Andrius Pranckevičius, CEO of Kauno grūdai and Vice-President of the Lithuanian Confederation of Industrialists
Lithuania has a strong food industry, sufficient raw materials and substantial production capacity, so at first glance we might feel reasonably reassured. In a crisis, however, the key question would go beyond how much food we can produce under normal conditions. We need to know whether the entire chain would continue to function when everyday life is disrupted — from raw material and animal feed supplies to production, energy, staffing and logistics.
The current model assumes that people should provide their own food for the first three days of an emergency, local authorities would arrange additional food supplies on days four to six, and the state reserve would ensure food provision on days seven to thirty. This is a fairly clear framework, but we need to assess how it would work in practice.
According to an audit by the National Audit Office of Lithuania, most municipalities do not maintain food stocks, while supplies held in shops and their warehouses would probably last no more than three to four days. Until relatively recently, food stocks in the state reserve covered around 20–30% of projected needs. Nor is information published on how many people the current reserve could feed or for how long.
These figures highlight a problem we need to define in concrete terms: what scenarios are we preparing for? How many people should the state be able to feed, for how many days and in the event of what scale of disruption? How large a reserve would this require, and how quickly should we build it? Only with clear objectives can we objectively assess our preparedness.
Stockpiles alone are not enough
Even a larger reserve would not make the volume of food in warehouses sufficient on its own. A manufacturer may have raw materials and production capacity, but without electricity, gas, water, fuel, transport and workers, food will neither be produced nor delivered. Livestock farms also need an uninterrupted supply of animal feed. Planning the reserve therefore means considering not only the finished product, but also the conditions required to produce and deliver it.
Businesses already participate in government tenders and undertake specific commitments to store food products. Yet accumulating the required quantities is only part of the task. When needed, those supplies will have to be collected from warehouses and delivered where they are needed most. If the crisis continues, ongoing production will also have to be maintained.
Business should have a role in planning
One of the most important tasks today is therefore to coordinate the actions of the different participants in the supply chain in advance. If food manufacturers are expected to maintain uninterrupted production, there must be clarity on how critical businesses would be assured access to energy, fuel and logistics, how employees would be able to continue working, how alternative water supplies would be provided and how production sites would be protected. These questions need answers during preparation, rather than after a crisis has begun.
I also see an opportunity for greater business involvement here — as a planning partner as well as a supplier receiving an order. Manufacturers understand their capacity, critical raw materials, production processes and the weakest points in their supply chains. The state, in turn, has an overview of national needs and potential security scenarios. Bringing these two perspectives together would allow us to assess more precisely what stocks are needed and what conditions must be secured for those supplies to reach people during a crisis.
What we stock matters as much as how much
A separate question is what food we store. A long shelf life alone is not enough. Since 2025, the range of quick-to-prepare products proposed for the state reserve has been reduced; it previously included pasta, porridge, flour and prepared soups. In a crisis, we need to consider both how long a product keeps and whether it can realistically be prepared. Without electricity or gas, or when water supplies are disrupted, a product requiring prolonged cooking or large amounts of water becomes considerably less practical.
Where possible, it therefore makes sense for at least part of the reserve to consist of ready-to-eat or quick-to-prepare food requiring minimal additional resources. The origin of raw materials also matters. The pandemic demonstrated how quickly international supply chains can be disrupted. In a crisis, the ability to source as much essential food and as many of the raw materials needed to produce it as possible within the country strengthens resilience.
We need one coordinated system
Lithuania has a solid foundation: strong agriculture and a strong food industry. However, having production capacity and being ready to use it under crisis conditions are two different things. We need to define the size of the reserve we aim to build, the scenarios it is intended to cover and the deadline for establishing it. We must also coordinate the actions of central government, local authorities and business in advance.
Business is ready to take its share of responsibility. But resilience depends on knowing in advance how everyone’s plans will work together. That is the system we need if, in a crisis, we are to speak not only about the food stocks we hold, but also about our actual ability to feed people.