IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/sfs4yp/178094.html

Implications of increased urbanization and consumer awareness on future food supplies in Tanzania

Author

Listed:
  • Marivoet, Wim
  • Alphonce, Roselyne

Abstract

Tanzania’s food system faces increasing pressure from rapid urbanization, population growth, and shifting consumer preferences toward more nutritious and diverse diets. This study analyzes how these macro trends will affect national food supply needs by 2050 and identifies key policy entry points to ensure an efficient, sustainable, and equitable food system transformation. Using census data (2012–2022) and the National Panel Survey (2020/21), combined with two international healthy diet benchmarks – the EAT-Lancet Reference Diet (ELRD) and the Hypothetical Micronutrient Adequate Diet (HMAD) – the report projects the required food supply volumes to provide all Tanzanians with healthy diets by 2050. Tanzania’s population is projected to more than double, from 59.8 million in 2020/21 to 138.1 million by 2050, with the share of urban residents rising from 34.5% to 55.4%. This demographic shift implies that a relatively smaller rural workforce will need to feed a much larger and more urban population, requiring higher productivity and stronger rural-urban linkages. Current diets in Tanzania are heavily dominated by cereals and sugar products and contain too few fruits, dairy products, and eggs (according to both healthy diet references) combined with insufficient amounts of vegetables (according to ELRD) as well as meat and fish products (according to HMAD). To assure a heathy diet for all by 2050, the supplies and consumption of food from these food groups must expand substantially. This not only requires that total annual food supplies increase from 24 million tons to 52 million tons (under ELRD) or 62 million tons (under HMAD), but certainly also that its composition change dramatically: vegetables by roughly 3 times of current supply; oils by 4 times; fruits by 5 times; dairy by 8 times; eggs by 10 times (under ELRD) and 37 times (under HMAD), and meat and fish by 4 and 8 times (under HMAD), respectively. In contrast, cereal and sugar production can remain stable or even decrease slightly without compromising nutritional adequacy. Meeting these targets requires significant productivity gains. For key commodities such as milk, oranges, sunflower oil, tomatoes, and beans, yield improvements of 2-10 times current levels are needed, though still within feasible global productivity frontiers. Addressing post-harvest losses (PHL) and expanding processing, cold storage, and urban agriculture are possibly also critical avenues to reduce waste and improve food availability. From an environmental viewpoint, the study urges the adoption of sustainable intensification practices and climate-smart livestock management, with emphasis on reducing emissions per unit of output, diversifying protein sources toward fish and poultry, and improving logistics and market inclusion for smallholders. In policy terms, the report highlights alignment between its findings and Tanzania’s Agriculture Master Plan (2024), noting that 12 of the 20 government-prioritized commodities (e.g., banana, avocado, tomatoes, sunflower, beans, and dairy) are also essential for future healthy diets. However, important food items such as eggs, onions, leafy vegetables, mangoes, and oranges remain underemphasized and deserve greater policy focus. The agenda on PHL, though formally acknowledged, is also inadequately mainstreamed into Tanzania’s broader agricultural policy framework. In conclusion, achieving healthy diets for all Tanzanians by 2050 will require, in addition to raising nutrition awareness and improving economic affordability among the population: • A more than doubling of total food supplies with major shifts toward nutrient-rich foods, • Substantial agricultural productivity and efficiency gains, • A stronger emphasis on reducing PHL and strengthening urban food systems, and • A coordinated policy focus on nutrition-sensitive and environmentally sustainable production.

Suggested Citation

  • Marivoet, Wim & Alphonce, Roselyne, 2025. "Implications of increased urbanization and consumer awareness on future food supplies in Tanzania," SFS4Youth Working Paper 9, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:sfs4yp:178094
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/178094
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Tilman & Michael Clark, 2014. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 518-522, November.
    2. Hugh Wenban-Smith & Anja Faße & Ulrike Grote, 2016. "Food security in Tanzania: the challenge of rapid urbanisation," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(5), pages 973-984, October.
    3. I. D. Brouwer & M. J. Liere & A. Brauw & P. Dominguez-Salas & A. Herforth & G. Kennedy & C. Lachat & E. B. Omosa & E. F. Talsma & S. Vandevijvere & J. Fanzo & M. Ruel, 2021. "Reverse thinking: taking a healthy diet perspective towards food systems transformations," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(6), pages 1497-1523, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ping Wang & Nhuong Tran & Dolapo Enahoro & Chin Yee Chan & Kelvin Mashisia Shikuku & Karl M. Rich & Kendra Byrd & Shakuntala H. Thilsted, 2022. "Spatial and temporal patterns of consumption of animal‐source foods in Tanzania," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 328-348, April.
    2. María-José Ibarrola-Rivas & Sanderine Nonhebel, 2022. "Regional food preferences influence environmental impacts of diets," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(4), pages 1063-1083, August.
    3. Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez & Consuelo Varela-Ortega & Rhys Manners, 2020. "Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-26, October.
    4. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    5. Wilson Charles Wilson & Maja Slingerland & Frederick P. Baijukya & Hannah Zanten & Simon Oosting & Ken E. Giller, 2021. "Integrating the soybean-maize-chicken value chains to attain nutritious diets in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(6), pages 1595-1612, December.
    6. Gerald Nelson & Jessica Bogard & Keith Lividini & Joanne Arsenault & Malcolm Riley & Timothy B. Sulser & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Brendan Power & David Gustafson & Mario Herrero & Keith Wiebe & Karen Coo, 2018. "Income growth and climate change effects on global nutrition security to mid-century," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(12), pages 773-781, December.
    7. Dániel Fróna & János Szenderák & Mónika Harangi-Rákos, 2019. "The Challenge of Feeding the World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Jindřich Špička & Zdeňka Náglová, 2022. "Consumer segmentation in the meat market - The case study of Czech Republic," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(2), pages 68-77.
    9. Théodore Nikiema & Eugène C. Ezin & Sylvain Kpenavoun Chogou, 2023. "Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research on Agroecology Adoption and Methods Used for Its Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, November.
    10. Melanie Speck & Katrin Bienge & Lynn Wagner & Tobias Engelmann & Sebastian Schuster & Petra Teitscheid & Nina Langen, 2020. "Creating Sustainable Meals Supported by the NAHGAST Online Tool—Approach and Effects on GHG Emissions and Use of Natural Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, February.
    11. Springmann, Marco & Mason-D'Croz, Daniel & Robinson, Sherman & Wiebe, Keith & Scarborough, Peter, 2016. "The health co-benefits of a global greenhouse-gas tax on food," Conference papers 332766, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    12. repec:ags:aaea22:335681 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Infante-Amate, Juan & Aguilera, Eduardo & de Molina, Manuel González, 2018. "Energy transition in Agri-food systems. Structural change, drivers and policy implications (Spain, 1960–2010)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 570-579.
    14. Patricia Eustachio Colombo & Emma Patterson & Liselotte Schäfer Elinder & Anna Karin Lindroos & Ulf Sonesson & Nicole Darmon & Alexandr Parlesak, 2019. "Optimizing School Food Supply: Integrating Environmental, Health, Economic, and Cultural Dimensions of Diet Sustainability with Linear Programming," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-18, August.
    15. Dalheimer, Bernhard & Herwartz, Helmut & Lange, Alexander, 2021. "The threat of oil market turmoils to food price stability in Sub-Saharan Africa," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    16. Elke Stehfest & Willem-Jan Zeist & Hugo Valin & Petr Havlik & Alexander Popp & Page Kyle & Andrzej Tabeau & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Tomoko Hasegawa & Benjamin L. Bodirsky & Katherine Calvin & Jonathan C, 2019. "Key determinants of global land-use projections," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Brent F. Kim & Keeve E. Nachman & Roni A. Neff & Marie L. Spiker & Raychel E. Santo, 2016. "Concerns re: interpretation and translation of findings in Energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions for current food consumption patterns and dietary recommendations in the US," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 104-105, March.
    18. Victoria Vicario-Modroño & Rosa Gallardo-Cobos & Pedro Sánchez-Zamora, 2023. "Sustainability evaluation of olive oil mills in Andalusia (Spain): a study based on composite indicators," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 6363-6392, July.
    19. Ledgard, Stewart F. & Wei, Sha & Wang, Xiaoqin & Falconer, Shelley & Zhang, Nannan & Zhang, Xiying & Ma, Lin, 2019. "Nitrogen and carbon footprints of dairy farm systems in China and New Zealand, as influenced by productivity, feed sources and mitigations," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 155-163.
    20. Paula Silva, 2025. "Adolescents’ Perceptions of Sustainable Diets: Myths, Realities, and School-Based Interventions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-28, June.
    21. Xiangdan Piao & Xinxin Ma & Chi Zhang & Shunsuke Managi, 2020. "Impact of Gaps in the Educational Levels between Married Partners on Health and a Sustainable Lifestyle: Evidence from 32 Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:sfs4yp:178094. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.