The war in Ukraine has taught us that where production and logistics held out, food reached people even when supplies were scarce. Where production came to a halt, full warehouses didn't help. Food doesn't just appear on store shelves during a crisis — someone has to produce it first.

The National Audit Office's report on Estonia's food reserves speaks of stockpiles — food that has been agreed upon and kept in readiness. For years, Estonia has maintained a goal of ensuring a 14-day food reserve for the entire population. However, the necessary funding decisions to meet this goal have not been made and the target has not been officially revised. As a result, one figure appears on paper, while reality is another and the public has every right to ask: who is responsible and how is this supposed to actually work?

Within this framework, the Estonian Stockpiling Agency (EVK) has done what it can with the available resources and market conditions. The so-called interim goal — having a food reserve sufficient for 10 percent of the population for 30 days — did not arise on a whim. It has been a practical solution in a situation where the national goal, the budget and market capacity are not aligned. The size of the reserve doesn't stem from wishful thinking but from calculations: how much can be agreed upon, how long it lasts and how many people it can realistically cover.

This is where the broader misunderstanding begins. Food security is often treated like warehouse accounting, as if the only question is how many packages are "stored somewhere." But the real questions are different: In a crisis, is there a functioning chain that allows food to be produced, processed and delivered to people? Does the producer have raw materials and animal feed? Do processing plants have electricity and labor? Is logistics operational? Can retail remain open and manage sales even when supply chains are disrupted?

If a pig farm shuts down, no more meat will be produced. If a factory halts, grain won't become flour and flour won't become bread. If logistics fail, food won't reach people even if it "exists on paper." That's why food security starts with the level of self-sufficiency — not as a slogan, but as a real ability to meet basic needs during a crisis through domestic production and the food industry. Reserves are necessary, but they do not replace production.

Another crucial factor is deployment. In a crisis, it's not just about "volume" but also speed and organization — how quickly food reaches those in need, who makes the decisions, how distribution is handled and what cooperation looks like with local governments. In recent years, practical steps have been taken — for example, developing a network of crisis stores and making agreements with companies based on a rotation model where goods are stored in corporate warehouses, sold as part of normal operations and replaced with new stock. This avoids waste and keeps preparedness active — not just on paper.

But the National Audit Office's core message remains: goals, funding and accountability must align. If a national objective has been set, there must also be national funding. And if the objective has changed, that change must be official and transparent — not left "unspoken."

Right now, as choices are being made for the next European Union budget period (post-2028), decisions are also being made about Estonia's food security. If EU agricultural funds and investments don't reach production and processing but are dispersed elsewhere, our ability to cope independently during a crisis will diminish.

This funding isn't just "sectoral support" in the narrow sense. It's part of national continuity: production capacity, processing, biosecurity, energy solutions, crisis-resilient logistics. If these links weaken, there won't be enough to stockpile, redirect or quickly produce more in a crisis.

The third key issue is governance. Currently, food security policy falls under one ministry, while the operational management of reserves lies with another. While cooperation works, responsibility is diffuse. And diffuse responsibility usually leads to slow decision-making — especially when financial and strategic choices are needed, not just "more of the same."

That's why it's worth seriously considering transferring the Estonian Stockpiling Agency under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture. Not to reshuffle officials, but to consolidate responsibility. Production, processing and reserves must be at the same table, under one management logic, serving one goal. Only then can real accountability and decision-making be possible.

The state's operational reserve remains essential. But honestly — if we consider a 14-day reserve for the entire population to be necessary, then we must fund it and agree on how it will be used. And if we believe a different, more realistic solution is appropriate, that too must be officially stated and linked to funding and responsibility.

In the end, the choice is simple: will we keep talking about numbers on paper or will we actually make decisions about food security? Food security begins in the fields, barns and factories. A can of food may help, but it won't feed a nation on its own.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!