2.3 Global assessment and sectoral analysis of losses
Systematic measurement and quantification of disaster impacts provide essential evidence for understanding the magnitude and patterns of agricultural losses, while informing policy development, resource allocation and risk reduction planning across multiple scales, from local to global. However, most countries lack systematic data collection systems for recording agricultural production and disaster impacts, resulting in significant gaps in data availability and quality that can limit the accuracy and completeness of impact estimates. Differences in data standards, statistical capacity, institutional arrangements, and resource availability for monitoring disaster impacts result in variations in data quality across countries and regions. These limitations restrict the utility of global monitoring tools, such as the Sendai C2 Indicator and the PDNA surveys, in providing evidence on loss trends, as they are largely dependent on the quantity and quality of data collected and reported under their respective frameworks.
In the absence of consistent historical datasets on realized disaster losses in agriculture, modelled estimations of impacts can provide an alternative approach to understanding agricultural risk and vulnerabilities. The quantitative assessment presented in this report represents a significant step forward in estimating direct economic losses in agriculture from 1991 to 2023, using the global agricultural production dataset from FAOSTAT and disaster event records from the EM-DAT database to calculate production losses in crops and livestock. The analysis reveals important patterns in how disasters affect different agricultural subsectors and geographic regions, providing valuable insights into the distribution of vulnerability and risk concentrations. The findings demonstrate both the significant scale of disaster impacts and the substantial variations in loss patterns across different agricultural subsectors, geographic regions and hazard types, reflecting the complex interactions between hazard characteristics, exposure patterns, vulnerability factors and response capacities that determine impact outcomes.
However, the results also underscore the substantial data gaps that continue to constrain our understanding of disaster impacts in agriculture, particularly for the fisheries and forestry subsectors, where a lack of systematic data prevents a comprehensive analysis of disaster losses despite the significant economic, social, and environmental importance of these sectors for rural livelihoods and food security. The challenges encountered in conducting comprehensive impact assessments highlight the need for enhanced data collection systems, improved analytical methodologies, and strengthened institutional capacity for systematic disaster impact monitoring and analysis.
DIRECT ECONOMIC LOSSES IN CROPS AND LIVESTOCK
The quantitative assessment of direct economic losses in crops and livestock presented in this section utilizes agricultural production data available from FAOSTAT for crops and livestock commodity items, combining it with historical records of global disaster events recorded in the EM-DAT disaster database. To estimate disaster losses in agriculture on a global scale over 1991–2023, counterfactual yields were estimated for non-disaster years for 191 items and 205 countries and territories (see Annex 1). The differences between the estimated counterfactual yields and the actual yields correspond to disaster-induced yield losses, after filtering by significance levels. Using the yield losses estimated for a particular item at the country level, production losses in tonnes and economic losses in 2017 USD were calculated.
The results reveal patterns that demonstrate the significant scale of disaster losses in agriculture, totalling USD 3.26 trillion, and the increasing magnitude of these losses over the last 33 years. Of this total loss, nearly USD 2.9 trillion was attributed to climate-related hazards, including floods, droughts and heatwaves, highlighting the significant impact of climate-related extreme events on the agricultural sector. The data reveal three distinct phases (see FIGURE 7): moderate losses in the 1990s, averaging USD 64 billion annually; gradual increases throughout the 2000s, reaching USD 67 billion per year; and a severe escalation from 2010 onwards, with losses reaching USD 144 billion annually. This amounts to an average annual loss of USD 99 billion over the last 33 years. Although the sharp increase after 2010 can partly be explained by the improved reporting of disaster events in the EM-DAT database, it also coincides with the intensification of climate-related disasters globally.
FIGURE 7 Total estimated agricultural production losses
BOX 1 Methodological improvements and amendments
Several updates have been made to strengthen the model and improve how agricultural losses are estimated. A new error identification scheme was introduced, which helps calculate both the estimated value of losses and the confidence intervals around those estimates. The model now also applies hypothesis testing at a 5 percent significance level, making the results more reliable and transparent.
Economic losses are now reported through two key components: yield losses, as in previous editions, and a new measure that captures losses linked to reductions in livestock numbers.
A sensitivity analysis was carried out to see whether changes in land use affected productivity independently of production levels. The results showed no significant effect, suggesting that most productivity losses are driven by production-related factors rather than changes coming from cultivated land.
To improve consistency, the number of country clusters used in the model was reduced from 20 to 5. This change, based on heuristic methods, helps ensure that countries within each cluster are more similar, making the regression results more robust and reliable.
Together, these improvements led to a re-estimation of loss figures for the 2023 report. The updated model shows a lower global total of losses and a refined picture of regional and subregional trends. In addition, the price dataset in FAOSTAT was updated to correct the consumer price index (CPI), which affected the total economic loss estimates for 2025.
Notable peak years include 2012 (USD 138 billion), 2014 (USD 147 billion), 2019 (USD 173 billion), 2021 (USD 192 billion) and 2022 (USD 215 billion). These spikes are a result of lost production in various agricultural commodity groups, as major drought events, flooding episodes, and extreme weather patterns have affected crops and livestock production globally. For example, a major driver of economic losses in 2012 (FIGURE 7) appears to be extreme cereal losses in the same year (see FIGURE 8). In fact, the United States of American experienced a multibillion-dollar agricultural disaster caused by a La Niña-induced drought event in 2012. The “Great Drought” of 2012 resulted in a 27 percent reduction in maize production and a nearly 26 percent decline in sorghum production, with overall agricultural losses exceeding USD 30 billion.75
FIGURE 8 ESTIMATED LOSSES IN MAIN PRODUCT GROUPS
Similarly, economic losses increased in 2019 and have remained at relatively high levels since then. This is due to the combined effect of volatility in prices and agricultural commodity markets created by the COVID 19 pandemic, and an increasing number of extreme weather events that affected agricultural production in several countries, especially the extraordinary “triple La Niña” event that took place between 2020 and 2023. For example, the La Niña-related floods in Southeast Asia, Australia and Canada and drought in South America resulted in a decrease in the production of oilseeds such as rapeseed, soybeans, and palm of between 30 and 40 percent.76,77
An examination of physical production losses reveals that cereals are the most severely impacted commodity group, with total cumulative losses of 4.6 billion tonnes over the analysis period, followed by fruits, nuts and vegetables (2.8 billion tonnes), and with meat, dairy and eggs losing 0.9 billion tonnes (see FIGURE 8). The scale demonstrates the massive impact of disasters on global food production systems. Cereals also exhibit significant variability in annual production losses, with substantial declines in production quantities in 2012 (314.7 million tonnes) and 2013 (227.5 million tonnes), reflecting the sector’s high sensitivity to climate variability and climate-related extreme events.78
A comprehensive breakdown of losses by region demonstrates that Asia shoulders the heaviest burden of agricultural disaster losses, accounting for nearly half of all global losses at 47 percent, equivalent to USD 1.53 trillion (see FIGURE 9). This substantial amount reflects not only Asia’s vast agricultural sector and large rural populations but also the region’s heightened vulnerability to climate-related disasters, such as typhoons, floods, droughts and monsoon variability. The Americas follow as the second-most affected region, experiencing nearly 22 percent of global agricultural losses, totalling USD 713 billion. This significant impact spans the hurricane-prone Caribbean and Central American regions to the drought-susceptible agricultural heartlands of North and South America, where extreme weather events increasingly threaten crop production and livestock systems.
FIGURE 9 Distribution of estimated losses by region, 1991–2023
Africa accounts for 19 percent of global agricultural disaster losses, amounting to USD 611 billion – an amount that carries profound implications for food security across the continent. Given that agriculture employs a large portion of Africa’s workforce and many countries depend heavily on rain-fed agriculture, these losses represent not just economic damage but also threats to livelihoods and food security for millions of people. Europe experiences 11 percent of global losses, equivalent to USD 353 billion, despite having more developed agricultural infrastructure and disaster preparedness systems. This demonstrates that even technologically advanced regions with robust early warning capacities and coping mechanisms are not immune to the mounting impacts of disasters on agricultural productivity. Oceania, while experiencing the lowest relative losses at 2 percent (USD 49 billion), still faces significant challenges given the region’s smaller agricultural base and unique vulnerabilities to droughts, wildfires and cyclones that can devastate entire farming communities.
The relationship between agricultural productivity and disaster losses reveals a nuanced pattern that extends far beyond simple geographic distribution. Regions with high agricultural productivity and significant economic importance in the global food system tend to incur substantially larger absolute losses when affected by disasters, as exemplified by Asia’s staggering USD 1.53 trillion in losses. This phenomenon directly reflects Asia’s leadership in global agricultural production and the concentration of agricultural resources across the continent, where countries such as China, India, and Indonesia maintain vast agricultural sectors that support billions of people and contribute significantly to global food security.
The scale of these losses is intrinsically linked to the sheer magnitude of agricultural assets at risk. When disasters strike highly productive agricultural regions, the economic impact is amplified by the density of crops, livestock, infrastructure, and processing facilities that can be damaged or destroyed. Asia’s agricultural landscape encompasses everything from intensive rice paddies and wheat fields to massive livestock operations and sophisticated food processing centres, creating a substantial economic base that, while productive, becomes vulnerable to catastrophic losses during extreme weather events.
While absolute loss amounts provide important insights into the scale of agricultural disasters, they can mask the true severity of impact on regional economies and populations. The most revealing analysis emerges when loss amounts are considered as a percentage of total agricultural GDP, unveiling a dramatically different narrative about vulnerability and resilience across regions (see FIGURE 10). High percentage losses indicate limited economic resilience and adaptive capacity to disaster shocks. For example, regions with developing and least developed countries show particularly acute vulnerability, where even moderate disaster events can devastate agricultural economies.
FIGURE 10 Losses as a share of agricultural gross domestic product, 1991–2023
Despite experiencing lower absolute losses, Africa suffers the most severe relative economic impact at 7.4 percent of agricultural GDP – a number that represents a devastating impact on economies where agriculture often serves as the primary source of employment and economic activity. This percentage translates to significant disruptions in food security, rural livelihoods and overall economic stability across the continent. The Americas follow with 5.2 percent of agricultural GDP lost to disasters, reflecting the substantial impact on both developed and developing economies within the region, from the drought-affected agricultural zones of Brazil and Argentina to the hurricane-impacted farming communities of the Caribbean and Central America.
Oceania’s 4.2 percent loss relative to agricultural GDP demonstrates how even a geographically smaller region can experience proportionally significant impacts, particularly given the concentration of agricultural activity in specific areas and the region’s exposure to extreme weather events such as prolonged droughts and intense bushfires. Europe’s 3.6 percent relative impact, while lower than other regions, still represents substantial economic disruption across diverse agricultural systems, from the Mediterranean’s fruit and vegetable production to northern Europe’s grain and dairy sectors.
At a subregional level, Western Africa emerges as the most vulnerable subregion with 13.4 percent agricultural GDP losses, a figure that represents an extraordinarily severe economic burden reflecting the subregion’s acute exposure to climate-related disasters and limited adaptive capacity (see FIGURE 11). Southern Africa follows with 7.6 percent agricultural GDP losses, while Eastern Africa experiences 5.8 percent losses, creating a clear pattern of heightened vulnerability across the African continent that demonstrates how geographic, climatic and socioeconomic factors converge to create disproportionate disaster impacts. This continental pattern reflects shared challenges, including heavy reliance on agriculture for employment and economic stability, widespread dependence on rain-fed farming systems, and limited financial resources for disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation measures. The gradient of vulnerability across African subregions also reflects varying degrees of exposure to specific climate hazards, from the Sahel’s vulnerability to drought and desertification to Southern Africa’s exposure to cyclones and irregular rainfall patterns.
FIGURE 11 Total agricultural losses as a share of agricultural gross domestic product by subregion, 1991–2023
In the Americas, South America (5.6 percent) and Northern America (5.4 percent) show remarkably similar vulnerability levels, a convergence that reveals how vastly different economic structures, technological capabilities and disaster preparedness systems can result in comparable relative impacts. This similarity is particularly striking given the substantial differences in agricultural infrastructure, with North America featuring advanced irrigation systems, sophisticated early warning networks and comprehensive crop insurance programmes, while South America encompasses a broader range of agricultural systems from technologically advanced operations to traditional farming practices.
European subregions demonstrate relatively lower – yet still significant – impacts, with amounts that, although more moderate than in other global regions, nevertheless reflect substantial economic disruption across the continent’s diverse agricultural landscape. The lower relative impact in Europe reflects the region’s advanced agricultural infrastructure, sophisticated disaster preparedness systems, comprehensive early-warning networks and robust insurance mechanisms that provide greater resilience against climate-related shocks. However, even these technological advantages and institutional frameworks cannot entirely mitigate the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, with recent years witnessing significant agricultural losses from heat waves, droughts, floods and storms that have affected the region.
Disaggregating losses by country income groups reveals that lower-middle-income countries face absolute agricultural losses of USD 1.27 trillion (see FIGURE 12A). This amount represents the largest share of global losses due to disasters among all income categories, underscoring the concentration of vulnerable agricultural assets in countries that occupy the middle tier of global economic development. These nations typically possess significant agricultural sectors that contribute substantially to their national economies while simultaneously lacking the advanced technological infrastructure and financial resources necessary to adequately protect these assets from increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events.
FIGURE 12 Estimated agricultural losses by country category, 1991–2023
Upper-middle-income countries follow with USD 813 billion in losses, while high-income countries experience USD 766 billion in damages, creating a clear pattern that demonstrates how absolute losses tend to correlate with the scale and value of agricultural production systems rather than simply with economic development levels. The proximity of losses between upper-middle-income and high-income countries suggests that as economies develop and agricultural systems become more intensive and valuable, the potential for substantial absolute losses increases correspondingly, even when protective infrastructure and disaster preparedness capabilities are enhanced.
Low-income countries (USD 386 billion) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) (16 billion), while showing lower absolute losses, face severe relative impacts given their limited economic base, highlighting the critical distinction between the scale of damage and the capacity to absorb and recover from such losses. These lower absolute figures mask the profound vulnerability of these economies, where agricultural disasters can have catastrophic effects on national economic stability, food security and development prospects, despite representing smaller dollar amounts in global terms.
This pattern becomes more evident when losses are assessed as a percentage of agricultural GDP, revealing a dramatically different narrative about economic vulnerability and resilience capacity (see FIGURE 12B). Here, lower-middle-income countries suffer the highest relative agricultural losses at 4.7 percent of agricultural GDP, a proportion that represents a significant setback to economies where agriculture often serves as a primary engine of economic growth and employment. This percentage reflects the critical vulnerability gap that characterizes these nations, where substantial agricultural production occurs without adequate protective infrastructure, early-warning systems or financial mechanisms to mitigate disaster impacts.
High-income countries follow, with 4 percent of agricultural GDP lost to disasters – a figure that, while substantial, occurs within the context of more diversified economies and sophisticated disaster management systems. Upper-middle-income countries experience 3.4 percent agricultural GDP losses, while low-income countries face 3 percent losses, creating a pattern that reveals how relative vulnerability does not necessarily decrease linearly with economic development. SIDS face nearly 3 percent agricultural GDP losses despite their small absolute contributions – a proportion that represents severe economic disruption for small island economies, where agricultural production, while limited in scale, plays a crucial role in food security and local economic stability.
The high relative impact on lower-middle-income countries indicates a critical vulnerability gap, where countries have accumulated a larger amount of exposed agricultural resources and infrastructure but lack the advanced disaster resilience systems, comprehensive insurance mechanisms and financial capacity for rapid recovery that characterize high-income nations. These countries often find themselves in a precarious position where their agricultural sectors have expanded and intensified to support growing populations and economic development yet remain highly vulnerable to climate-related shocks due to insufficient investment in protective infrastructure, limited access to climate-resilient technologies and inadequate disaster preparedness institutions.
Despite their technological advantages, comprehensive early-warning systems and sophisticated disaster management capabilities, high-income countries still face significant losses due to intensive, high-value agricultural systems that remain inherently vulnerable to extreme weather events. The 4 percent agricultural GDP impact in these countries reflects the reality that even advanced agricultural technologies and infrastructure cannot entirely eliminate vulnerability to increasingly severe climate-related disasters, particularly when extreme weather events exceed the design parameters of existing protective systems.
SIDS exhibit disproportionately high impacts relative to their size (USD 16 billion), underscoring their extreme vulnerability to sea-level rise, storms and climate variability that can devastate entire agricultural sectors within a matter of hours or days. These nations face unique challenges, including limited land area for agricultural diversification, high exposure to coastal flooding and storm surge, dependence on imported agricultural inputs and minimal capacity for post-disaster recovery. This makes them among the most vulnerable populations to climate-related agricultural disasters, despite their small contribution to global agricultural production.
Losses by hazard type
To assess how different types of natural hazard, such as droughts, floods, storms, or extreme temperature impact agricultural production, the analysis applies a resampling approach that creates a baseline of expected production in the absence of disasters. By systematically removing small portions of historical data and observing how loss estimates change, the method builds a reference point for what normal variation looks like. This allows for a fair comparison between disaster and non-disaster years. Losses are only attributed to a specific hazard type when they go beyond what would typically occur in a normal year, helping ensure that the impact of each disaster is measured accurately and not overestimated. This approach helps identify which hazard type cause significant damage in years with multiple disasters.
The results highlight the dominance of climate-related events on agriculture, especially hydrometeorological events such as floods and storms, which collectively account for the large majority of agricultural disaster losses (see FIGURE 13). They underscore the fundamental dependence of agricultural systems on water availability and the devastating impact that both water excess and water scarcity can have on crop production, livestock operations and agricultural infrastructure. Floods resulted in losses exceeding USD 1.5 trillion, representing the single most destructive hazard type for global agriculture and reflecting the widespread vulnerability of agricultural systems to water-related disasters. This massive figure encompasses damages from various flood types, including riverine flooding that can inundate vast agricultural areas for extended periods, flash floods that can destroy crops and agricultural infrastructure within hours and coastal flooding that threatens agricultural lands in low-lying areas.
FIGURE 13 Economic losses by hazard type, 1991–2023
Storms account for USD 720 billion in losses, a substantial amount that encompasses the impact of tropical cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons and severe thunderstorms on agricultural production systems worldwide. These extreme weather events combine multiple destructive forces, including high winds that can flatten crops and destroy agricultural structures, torrential rainfall that can cause flooding, and soil erosion and hail that can devastate entire harvests within minutes. The concentration of storm-related losses reflects the specific vulnerability of agriculture to these intense, short-duration events that can cause widespread destruction across multiple agricultural sectors simultaneously.
Earthquakes caused USD 336 billion in agricultural losses, representing significant damage despite being geological rather than climate-related events, and highlighting the vulnerability of agricultural infrastructure and livestock operations to seismic activity. While earthquakes may not directly destroy crops in the same manner as floods or storms, they can cause severe damage to agricultural processing facilities, storage infrastructure, irrigation systems and livestock housing, creating cascading effects throughout agricultural supply chains.
Droughts resulted in USD 278 billion in documented losses, while extreme temperatures accounted for USD 186 billion, amounts that significantly underestimate the true impact of these slower-onset hazards on global agricultural production. Drought impacts on agriculture are particularly complex and far-reaching, affecting not only immediate crop yields but also soil health, groundwater resources and the long-term viability of agricultural operations. Similarly, extreme temperature events, including heat waves and unseasonal cold snaps, can cause substantial agricultural losses through crop stress, livestock mortality and disruption of critical agricultural processes.
Wildfires contributed USD 165 billion in losses, reflecting the growing threat that these events pose to agriculture, particularly in regions where agricultural lands interface with fire-prone natural vegetation. Volcanic activity resulted in USD 24 billion in agricultural losses, representing the smallest category but still reflecting significant regional impacts when eruptions occur in agricultural areas.
It is important to note that the amounts attributed to droughts and extreme temperatures are likely to be much higher, potentially representing a substantial underestimation of the real economic impact of these hazard types on global agricultural production. These two slower-onset hazard types are underreported in the EM-DAT database by a wide margin, which introduces a negative bias in the dataset and skews our understanding of the relative importance of different disaster types. The underreporting of drought and extreme temperature events occurs because these hazards typically develop gradually over extended periods, making it difficult to establish clear onset and termination dates, and their impacts may be distributed across multiple seasons or years, complicating efforts to quantify total losses. Additionally, the diffuse nature of these impacts makes them less likely to trigger formal disaster declarations or comprehensive damage assessments compared to sudden-onset events like floods or storms.
This breakdown of losses by hazard type differs significantly from that derived from PDNA data, as PDNAs are conducted only for select, major disasters that trigger international assistance or require comprehensive recovery planning. This constrains the reliability and representativeness of PDNA data, and creates a bias towards sudden-onset, high-impact events, while potentially overlooking the cumulative effects of more frequent, lower-intensity disasters. This methodological difference reflects limitations in the coverage of data from PDNAs and highlights the challenges in developing comprehensive assessments of agricultural disaster losses. It also underscores the importance of using multiple data sources and developing standardized analytical approaches to understand the full scope of agricultural vulnerability to natural hazards.
FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF AGRICULTURAL DISASTER IMPACTS
Beyond direct economic losses, disasters can significantly impact the availability of nutrients in the food supply, with implications that extend far beyond immediate production statistics. Food security, nutrient intake, public health and long-term human development are all potentially affected. Understanding these nutritional dimensions is crucial for developing comprehensive response strategies that address not only agricultural recovery but also the broader health and well-being consequences of agricultural disasters for affected populations.
The nutritional impacts of disasters affecting agriculture operate through multiple pathways that affect food availability, access, utilization and stability in ways that can persist long after production systems are restored. Disasters may destroy crops that provide essential nutrients, disrupt food processing and preservation systems or force households to adopt dietary strategies that prioritize energy sufficiency rather than a healthy diet. These impacts may be particularly severe for populations at greater risk of malnutrition, including children, pregnant and lactating women, and elderly individuals who have specific nutritional requirements and limited capacity to adapt to dietary changes.
Disasters such as floods, storms or pest infestations can lead to lower dietary quality and increased risk of nutrient deficiencies among affected individuals through multiple mechanisms. These include the destruction of nutrient-rich crops, loss of livestock, contamination of food supplies, disruption of food processing and preservation systems, and reduced availability and access to diverse foods due to market disruptions. For example, a study investigating food security in Afghanistan found that exposure to flooding for one year reduced daily energy intake by an estimated 60 kilocalories per day while increasing the probability of iron, vitamin A and vitamin C deficiency by 11, 12 and 27 percentage points, respectively.79
Disasters can also disrupt access to nutritious foods, potentially forcing households to adopt quantity-over-quality approaches that emphasize staple foods over nutritious options, such as fruits and vegetables, which provide essential micronutrients.80 This dietary shift may occur not only due to reduced production or availability of nutritious foods but also because of increased prices, disrupted market access or reduced household income following disasters that affect purchasing power for higher-value nutritious foods.
For example, grain production in the United States of America was severely disrupted due to a drought in 2012. This event had a significant impact on global markets as the United States of America is the world’s largest exporter of major grain and oilseed crops. From 2008 to 2010, 39 percent of global maize was produced in the country, and it accounted for 49 percent of total global exports for the commodity. Due to the drought, maize prices increased by 53 percent compared to an already historically high five-year average price, and by 146 percent relative to the 2000–2009 average. This had widespread negative effects, particularly in developing countries where food costs make up a larger portion of household expenditures, and exacerbated food insecurity at the global level.81
Repeated disasters can lead to micronutrient deficiencies and chronic malnutrition, which undermine long-term growth and development and economic productivity, while increasing vulnerability to future shocks. The effects of nutritional deficiencies resulting from disasters can have long-term consequences that extend well beyond the immediate disaster period, particularly for children, whose physical and cognitive development may be permanently affected by malnutrition during critical growth periods. Severe nutritional deficiencies can make people increasingly vulnerable to disease while reducing productivity and learning capacity in ways that perpetuate poverty and vulnerability to future disasters.
To assess the potential nutritional impact of disasters, food composition data82 were used to convert estimated agricultural production losses into nutrient losses for nine vitamins and minerals, as well as energy losses, providing insights into how disasters affect not only the quantity of food produced but also the availability of nutrients in the food supply. The analysis examined calcium, iron, zinc, vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin C, magnesium and phosphorus, using population estimates to calculate the average daily nutrient loss per person per day. The results were expressed as a percentage of adult nutrient requirements based on the daily estimated average requirement (EAR)a for each nutrient.83,84,85
This approach provides quantitative estimates of how disasters in agriculture may impact nutrient availability in agrifood systems, while highlighting specific nutrients that are particularly vulnerable to different types of disasters. The analysis highlights how different crops and livestock products contribute distinct nutrients to human diets, indicating that disasters affecting specific agricultural subsectors may have distinct nutritional consequences that necessitate targeted intervention strategies.
It is important to note that food production, rather than actual consumption, is considered in this analysis, recognizing that the relationship between food production and actual consumption is mediated by multiple factors, including food distribution systems, market access and availability, purchasing power, consumer choice and dietary preferences, all of which may be affected by disasters. Food distribution among different population groups was not accounted for in this analysis, meaning that average food production was used as the basis for the calculations rather than examining how disasters might differentially affect different demographic groups.
Additionally, production losses for fish and aquatic foods were not included in this analysis, which may have underestimated the potential impact of disasters on nutrient supply by excluding this important source of nutrients, including high-quality protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and various vitamins and minerals that are particularly important. Fish and aquatic foods often provide crucial nutrition for coastal and inland fishing communities, and their exclusion from nutritional impact assessments represents a significant gap in understanding the full nutritional consequences of disasters.
FIGURE 14 shows that, globally, estimated production losses from disasters in the crops and livestock subsectors have averaged approximately 320 kilocalories per person per day over the past 33 years. This amount represents roughly 13 to 16 percent of the average daily energy needs for men and women, respectively (see FIGURE 17 and FIGURE 18). The decrease in available energy is equivalent to the requirements of approximately 1.05 billion people annually over the last three decades.
FIGURE 14 Total estimated daily losses of energy and nutrients per person per day, 1991–2023
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on FAO data.
Grain-based foods are fundamental dietary staples in many regions worldwide, serving as primary sources of energy and essential nutrients. Consequently, reductions in cereal production are the most significant contributors to losses in energy and essential micronutrients such as iron, zinc, magnesium, phosphorus, thiamin and riboflavin (FIGURE 15). Vegetables are the leading factor for vitamin A losses, emphasizing their importance as key providers of this nutrient, which is critical for vision, immune system function and overall health.87 Losses of vitamin C in diets are largely due to the absence of fruits and nuts, as well as vegetables, roots and tubers. Similarly, insufficient consumption of milk and eggs results in losses of calcium, vitamin A and riboflavin.
FIGURE 15 Total estimated daily losses of energy and nutrients per person per day by food group, 1991–2023
When compared to standard dietary requirements, potentially important nutritional losses are evident for iron, phosphorus, magnesium and thiamin (see FIGURE 16). The loss percentages generally display similar trends by sex across most nutrient categories; however, notable differences emerge in the cases of iron, magnesium and zinc. In interpreting the findings, it is important to note that a high value for the percentage of EAR can either be driven by high losses of foods containing this nutrient, a low requirement or both. Therefore, a high percentage EAR should not be interpreted as a greater impact of disasters on the supply of this nutrient.
FIGURE 16 Estimated daily losses of energy and nutrients as a share of human requirements, 1991–2023
As shown in FIGURE 17 and FIGURE 18, the projected losses, measured as percentages of EAR, are highest in Oceania, exceeding 100 percent of EAR for both men and women for iron, magnesium, phosphorus, thiamin, and, for women specifically, zinc. The Americas rank second in these projected losses. These figures reflect reductions in nutrient supply due to lower production levels, not changes in actual dietary consumption or intake patterns. Although the total nutrient losses in Oceania are smaller compared to other regions, the comparatively small population and significant food export activities result in higher per capita daily nutrient losses, contributing to high losses when expressed as a percentage of EAR. For instance, the estimated per capita daily iron loss in Oceania is 14.2 mg, corresponding to 236.8 percent of the EAR for men (6 mg/day) and 175.4 percent for women (8.1 mg/day).
FIGURE 17 Estimated daily losses of energy and nutrients as a share of human requirements for men by region, 1991–2023
FIGURE 18 Estimated daily losses of energy and nutrients as a share of human requirements for women by region, 1991–2023
This analysis demonstrates the importance of considering the nutritional dimension in disaster impact assessment and response planning. Policies and programmes designed to prevent and mitigate disasters and protect nutritious foods can significantly contribute to achieving global goals of ending malnutrition in all its forms, while building more resilient agrifood systems that can maintain nutritional adequacy and diversity even under stress. The findings also highlight the need for enhanced nutritional surveillance and assessment capabilities that can enable timely and targeted interventions, especially for the most vulnerable populations.
