSIN. (2024). Global Report on Food Crises 2024. Food Security Information Network. Available online at: https://www.fsinplatform.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/GRFC2024-full.pdf (Accessed August 7, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  GerringJ. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.98, 341–354. doi: 10.1017/S0003055404001182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  GetachewS.HarterF. (2025). We will just die in silence: US aid cuts hit Ethiopia's fragile Tigray region. AP News. Available online at: https://apnews.com/article/ethiopia-tigray-usaid-mekele-hunger-b50fce94e1a96346c8de8d1dd06421d7 (Accessed January 23, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  GettlemanJ.TigraiT. V. (2024). At the door of death: desperation in Ethiopia as hunger crisis deepens. The Guardian. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/feb/09/tigray-ethiopia-war-drought-aid-suspended-hunger-crisis-death-desperation (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  GilbertC. L. (2011). Food Reserves in Developing Countries: Trade Policy Options for Improved Food Security (Issue Paper No. 37). Geneva, Switzerland: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). Available online at: https://www.inter-reseaux.org/wp-content/uploads/food_reserves_gilbert_web_21.pdf (Accessed June 10, 2026). doi: 10.7215/AG_IP_20110923A

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  GoddardJ. (2024). Ethiopia: Conflict and Food Insecurity 40 Years on from the 1984 Famine. House of Lords Library. Available online at: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/ethiopia-conflict-and-food-insecurity-40-years-on-from-the-1984-famine/ (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  GoodrickD. (2014). Comparative Case Studies, Methodological Briefs: Impact Evaluation 9, UNICEF Office of Research. Florence. Available online at: https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/Comparative_Case_Studies_ENG.pdf (Accessed October 20, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Government Communications Office of Qatar. (2024). Prime Minister launches the National Food Security Strategy 2030. State of Qatar. Available online at: https://www.gco.gov.qa/en/media-centre/top-news/prime-minister-launches-the-national-food-security-strategy-2030/ (Accessed February 12, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  HäberliC. (2013). Ethiopia's Food Reserve Policies and Practice (NCCR Trade Working Paper 2013/02). World Trade Institute.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  HanD.WuY.Si-SiC. (2025). Trade war and grain import resilience: evidence from China's response to U.S. tariffs. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.9:1593613. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1593613

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  HarterF. (2025). The impact has been devastating: how USAid freeze sent shockwaves through Ethiopia. The Guardian. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/ng-interactive/2025/feb/21/the-impact-has-been-devastating-how-usaid-freeze-sent-shockwaves-through-ethiopia (Accessed December 20, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  HemidaM. G.ElmoslemanyA.Al-HizabF.AlnaeemA.AlmathenF.FayeB.et al. (2017). Dromedary camels and the transmission of middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Transboundary Emerg. Dis. 64:2, 344–353. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12401

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  HendrixC.BrinkmanH.-J. (2013). Food insecurity and conflict dynamics: causal linkages and complex feedback, stability. Int. J. Secur. Develop.2:26. doi: 10.5334/sta.bm

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  HLPE. (2011). Price Volatility and Food Security: A report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  HuntS. (2016). Building adaptive capacities for disaster resilience: what role for government? Austral. J. Emerg. Manag.31, 31–36.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  IATP. (2012). Grain Reserves and the Food Price Crisis: Selected Writings from 2008–2012. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Available online at: https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2012_07_13_IATP_GrainReservesReader.pdf (Accessed August 24, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Institute of Development Studies. (2022). The Multi-Country Mpox Outbreak: Livelihoods, Vulnerability and Preparedness. Available online at: https://www.ids.ac.uk/projects/the-multi-country-mpox-outbreak-livelihoods-vulnerability-and-preparedness/socialscienceinaction.org+11 (Accessed August 6, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  IsmailF.ZainolN.MasruriM.BorhamA.KirinA.MuzanaZ. (2022). “Quranic perspective on disaster management: analysis from Prophet Yusuf A.S History,” in International Conference on Islamic and Muhammadiyah Studies (ICIMS 2022) (Atlantis Press SARL), 187–195. doi: 10.2991/assehr.k.220708.024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  JiangQ.JiX. (2024). Research on the efficiency optimization of food reserve under the complementary reserve mode of government and enterprise in China. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.8:1368585. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1368585

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  JingW. L.TasciK. R.ErgunÖ.VostiS. A.WebbP. (2025). Enhancing cost-efficiency and effectiveness in USAID's food aid supply chain operations in Ethiopia. INFORMS J. Appl. Analyt.56, 133–158. doi: 10.1287/inte.2024.0111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  KakaeiH.NourmoradiH.BakhtiyariS.JalilianM.MirzaeiA. (2022). Effect of COVID-19 on food security, hunger, and food crisis. Elsevier. 3–29. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-91307-2.00005-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  KalkuhlM.von BraunJ.ToreroM. (2016). “Volatile and extreme food prices, food security, and policy: an overview,” in: Food Price Volatility and Its Implications for Food Security and Policy, eds M. Kalkuhl, J. von Braun and M. Torero (Cham: Springer). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-28201-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  KaranisaT.AmatoA.RicherR.Abdul MajidS.SkelhornC.SayadiS. (2021). Agricultural production in Qatar's hot arid climate. Sustainability13:7, 4059. doi: 10.3390/su13074059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  KruczkiewiczA.KloppJ.FisherJ.MasonS.McClainS.SheekhN. M.et al. (2021). Compound risks and complex emergencies require new approaches to preparedness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118:19. e2106795118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2106795118

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  LabordeD.MartinW.VosR. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 on global poverty, food security, and diets: Insights from global model scenario analysis. J. Agricult. Econ. (Amsterdam, Netherlands)52, 375–390. doi: 10.1111/agec.12624

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  LassaJ. A.ShresthaM. (2014). WTO Breakthrough on Stockpiles: Sustaining Food Security. Commentary No. 245. Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Techno logical University. Available online at: https://rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CO14245.pdf (Accessed January 18, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  LassaJ. A.TengP.Caballero-AnthonyM.ShresthaM. (2019). Revisiting emergency food reserve policy and practice under disaster and extreme climate events. Int. J. Disast. Risk Sci.10, 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s13753-018-0200-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  LillistonB. (2009). The Power of Food Reserves. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  LinesT. (2011). The Potential Establishment of Emergency Food Reserve Funds. UNCTAD Special Unit on Commodities Working Paper Series on Commodities and Development Discussion paper.

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Lynton-EvansJ. (1997). Strategic Grain Reserves: Guidelines for their Establishment, Management and Operation (FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 126). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  MaccaroA.AudiaC.StokesK.MasudH.SekalalaS.PecchiaL.et al. (2023). Pandemic preparedness: a scoping review of best and worst practices from COVID-19. Healthcare11:2572. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11182572

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  MandunaC. (2024). Buffer Food Stocks for Addressing Volatility and Food Security in Developing Countries: Trends and Future Direction [Policy brief]. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). Available online at: https://www.iatp.org/buffer-food-stocks-developing-countries-trends (Accessed September 2, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 83

  MassaroE.GaninA.PerraN.LinkovI.VespignaniA. (2018). Resilience management during large-scale epidemic outbreaks. Scient. Rep.8:1. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-19706-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  MaunderN. (2013). What is Known about the Impact of Emergency and Stabilization Reserves on Resilient Food Systems? Overseas Development Institute (ODI). Available online at: https://media.odi.org/documents/8620.pdf (Accessed September 2, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 85

  Mawani Qatar. (2017). Mawani Qatar Annual Report for 2017. Qatar Ports Management Company. Available online at: https://www.mwani.com.qa/Annual%20Report/Annual%20Report%20EN.pdf (Accessed November 23, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 86

  MitchellA. (2013). Risk and Resilience: From Good Idea to Good Practice, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers 13.Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/5k3ttg4cxcbp-en

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  MohamedA.SalmonC.FaiziB.TokM. E. (2025). From crisis to resilience: food security policy development in Qatar. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.9:6264. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1446264

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  MulugetaM. (2015). Food reserve system in Ethiopia: assessment of the current implementation technicalities and policy recommendations. J. Ethiop. Civil Soc. Organiz.3, 8–20

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  MuniatloC. D.MellorD. D. (2023). A review of the impact of social disruptions on food security and food choice. Food Sci. Nutrit.12:1. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.3752

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  MurphyS. (2009). Strategic Grain Reserves in an Era of Volatility. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Available online at: https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/451_2_106857.pdf (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 91

  NajaF.HazimK.AlameddineM. (2026). Food security amid the US–Iran war: a food system analysis and a framework for coordinated multilevel action. Global Food Secur.49:100919. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2026.100919

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  NeryN.Aguilar TiconaJ. P.GambrahC.Doss-GollinS.AromolaranA.Rastely-JúniorV. (2021). Social determinants associated with Zika virus infection in pregnant women. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis.15:e0009612. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009612

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  NgF.Ataman AksoyM. (2008). Who are the Net Food Importing Countries? Policy Research Working Paper; No. 4457. World Bank. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/6454 (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 94

  NorthD. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511808678

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  NowellB.BodkinC. P.BayoumiD. (2017). Redundancy as a strategy in disaster response systems: a pathway to resilience or a recipe for disaster?J. Conting. Crisis Manag.25, 123-135. doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.12178

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  OECD/FAO. (2025). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025-2034. Paris/FAO, Rome: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/601276cd-en

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  OstromE. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511807763

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  PerumalS. V. (2020). Qatar's strategic food security facilities 85% complete. Gulf Times. Available online at: https://www.gulf-times.com/story/680928/Qatar-s-Strategic-Food-Security-Facilities-85-complete (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 99

  PetersB. G. (2017). The Comparative Method and Comparative Public Policy [Working paper]. Department of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh, Institute of Public Policy and Administration.

  • Google Scholar

• 100

  Planning and Statistics Authority. (2023). Qatar in Figures 38 2023 (Statistical Release). Qatar Planning and Statistics Authority.

  • Google Scholar

• 101

  PumaM. J.BoseS.ChonS. Y.CookB. I. (2015). Assessing the evolving fragility of the global food system. Environ. Res. Lett.10:024007. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/024007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  QNFSS. (2020). Qatar National Food Security Strategy, Food Security Department, Ministry of Municipality and Environment. 2018–2023. Available online at: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/qat219196E.pdf (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 103

  RaginC. (2014). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, 1st Edn. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. doi: 10.1525/9780520957350

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  RashidS.AlemuD.DoroshP. (2019). Public Policies for Enhancing Food Security: The Case of Ethiopia (Food Reserves Working Paper #5). DAI Global and CIRAD.

  • Google Scholar

• 105

  RashidS.DoroshP.AlemuD. (2018). Grain markets, disaster management, and public stocks: lessons from Ethiopia. Global Food Secur.19, 31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2018.09.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  RashidS.LemmaS. (2011). Strategic Grain Reserves in Ethiopia: Institutional Design and Operational Performance, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Discussion Paper 01054. Washington, DC.

  • Google Scholar

• 107

  RashidS.LemmaS. (2012). “Strategic grain reserves in Ethiopia: institutional design and operational performance,” in: Grain Reserves and the Food Price Crisis: Selected Writings from 2008–2012 (Minneapolis, MN: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)), 49–51.

  • Google Scholar

• 108

  RegmiA. (Ed.). (2001). Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade (Agriculture and Trade Report WRS-01-1). Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available online at: https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/outlooks/40303/14983_wrs011_1_.pdf?v=42726 (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 109

  ReidyS. (2021). China to increase grain storage capacity. World Grain. Available online at: https://www.world-grain.com/articles/15538-china-to-increase-grain-storage-capacity (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 110

  SAARC. (2020). Agriculture and Rural Development. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. Available online at: https://www.saarc-sec.org/index.php/areas-of-cooperation/agriculture-rural-development/ (Accessed August 7, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 111

  SacconeD.VallinoE. (2025). Global food security in a turbulent world: reviewing the impacts of the pandemic, the war and climate change. Agric Econ13:47. doi: 10.1186/s40100-025-00388-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  SampsonK. (2012). “Food reserves in practice,” in: Grain Reserves and the Food Price Crisis: Selected Writings from2008–2012, 59–60. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Available online at: https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2012_07_13_IATP_GrainReservesReader.pdf (Accessed August 11, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 113

  San-Miguel-AyanzJ.DurrantT.BocaR.MaiantiP.LibertàG.OomD.et al. (2023). Advance Report on Forest Fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2022 (EUR 31479 EN; JRC133215). Publications Office of the European Union.

  • Google Scholar

• 114

  SchwarzL.SidhuA.BehlA. (2023). Collation of best practices for preparedness: lessons from disasters in Pakistan and Japan. J. Humanitar. Logist. Supply Chain Manage.13, 311–330. doi: 10.1108/JHLSCM-07-2022-0086

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  SeyamM. A. (2023). Assessing the qatari food security situation during the 2017 crisis: potentials, achievements, and challenges. Tajseer J.5, 85–104. doi: 10.29117/tis.2023.0140

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  ShawD. J. (2007). “International emergency food reserve,” in: World Food Security (London: Palgrave Macmillan). doi: 10.1057/9780230589780_14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  SilvestriniM. M.SmithN. W.SartiF. M. (2023). Evolution of global food trade network and its effects on population nutritional status. Curr. Res. Food Sci.6:100517. doi: 10.1016/j.crfs.2023.100517

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  SinghS.ZhangM. (2021). China's key commodities targeted by Beijing's recent measures. Reuters. Available online at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-key-commodities-targeted-by-beijings-recent-measures-2021-08-04/ [Accessed February 26, 2026].

  • Google Scholar

• 119

  SundararamanT.MuraleedharanV. R.RanjanA. (2021). Pandemic resilience and health systems preparedness: lessons from COVID-19 for the twenty-first century. J. Soc. Econ. Develop.23, 290–300. doi: 10.1007/s40847-020-00133-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  ThelenK. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Ann. Rev. Polit. Sci.2, 369–404. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.369

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  UN Food Systems Summit. (2021). The Qatar Pathway to a Resilient, Sustainable, Equitable, and Healthy Food System by 2030 [Draft report]. National Pathways. UN Food Systems Summit.

  • Google Scholar

• 122

  UNCTAD. (2024). New UNCTAD–WHO Analysis Reveals Trends in Processed Foods Trade. United Nations Trade and Development. Available online at: https://unctad.org/news/new-unctad-who-analysis-reveals-trends-processed-foods-trade (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 123

  USAID Office of Inspector General. (2025). Emergency Food Assistance in Ethiopia: Gaps in USAID's Award Administration, Monitoring, and Incident Reporting Hindered its Ability to Detect Widespread Food Diversion (Report No. E-000-25-002-M). USAID OIG Report on Emergency Food Assistance in Ethiopia. U.S. Agency for International Development, Office of Inspector General.

  • Google Scholar

• 124

  USDA. (2018). China Outlines the Responsibilities of the State Administration of Grain and Reserves. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service.

  • Google Scholar

• 125

  USDA. (2025). Grain and Feed Update: China, People's Republic of (CH2025-0006). Beijing: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service.

  • Google Scholar

• 126

  VargheseJ. (2025). Qatar food security strategy eyes up to eight months' reserve. Gulf Times. Available online at: https://www.gulf-times.com/article/699871/qatar/qatar-food-security-strategy-eyes-up-to-eight-months-reserve (Accessed July 28, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 127

  Von BraunJ.LinJ. (2009). Eliminating Drastic Food Price Spikes, A Three-Pronged Approach.

  • Google Scholar

• 128

  Von BraunJ.ToreroM. (2012). “Implementing physical and virtual food reserves to protect the poor and prevent market failure,” in Grain Reserves and the Food Price Crisis: Selected Writings from 2008–2012 (Minneapolis, MN: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)), 25–30.

  • Google Scholar

• 129

  WeberI.SchulkenM. (2024). Towards a Post-Neoliberal Stabilization Paradigm: Revisiting International Buffer Stocks in an Age of Overlapping Emergencies Based on the Case of Food. Political Economy Research Institute. PERI Working Paper Series.

  • Google Scholar

• 130

  WellesleyL. (2019). How Qatar's Food System has Adapted to the Blockade. Chatham House. Available online at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/11/how-qatars-food-system-has-adapted-blockade (Accessed August 7, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 131

  WijeratnaA. (2011). No More Food Crises: The Indispensable Role of Food Reserves. No More Food Crises: The Indispensable Role of Food Reserves. ActionAid policy brief, ActionAid UK. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15358.43845

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  WoodA.QueirozC.DeutschL.González-MonB.JonellM.PereiraL.et al. (2023). Reframing the local–global food systems debate through a resilience lens. Nat. Food4, 22–29. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00662-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  World Bank FAO, and WFP. (2025). Strengthening Strategic Grain Reserves to Enhance Food Security. Washington, DC: The World Bank. doi: 10.1596/43131

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  World Bank. (2012). Using Public Food Grain Stocks to Enhance Food Security. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available online at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/412711468336603745 (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 135

  World Bank. (2022). Commodity Markets Outlook: The Impact of War in Ukraine on Commodity Market - Special Focus (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Available online at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099613504272249218 (Accessed July 28, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 136

  World Bank. (2025). Commodity Markets Outlook: Apr-Oct 2025 Monthly Prices. World Bank Group Report. Washington, DC: Commodity Markets Outlook – October 2025.

  • Google Scholar

• 137

  World Bank. (2026). Commodity Markets Outlook: Apr 2026 (English). Global Economic Prospects. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Available online at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099842304282633100 (Accessed May 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 138

  WrightB. (2010). International Grain Reserves and Other Instruments to Address Volatility in Grain Markets (English). Policy Research working paper; no. WPS 5028 Washington, DC: World Bank. Available online at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/375561468336329144 (Accessed February 3, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 139

  XingK.LiS.YangX. (2024). Impact of the political risk on food reserve ratio: evidence across countries. J. Syst. Sci. Complex37, 2071–2103. doi: 10.1007/s11424-024-2388-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  Xinhua. (2023). Six Fallacies and Truths about China's Epidemic Control. Xinhua. Available online at: https://english.news.cn/20230107/446a14e70ca64ebb8fa802efca28273b/c.html (Accessed February 8, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 141

  ZhangY.-T.ZhouW.-X. (2024). Structural evolution of international crop trade networks. arXiv. Available online at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02986 (Accessed June 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 142

  ZoryaS.AhmedM.SandströmS.SinghP.SilvaS.PrykhodkoD. (2025). Leveraging strategic grain reserves to enhance food security. World Bank Blogs. Available online at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/agfood/leveraging-strategic-grain-reserves-to-enhance-food-security (Accessed February 26, 2026).

  • Google Scholar