The Global South Needs Stronger Food Chains, Not Just Bigger Harvests

Food systems are only as resilient as the weakest link between the farm and the consumer. During COVID-19, shortages of labour and farm inputs collided with transport disruption, weak storage and fragmented markets, turning existing weaknesses into wider food-security risks across the Global South.

A study titled "Building Resilient Agricultural Value Chains in the Global South Post COVID-19," by Lesego Sekwati, Mavis Kolobe and Malebogo Bakwena, published in COVID, argues that resilience must be built across production, processing and distribution, with stronger institutions connecting each stage.

The Pandemic Exposed a System Problem, Not Just a Farm Problem

The pandemic disrupted agricultural value chains at multiple points simultaneously. Movement restrictions reduced labour availability, delayed seeds and fertilizers, raised transport costs and contributed to production shortfalls in perishable commodities. Limited storage capacity then amplified losses, while disrupted distribution weakened market access and price stability.

According to the authors, these failures cannot be treated independently. Agricultural production, processing, distribution and consumption are deeply connected, meaning that a disruption in one part of the chain can quickly spread through the rest. Problems with agricultural inputs can reduce output, constrain processing, interrupt distribution and ultimately raise food prices or reduce dietary access.

Governments often respond to agricultural crises with measures such as input subsidies or emergency production support. The paper does not dismiss such interventions, but argues that they are insufficient when farmers still lack finance, storage, market information or reliable buyers.

The broader food-security stakes are considerable. The study cites projections that 512 million people could be chronically undernourished by 2030, with around 60% of them in Africa. While these projections are not attributed solely to COVID-19, they reinforce the authors' argument that agricultural systems in the Global South need to become capable of absorbing future shocks rather than repeatedly returning to emergency mode.

Finance and Digital Access May Decide Which Farmers Can Adapt

One of the clearest vulnerabilities identified is financial exclusion. Smallholder farmers frequently lack the collateral or formal credit history required by commercial banks, while high interest rates and unsuitable lending conditions make formal finance difficult to access. Many therefore depend on informal lenders, remittances and family networks.

The financial constraint does more than limit immediate production. The authors argue that it reduces farmers' ability to invest in productivity-enhancing technologies, diversify markets or adopt measures that would make them more resilient to future shocks. COVID-19 demonstrated the consequences when already-fragile credit systems failed at the same time as labour and market disruptions.

The review highlights Uganda as an example. Farmers who already lacked access to commercial-bank credit also lost access to cooperative financing during lockdowns while confronting rising labour costs and collapsing output markets. At the same time, relief programmes were often delivered through formal banking systems, missing agricultural actors operating outside those channels.

Digital finance offers a potential route around some of these barriers. Mobile banking, digital payments and financial technology platforms can reduce transaction costs and connect farmers more directly with suppliers and markets. The pandemic accelerated digital adoption across agricultural value chains, including payment infrastructure and tools for monitoring prices and disruptions.

However, the study also warns against assuming that digitisation automatically produces inclusion. Smallholders may still face connectivity problems, low digital literacy, lengthy approval processes and privacy concerns. Better-integrated agricultural chains were able to exploit digital tools more successfully than informal staple-food systems, highlighting the risk that technological progress could reinforce existing inequalities if access remains uneven.

The Missing Infrastructure Is Physical, Informational and Institutional

Resilience also depends on what happens after crops leave the farm. Weak cold chains, insufficient warehouse capacity and limited processing infrastructure can convert a production success into a food-system failure if products spoil before reaching consumers.

The study identifies storage and processing as critical areas for investment. Expanding cold-chain and warehouse capacity can reduce waste and stabilise supply during disruptions, while greater processing capacity can improve preservation, add value and strengthen the ability of local food systems to withstand interruptions.

Information is another form of infrastructure. Farmers without timely knowledge of market prices and demand are less able to negotiate effectively and may sell their products under unfavourable conditions. The review finds that information asymmetries and unequal bargaining power leave many smallholders dependent on intermediaries who control access to markets. This is why the authors place governance alongside technology and finance. Stronger farmer cooperatives, better contracts, public procurement and improved information systems can help rebalance relationships between producers, processors and traders. Contract farming, for example, can provide more predictable market access and production support, although its effectiveness depends on the quality of implementation and the fairness of contractual arrangements.

For investors and development institutions, agricultural resilience offers opportunities well beyond primary production. Cold storage, logistics, processing, digital platforms, local seed and fertilizer production and agricultural finance all represent parts of the resilience puzzle. However, the development impact of those investments will depend on whether smaller producers are integrated into the system rather than pushed further to its margins.

Building Resilience Means Fixing the Chain Before the Next Shock

Resilience is not something agricultural value chains simply possess, the study insists. It is created through the quality of their institutions, relationships and ability to absorb, adapt to and transform in response to disruption. Stronger governance determines whether finance, information, technology and risk are distributed in ways that help the entire system respond.

It shifts the policy conversation away from temporary crisis management. Governments can strengthen agricultural systems by improving policy coordination, broadening access to finance, supporting mobile-payment interoperability, investing in storage and processing, improving trade monitoring and developing more reliable data systems. The paper also calls for stronger social protection and locally anchored input systems that reduce excessive dependence on fragile external supply networks.

The study does, however, have important limitations. Its systematic review relied only on Scopus-indexed literature, included English-language material and ultimately selected 15 studies from an initial pool of 234 documents. The authors acknowledge potential selection bias and note that they did not conduct a separate quality appraisal of the studies included in the synthesis.Those limits mean its recommendations should be treated as a strategic framework rather than proof that every intervention will produce the same results across countries.

Future research will need to test proposed resilience measures directly, compare agricultural systems across regions and quantify where investment creates the greatest capacity to withstand disruption.