News

Global hunger remains too high, and progress in reducing hunger has largely stalled. The combined effects of several crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war, economic stagnation, the impacts of climate change, and war and conflicts in many countries of the world, have led to a cost-of-living crisis and worsened the situation for many people. Around 735 million people are unable to exercise their right to adequate food. Young people are more likely to be affected by extreme poverty and food insecurity, with young women particularly affected. These are some of the main messages of the 2023 Global Hunger Index (GHI) published on October 12th by Concern Worldwide, Ireland's largest aid and humanitarian agency, and the German non-government organisation Welthungerhilfe. The multiple crises have aggravated inequalities between regions, countries, and groups, the report warns. While some countries have weathered them relatively well, others have experienced deepening hunger and nutrition problems. “The extent to which countries are able to recover from shocks depends largely on underlying factors, such as state fragility, inequality, poor governance, and chronic poverty,” the authors write in the report summary. “Given that the world is expected to be subject to increased shocks in future years, particularly as a result of climate change, the effectiveness of disaster preparedness and response is likely to become increasingly central to the outlook on food security.”

The report is published each year by the two organisations. For this year’s edition, data were assessed for 136 countries. The GHI scores are based on the values of four component indicators: the share of undernourished people in the population (insufficient caloric intake), the share of children under age five who have low height for their age, reflecting chronic undernutrition (stunting), the share of children under five who have low weight for their height, reflecting acute undernutrition (wasting) and child mortality in this age group. Based on the values of the four indicators, a GHI score is calculated on a 100-point scale, with 0 being the best and 100 being the worst score. The scale encompasses low, moderate, serious, alarming and extremely alarming hunger levels. There were sufficient data to calculate 2023 GHI scores for 125 countries. For 11 countries, individual scores could not be calculated and ranks could not be determined owing to lack of data. Where possible, these countries were provisionally designated by severity to the different categories.

The result of the assessment gives cause for concern: Hunger remains serious or alarming in 43 countries. Nine countries have alarming levels of hunger: Burundi, Somalia and South Sudan (provisional designation) as well as Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar, Niger, and Yemen. Central African Republic leads the ranking in this year’s report with a score of 42.3. The country’s 2020–2022 undernourishment rate of 48.7% means that almost half of the population is consistently unable to meet minimum dietary energy needs. One in 10 children dies before their 5th birthday and 40% of children are stunted. The country has suffered from conflict in recent years, which, along with population displacement, widespread poverty, and underemployment, is a major driver of hunger. In 37 countries, the index indicates moderate levels of hunger. The worrying fact is that in many places the situation has worsened in recent years. Since 2015, hunger has increased in 18 countries with moderate, serious, or alarming 2023 GHI scores. As the effects of crises multiply and intensify, more and more people are experiencing severe hunger and the situation is expected to worsen throughout the year according to the report.

Not all countries have seen worsening hunger levels but progress in most countries is too slow or has come to a halt. In 14 countries with moderate, serious, or alarming 2023 GHI scores, progress has largely stalled. These countries saw a decline of less than 5% in their hunger levels between their 2015 and 2023. The average score for the whole world is 18.3, considered moderate – this is less than one point below the world’s GHI score of 19.1 in 2015. Furthermore, since 2017 the prevalence of undernourishment, one of the indicators, has increased and the number of undernourished people has risen from 572 million to about 735 million. At the current pace, 58 countries will not achieve low hunger by 2030. „As the year 2030 looms and just seven years remain to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, nearly three-quarters of a billion people are unable to exercise their right to adequate food,” Mathias Mogge, Secretary General of the Welthungerhilfe, and David Regan, CEO of Concern Worldwide, write in the foreword to the report. “Hunger is not new, and neither are its drivers. What is new is that we now live in a time of what has been termed “polycrisis”: the compounding impacts of climate change, conflicts, economic shocks, the global pandemic, and the Russia-Ukraine war have exacerbated social and economic inequalities and slowed or reversed previous progress in reducing hunger in many countries,” they added. But there are also some good news. Seven countries whose 2000 GHI scores indicated extremely alarming hunger levels – Angola, Chad, Ethiopia, Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Zambia – have all made progress since then. Also, seven countries have achieved reductions of five points or more between their 2015 and 2023 GHI scores: Bangladesh, Chad, Djibouti, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mozambique, Nepal, and Timor-Leste.

The 2023 report includes a special focus on the future food needs of the world’s current young population. In their essay, commissioned for the report, the two young academics Wendy Gexa and Mendy Ndlovu from the University of KswZulu-Natal, South Africa, warn that young people are inheriting food systems that are failing on multiple fronts and are highly vulnerable to climate change and environmental degradation: “We, as young people in our 20s, are keenly aware that our generation not only suffers from the failures of current food systems but will inherit these troubled food systems and their looming challenges. Those challenges threaten the realization of our right to food as well as other human rights, such as health, education, decent work, and livelihoods.” Currently 42% of the world’s people are under 25 years of age, and the global population of adolescents and young adults, at 1.2 billion, is the largest in history. The majority of young people live in low- and middle-income countries in south Asia, east Asia and Africa.

Many young people have little interest in farming because of a lack of support, innovation, and education and a perception that agriculture does not offer opportunities for prosperity or self-realization. Those involved directly or indirectly in food systems livelihoods are mostly living in rural areas. According to Gexa and Ndlovu, “addressing youth participation in food systems requires a holistic approach broadly focused on improving rural economies, social well-being, and service delivery. Efforts must be made to create a supportive environment for youth to pursue careers and interests in food systems.” This view is supported by David Regan: “Governments need to break down the barriers to their full participation in food systems and invest in training and education,” he said. “Agriculture and food systems must be promoted as viable and attractive livelihoods. Meaningful engagement of young people can unlock their potential as innovative agents of change and harness their energy and dynamism to transform food systems.” A major problem is that youth participation in making decisions that will affect their futures is still limited. The share of youth in formal decision-making forums is negligible, and the increased focus on youth participation in some policy dialogues has not necessarily translated into meaningful impact. „As heirs to current food systems, we deserve a stronger voice in transforming those food systems to meet our current and future needs,” Gexa and Ndlovu conclude. (ab)

Human activities have destabilized biophysical systems and processes that regulate the functioning of life support systems on Earth, pushing the planet beyond a “safe” zone, scientists have warned. According to a study, published on September 13th in the journal “Science Advances“, six of nine planetary boundaries that define a safe operating space for humanity have already been crossed. From global warming to biosphere integrity, from pollutants and plastic to nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, from freshwater to land system change: Unprecedented human disruption has thrown the Earth system out of balance. And the international team of 29 scientists warns that the pressure on all those boundary processes is increasing. “We can think of Earth as a human body, and the planetary boundaries as blood pressure,” explains lead author Katherine Richardson from the University of Copenhagen. “Over 120/80 does not indicate a certain heart attack but it does raise the risk and, therefore, we work to reduce blood pressure.” And the results of our planet’s health check don’t look good. „Science and the world at large are really concerned about the rising signs of dwindling planetary resilience, manifested by the transgression of planetary boundaries, which brings us closer to tipping points, and closes the window to have any chance of holding the 1.5°C planetary climate boundary,” said co-author Johan Rockström, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

The study is an update to the first and second Planetary Boundaries publications released in 2009 and 2015 in which the novel entities boundary, biosphere integrity and the boundary of atmospheric aerosol loading were not yet quantified. The recent study, for the first time, provides a complete check-up of all nine processes and systems that determine the stability and resilience of the planet. “This update on planetary boundaries clearly depicts a patient that is unwell, as pressure on the planet increases and vital boundaries are being transgressed,” said Rockström. “We don’t know how long we can keep breaching these key boundaries before combined pressures lead to irreversible change and harm.” An illustration that resembles an irregular pie chart shows the current state of the nine planetary boundaries. In the middle, there is a round green area – the safe operating space for humanity. The nine processes are shown as wedges. The boundary of atmospheric aerosol loading, e. g. through desert dust and soot from combustion or wildfires, remains in the green area and the boundary is not transgressed yet, even though regional transgressions do occur, e. g., in South Asia, where regional precipitation patterns are affected in monsoon regions. This could likely lead to significantly lower rainfall, ultimately affecting biosphere integrity. Anthropogenic ocean acidification is still in the green area but it lies at the margin of the safe operating space, and the trend is worsening since CO2 emissions continue to rise. The scientists give green light with regard to stratospheric ozone depletion which is now within the safe operating space. “The boundary for ozone depletion, for example, while not transgressed globally, was headed for increasing regional transgressions. Though it still is exceeded today over Antarctica, it is now slowly recovering – thanks to global initiatives, catalyzed by the Montreal Protocol,” highlights Richardson.

In the pie chart, the length of the wedges in the nine areas symbolizes what the current state of the corresponding process is, in relation to the distance from the planetary boundary (end of the green area) and the Holocene baseline (origin of the diagram). The wedges are coloured from yellow to red according to the risks associated with each. Purple indicates the high-risk zone. Some wedges may be long but may still not be purple or at a later stage because a transgression of the planetary boundary is not yet associated with very high risks for the planet while in other cases already a “small” overshoot (short wedge) results in a big risk. The boundary of “biosphere integrity” includes the largest wedge with purple ends when it comes to the planetary boundary for changes in genetic diversity. The planetary functioning of the biosphere ultimately rests on its genetic diversity but also on its functional role in regulating the state of Earth system. „Of an estimated 8 million plant and animal species, around 1 million are threatened with extinction and over 10% of genetic diversity of plants and animals may have been lost over the past 150 years. Thus, the genetic component of the biosphere integrity boundary is markedly exceeded,” the authors write. For the second component of biosphere integrity, the functional integrity, which has so far not been quantified, a control variable was introduced. The researchers found that this boundary had in fact been crossed since the late 19th century, a time of considerable acceleration in land use globally with strong impacts on species. “Next to climate change, integrity of the biosphere is the second pillar of stability for our planet. And as with climate, we are currently destabilising this pillar by taking out too much biomass, destroying too much habitat, deforesting too much land etc.,” explains co-author Wolfgang Lucht. “Our research shows that mitigating global warming and saving a functional biosphere for the future should go hand in hand.”

The first quantification of the novel entities boundary shows that it is transgressed. Novel entities include synthetic chemicals and substances (e.g., microplastics, endocrine disruptors, and organic pollutants); anthropogenically mobilized radioactive materials, including nuclear waste and nuclear weapons; and human modification of evolution, genetically modified organisms and other direct human interventions in evolutionary processes. The scientists write that the impacts of these novel entities on Earth system as a whole remain largely unstudied. They stress that the planetary boundaries framework is only concerned with the stability and resilience of Earth system, i.e., not human or ecosystem health. For this reason, “it remains a scientific challenge to assess how much loading of novel entities Earth system tolerates before irreversibly shifting into a potentially less habitable state”. The authors write that hundreds of thousands of synthetic chemicals are now produced and released to the environment. For many substances, the potentially large and persistent effects on Earth system processes of their introduction, particularly on functional biosphere integrity, are not well known, and their use is not well regulated. They point to the fact that humanity has repeatedly been surprised by unintended consequences of this release, for example in the case of the release of insecticides such as DDT and the effect of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on the ozone layer. “For this class of novel entities, then, the only truly safe operating space that can ensure maintained Holocene-like conditions is one where these entities are absent unless their potential impacts with respect to Earth system have been thoroughly evaluated,” the scientists conclude.

Biogeochemical flows reflect anthropogenic perturbation of global element cycles and this boundary was also crossed and it has the largest purple wedge indicating a high risk. Currently, the framework considers nitrogen and phosphorus as these two elements constitute fundamental building blocks of life, and their global cycles have been markedly altered through agriculture and industry, the scientists write. Land systems change is currently coloured red: This boundary focuses on the three major forest biomes that globally play the largest role in driving biogeophysical processes, that means tropical, temperate, and boreal. On the basis of 2019 land-cover classification maps derived from satellite observations, the current state of the regional biomes is similar to that in 2015 although, for most regions, the amount of deforestation has increased since the last update of the study in 2015. Land-use conversion and fires are causing rapid change in forest area and deforestation of the Amazon tropical forest has increased such that it has now transgressed the planetary boundary, the study finds. With respect to water, the warning light shines in orange. The freshwater boundary now addresses both green water (held in soil and plants in farms, forests etc.) and blue water (rivers, lakes etc) - both boundaries are transgressed. Rockström described it as „a true breakthrough” that a safe space for humanity on Earth has now been scientifically quantified, „providing a guide for action and the first full picture of our planet’s capacity to buffer stress“. He said that having this knowledge at hand marks an important step for more systematic efforts to protect, recover and rebuild planetary resilience. This is echoed by the last sentence of the study: „Scientific insight into planetary boundaries does not limit, but stimulates, humankind to innovation toward a future in which Earth system stability is fundamentally preserved and safeguarded.” (ab)

We have already reached Earth Overshoot Day this year: August 2nd marks the date by which humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services has exceeded what Earth can regenerate in 2023. For the rest of the year, we will be living on resources borrowed from future generations. This is the sad message spread by the Global Footprint Network, an international research organization that calculates the date each year, using National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts data. This is done by contrasting the world’s demand on nature (ecological footprint), including demand for food, timber, fibres (cotton) and space for urban infrastructure with the planet’s ability to replenish resources and absorb waste, including carbon dioxide emissions. “The persistence of overshoot has led to land and soil degradation, fish stock depletion, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas accumulation. These symptoms are becoming more prominent every day across the planet, with unusual heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods, exacerbating the competition for food and energy,” the Global Footprint Network announces in a press release. “The biggest risk, apart from ecological overshoot itself, lies in complacency towards this crisis,” says Steven Tebbe, CEO of the organisation. “Entities that act now are not just safeguarding the environment but future-proofing their economy and the wellbeing of their residents,” he added.

Last year, Earth Overshoot Day fell on July 28th. However, the apparent delay by five days compared to last year isn’t all good news, as genuine advancements amount to less than one day, the Network explained in a press release. The remaining four days are owed to integrating improved datasets into the new edition of the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts that are being maintained by York University’s Ecological Footprint Initiative. The datasets now track countries’ performance up to 2022, reducing reporting lag by three years. For each edition, the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity metrics are recalculated to maintain consistency with the latest data and science which means that the annual dates of Earth Overshoot Day change accordingly. Since 1971, the date has been creeping up the calendar every year, although at a slowing rate. The first overshoot day was on December 25, 1971. In the early 90s, it was in the second half of October and in 2018, the day fell on August 1st, the earliest date so far. In 2020, the date moved back to August 16th, reflecting the initial drop in resource use in the first half of the year due to pandemic-induced lockdowns. “For the last 5 years the trend has flattened. How much of this is driven by economic slow-down or deliberate decarbonization efforts is difficult to discern,” the Network writes. “Still, overshoot reduction is far too slow. To reach the UN’s IPCC target of reducing carbon emissions 43% worldwide by 2030 compared to 2010 would require moving Overshoot Day 19 days annually for the next seven years.

The Network highlights that solutions to reverse ecological overshoot and bolster biological regeneration are at our disposal. Its “Power of Possibility platform” shows how we can improve our resource security in five key areas (healthy planet, cities, energy, food, and population) and presents technologies, governmental strategies, public policies, and best practices from civic initiatives and academia. Food is an important area since half of Earth‘s biocapacity is used to feed us. “With a growing human population, and increasing demand for healthy food, the ecological pressure of food will mount, while the capacity for producing food is increasingly challenged due to greater resource stress and climate uncertainty,” the Network projects in a blog article. “But there is also great potential – a food system based on circular principles has the potential to reduce land use for food by up to 71% and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 29% per person.” A major problem is the resource inefficiency in food production. Animal calories are significantly more resource intensive than plant calories to produce and current agriculture is also fossil fuel intensive, the Network explains. For example, it takes 5 calories of fossil fuel in Belgium to provide one calorie of meat. If we reduced global meat consumption by 50% and replaced these calories through a vegetarian diet, we would move Overshoot Day 17 days (including 10 days from reduction of methane emissions), they calculate. Another problem is food waste: About one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption (1.3 billion tonnes each year) gets lost or wasted, with high and low-income countries dissipating roughly the same quantities of food, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. If we cut food waste in half worldwide, Overshoot Day would be moved by 13 days. Changes in farming can also make a contribution. Tree intercropping is an agricultural technique where trees are grown together with other crops on the same land. It is an important method not only for increasing the yields of cropland and preserving soil quality, but also for sequestering carbon in soils. Wide implementation of tree intercropping techniques would move Overshoot Day by 2.1 days by 2050. An additional 1.2 days could be saved with improved rice production methods that reduce methane emissions by not flooding rice fields constantly. “There is immense power of possibility in the many existing solutions that are ready to be deployed at scale. With them, we can make ourselves more resilient and #MoveTheDate of Earth Overshoot Day,” the Network expresses optimism. (ab).

The number of people suffering from hunger globally has increased by 122 million since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, pushing the world far off track to meet the goal of zero hunger. According to a report released on July 12th by five UN agencies, as many as 783 million people worldwide were chronically undernourished in 2022 – almost one in ten people. While the numbers of people facing hunger globally have stabilised after increasing sharply in 2020 in the midst of the pandemic, and rising more slowly in 2021, hunger is still increasing in some world regions, especially in Africa. “Agrifood systems remain highly vulnerable to shocks and disruptions arising from conflict, climate variability and extremes, and economic contraction. These factors, combined with growing inequities, keep challenging the capacity of agrifood systems to deliver nutritious, safe and affordable diets for all,” the heads of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), UNICEF, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) write in their joint foreword to the report. They underline that these major drivers of food insecurity and malnutrition are our ‘new normal’.

The 2023 edition of ‘The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World’, like the two previous reports, gives a range of people suffering from hunger to reflect the uncertainty in data collection that still persists even though data reporting has begun to get back to normal. It is estimated that hunger affected between 691 million and 783 million people in 2022. Considering the middle of the projected range (735 million), the number of undernourished people has increased by 20% since 2019 when it stood at 613 million. According to the latest data, the proportion of people affected by hunger (called the prevalence of undernourishment) first went down from 12.1% in 2005 to 7.7% in 2014. Then it remained at that level before it jumped with the outbreak of Covid-19, reaching 9.2% of the world population in 2022 – or 9.8% if the upper bound is considered. “Nonetheless, the increase in global hunger observed in the last two years has stalled and, in 2022, there were about 3.8 million fewer people suffering from hunger than in 2021. The economic recovery from the pandemic has contributed to this, but there is no doubt that the modest progress has been undermined by rising food and energy prices magnified by the war in Ukraine,” the five UN chiefs write in the foreword. They add that there is no room for complacency since the situation worsened in some parts of the world.

Africa remains the worst-affected region with respect to the prevalence of undernourishment, with one in five people (19.7%) going hungry on the continent – more than twice the global average – whereas Asia accounts for the largest total numbers. More than half (54.6%) of the 735 million people who were undernourished in 2022 lived in Asia (401.6 million people), followed by Africa with 281.6 million (38.3%) and Latin America and the Caribbean with 43.2 million (5.9%). The number of people facing hunger in Africa has increased by 11 million people since 2021 and by more than 57 million people since the outbreak of the pandemic. The prevalence of undernourishment (mid-range) increased as well and the situation was especially alarming in Middle Africa, the sub-region including countries such as Chad and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where almost a third of the population (29.1%) was undernourished last year. In Eastern Africa, 28.5% of the population faced hunger. In Asia, 8.5% of all people were affected in 2022 but the figure was much higher for the sub-regions of South Asia (15.6%) and Western Asia (10.8%). Latin America and the Caribbean as a region showed progress since the share of undernourishment fell from 7.0% in 2021 to 6.5% in 2022 – a decrease of 2.4 million people – but still 7.2 million more than in 2019. This was largely due to progress in South America while the food security situation deteriorated in the Caribbean sub-region, where the share of undernourishment went up from 14.7% in 2021 to 16.3% in 2022.

The report not only provides estimates on the number of chronically undernourished people but also on the prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity. Moderate food insecurity, defined as “a level of severity of food insecurity at which people face uncertainties about their ability to obtain food” which means that they are forced “to reduce, at times during the year, the quality and/or quantity of food they consume due to lack of money or other resources”. Overall, nearly one in three people (29.6%) in the world (2.4 billion) did not have year-round access to adequate food in 2022 – an increase of almost 391 million people compared to 2019. Out of these 2.4 billion people, 900 million people (or 11.3% of all people in the world), were severely food insecure which means they ran out of food, experienced hunger and, at the most extreme, went for days without eating, putting their health and well-being at grave risk. This is an increase of almost 50 million people compared 2019. Another problem is the limited capacity of people to access healthy diets: In 2021, more than 3.1 billion people – or 42% of people globally – could not afford a healthy diet, up 134 million from 2019. The good news is that the number decreased by 52 million people from 2020 to 2021.

The report also paints a grim picture of the nutritional situation of the world’s children. An estimated 45 million children under the age of five (6.8%) were suffering from wasting, the deadliest form of malnutrition. Affected children are dangerously thin, with weakened immunity and a higher risk of mortality. In addition, 148 million children (22.3%) under the age of five had stunted growth and development which means they are too short for their age due to a chronic lack of essential nutrients in their diets. Globally, the prevalence of stunting among children under five has declined steadily, from an estimated 33% in 2000. Child overweight has been on the rise in many countries, driven by a lack of physical activity and increased access to highly processed foods. Globally, the prevalence of overweight stood at 5.6% in 2022, affecting 37 million children. “Malnutrition is a major threat to children’s survival, growth and development,” said Catherine Russell, Executive Director of UNICEF. “The scale of the nutrition crisis demands a stronger response focused on children, including prioritizing access to nutritious and affordable diets and essential nutrition services, protecting children and adolescents from nutrient-poor, ultra-processed foods, and strengthening food and nutrition supply chains including for fortified and therapeutic foods for children.”

The outlook provided in the report is grim. The world is constantly moving further away from its goal of ending hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms by 2030. Current projections are that nearly 600 million people will still be facing hunger in 2030. This is a similar number to 2015, when the goal of ending hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition by the end of this decade was launched under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The current estimate of 600 million people is about 119 million more undernourished people than in a scenario in which both the pandemic and the war in Ukraine had not occurred, and around 23 million more than if the war in Ukraine had not happened. “Hunger is rising while the resources we urgently need to protect the most vulnerable are running dangerously low,” says WFP Executive Director, Cindy McCain. “As humanitarians, we are facing the greatest challenge we’ve ever seen. We need the global community to act swiftly, smartly, and compassionately to reverse course and turn the tide on hunger.” IFAD President, Alvaro Lario is still optimistic that a world without hunger is possible and that hunger can be eradicated if we make it a global priority: “What we are missing is the investments and political will to implement solutions at scale,” he said. Lario recommends investments in small-scale farmers and in their adaptation to climate change, access to inputs and technologies, and access to finance to set up small agribusinesses. “Small-scale producers are part of the solution. Properly supported, they can produce more food, diversify production, and supply both urban and rural markets – feeding rural areas and cities nutritious and locally grown food.” (ab)

The number of people suffering from hunger globally has increased by 122 million since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, pushing the world far off track to meet the goal of zero hunger. According to a report released on July 12th by five UN agencies, as many as 783 million people worldwide were chronically undernourished in 2022 – almost one in ten people. While the numbers of people facing hunger globally have stabilised after increasing sharply in 2020 in the midst of the pandemic, and rising more slowly in 2021, hunger is still increasing in some world regions, especially in Africa. “Agrifood systems remain highly vulnerable to shocks and disruptions arising from conflict, climate variability and extremes, and economic contraction. These factors, combined with growing inequities, keep challenging the capacity of agrifood systems to deliver nutritious, safe and affordable diets for all,” the heads of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), UNICEF, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) write in their joint foreword to the report. They underline that these major drivers of food insecurity and malnutrition are our ‘new normal’.

The 2023 edition of ‘The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World’, like the two previous reports, gives a range of people suffering from hunger to reflect the uncertainty in data collection that still persists even though data reporting has begun to get back to normal. It is estimated that hunger affected between 691 million and 783 million people in 2022. Considering the middle of the projected range (735 million), the number of undernourished people has increased by 20% since 2019 when it stood at 613 million. According to the latest data, the proportion of people affected by hunger (called the prevalence of undernourishment) first went down from 12.1% in 2005 to 7.7% in 2014. Then it remained at that level before it jumped with the outbreak of Covid-19, reaching 9.2% of the world population in 2022 – or 9.8% if the upper bound is considered. “Nonetheless, the increase in global hunger observed in the last two years has stalled and, in 2022, there were about 3.8 million fewer people suffering from hunger than in 2021. The economic recovery from the pandemic has contributed to this, but there is no doubt that the modest progress has been undermined by rising food and energy prices magnified by the war in Ukraine,” the five UN chiefs write in the foreword. They add that there is no room for complacency since the situation worsened in some parts of the world.

Africa remains the worst-affected region with respect to the prevalence of undernourishment, with one in five people (19.7%) going hungry on the continent – more than twice the global average – whereas Asia accounts for the largest total numbers. More than half (54.6%) of the 735 million people who were undernourished in 2022 lived in Asia (401.6 million people), followed by Africa with 281.6 million (38.3%) and Latin America and the Caribbean with 43.2 million (5.9%). The number of people facing hunger in Africa has increased by 11 million people since 2021 and by more than 57 million people since the outbreak of the pandemic. The prevalence of undernourishment (mid-range) increased as well and the situation was especially alarming in Middle Africa, the sub-region including countries such as Chad and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where almost a third of the population (29.1%) was undernourished last year. In Eastern Africa, 28.5% of the population faced hunger. In Asia, 8.5% of all people were affected in 2022 but the figure was much higher for the sub-regions of South Asia (15.6%) and Western Asia (10.8%). Latin America and the Caribbean as a region showed progress since the share of undernourishment fell from 7.0% in 2021 to 6.5% in 2022 – a decrease of 2.4 million people – but still 7.2 million more than in 2019. This was largely due to progress in South America while the food security situation deteriorated in the Caribbean sub-region, where the share of undernourishment went up from 14.7% in 2021 to 16.3% in 2022.

The report not only provides estimates on the number of chronically undernourished people but also on the prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity. Moderate food insecurity, defined as “a level of severity of food insecurity at which people face uncertainties about their ability to obtain food” which means that they are forced “to reduce, at times during the year, the quality and/or quantity of food they consume due to lack of money or other resources”. Overall, nearly one in three people (29.6%) in the world (2.4 billion) did not have year-round access to adequate food in 2022 – an increase of almost 391 million people compared to 2019. Out of these 2.4 billion people, 900 million people (or 11.3% of all people in the world), were severely food insecure which means they ran out of food, experienced hunger and, at the most extreme, went for days without eating, putting their health and well-being at grave risk. This is an increase of almost 50 million people compared 2019. Another problem is the limited capacity of people to access healthy diets: In 2021, more than 3.1 billion people – or 42% of people globally – could not afford a healthy diet, up 134 million from 2019. The good news is that the number decreased by 52 million people from 2020 to 2021.

The report also paints a grim picture of the nutritional situation of the world’s children. An estimated 45 million children under the age of five (6.8%) were suffering from wasting, the deadliest form of malnutrition. Affected children are dangerously thin, with weakened immunity and a higher risk of mortality. In addition, 148 million children (22.3%) under the age of five had stunted growth and development which means they are too short for their age due to a chronic lack of essential nutrients in their diets. Globally, the prevalence of stunting among children under five has declined steadily, from an estimated 33% in 2000. Child overweight has been on the rise in many countries, driven by a lack of physical activity and increased access to highly processed foods. Globally, the prevalence of overweight stood at 5.6% in 2022, affecting 37 million children. “Malnutrition is a major threat to children’s survival, growth and development,” said Catherine Russell, Executive Director of UNICEF. “The scale of the nutrition crisis demands a stronger response focused on children, including prioritizing access to nutritious and affordable diets and essential nutrition services, protecting children and adolescents from nutrient-poor, ultra-processed foods, and strengthening food and nutrition supply chains including for fortified and therapeutic foods for children.”

The outlook provided in the report is grim. The world is constantly moving further away from its goal of ending hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms by 2030. Current projections are that nearly 600 million people will still be facing hunger in 2030. This is a similar number to 2015, when the goal of ending hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition by the end of this decade was launched under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The current estimate of 600 million people is about 119 million more undernourished people than in a scenario in which both the pandemic and the war in Ukraine had not occurred, and around 23 million more than if the war in Ukraine had not happened. “Hunger is rising while the resources we urgently need to protect the most vulnerable are running dangerously low,” says WFP Executive Director, Cindy McCain. “As humanitarians, we are facing the greatest challenge we’ve ever seen. We need the global community to act swiftly, smartly, and compassionately to reverse course and turn the tide on hunger.” IFAD President, Alvaro Lario is still optimistic that a world without hunger is possible and that hunger can be eradicated if we make it a global priority: “What we are missing is the investments and political will to implement solutions at scale,” he said. Lario recommends investments in small-scale farmers and in their adaptation to climate change, access to inputs and technologies, and access to finance to set up small agribusinesses. “Small-scale producers are part of the solution. Properly supported, they can produce more food, diversify production, and supply both urban and rural markets – feeding rural areas and cities nutritious and locally grown food.” (ab)

The world is characterized by considerable inequalities that are particularly stark within food systems, where they exacerbate already alarming conditions of hunger and malnutrition, presenting a serious impediment to achieving global goals and national policy promises. This is the message of a new report released by the UN Committee on World Food Security’s High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE), a body for assessing the science related to world food security and nutrition. “Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition”, the 18th thematic report of the panel, was presented at an event in Rome on June 15th. “The report shows that fundamentally food security and nutrition outcomes display huge variations across regions but it is also true that no single region is exempted from some burden of malnutrition or the other so every region is suffering from at least one aspect of malnutrition. But within regions there is a lot of disparity,” explained Bhavani Shankar, HLPE drafting team leader and professor in Food and Health at the University of Sheffield. “Inequalities within countries are profound, in many cases they are increasing, and that’s a huge part of the problem. And those groups that fare consistently worse with regard to the food security and nutrition outcomes are women, those with less education, indigenous peoples and poor people,” he said during the launch of the report. This message is underlined by Bernard Lehmann, Chairperson of the HLPE: “Food security and nutrition inequalities exist throughout the food system, from farm to fork. They include inequalities in access to food production resources and market opportunities for small-scale producers, unequal power dynamics between large food corporations and food producers, as well as unequal access to adequate and nutritious food among consumers,” he wrote in the foreword to the 200-pages report which will be presented at the 51st plenary session of the CFS in October.

The report is organized around six chapters. Chapter one is dedicated to the conceptual framework. The authors explain why it is important to address inequalities. Inequalities threaten progress on food security and nutrition (FSN) and tackling them is mandated in global goals and human rights covenants and corresponds to a natural sense of human justice and fairness that is embodied in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The report defines inequalities in food systems “as the observed differences in FSN outcomes, or related food systems factors (such as access to food production resources), between individuals and groups (when disaggregated by social, economic and geographical position).” The conceptual framework is illustrated in a diagram which shows how food security and nutrition can be improved by addressing inequalities within food systems and in other related systems such as health, education or infrastructure which are all important for food security. The authors write that sustainable change requires understanding and addressing the systemic drivers and root causes of inequity.

Chapter two describes patterns and trends of inequality in food security and nutrition. “While inequalities in food security are particularly seen to affect populations in Africa, South Asia and the Caribbean, inequality in nutritional status exists globally,” the authors explain. Despite gains made in reducing undernutrition in low- and middle-income countries, the global rise in overweight and obesity among both adults and children undermines the past progress made in nutrition. In addition, since 2015, food insecurity has worsened in most regions of the world. Within each of the major regions (Africa, Northern America and Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia), the highest burden of severe food insecurity is found in Middle Africa (37.7 %), Southern Europe (2.8 %), the Caribbean (30.5 %) and Southern Asia (21 %). Gender differences in food insecurity trends are consistently noted both globally and between regions; a gap that has further widened. Around the world, more women than men are experiencing food insecurity, and women experience more severe food insecurity than men. People with disabilities are at greater risk of food insecurity given they are also more likely to be living in poverty. Studies show that indigenous adults in Australia have a five to seven times higher risk of experiencing food insecurity than their non-Indigenous counterparts. In North America, Black non-Hispanic households have a higher proportion of food insecurity (22.7 %) compared to White non-Hispanic households (8.7 %). The researchers find that more qualitative and adequately disaggregated data along gender, location, economic status, ethnicity, other social group and physical ability is required to systematically quantify and track food system and nutrition inequalities.

Chapter 3 examines the proximate drivers of inequalities within food systems and related systems. Within food systems, it explores three broad areas: inequalities in food production resources, in food supply chains and in food environments and consumer behavior. Large inequalities in access to food-production resources exist and persist. A prominent example is seen in the high and increasing inequality in land ownership globally. Globally and in most regions of the world other than Africa, land inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient has been on an increasing trend since 1975. In food supply chains, unequal access to financial services is another driver of inequalities: Small-scale food producers and small businesses have long faced significant obstacles in accessing or taking up credit, insurance and other financial products, or they lack access to information and technology. They also have limited ability to engage with and gain from modern value chains and markets, storage, processing and distribution, and international food trade. “Large traders, processors and retailers prefer not to incur the transaction costs of buying small quantities from many smallholders. Thus, they often stipulate minimum volume requirements and/or quality standards that small producers may struggle to meet, especially if upgrading and investment in inputs requires financing and better information.,” the authors explain the dilemma. Third, food environments provide highly unequal opportunities for food security and nutrition, with low-income populations and minority groups particularly impacted by the inequalities.

The fourth chapter takes a broader social and historical perspective and examines the underlying systemic drivers and root causes of food security and nutrition inequalities. Many drivers that act on food systems have underlying drivers within food systems themselves, the report finds. For example, climate change and environmental decline harm food system workers and are a threat to food security and nutrition, particularly where people and places are most vulnerable to change. However, food systems themselves are major drivers of climate change. The same holds true for biodiversity loss, water and soil depletion, and pollution. Other root causes are economic and market drivers which have fundamentally transformed global food systems by shaping market dynamics, flows of finance, and patterns of global trade to consolidate decision-making power and ownership. Most notable has been the shaping and scale of international trade, and the influence of a small number of private actors increasingly in control of market making. “These changes have altered dietary patterns in complex ways and curtailed the agency of most food system workers. While some nutritional benefits accrue, there are concerns about the impacts of a transition towards a Western obesogenic diet that exacerbate FSN outcomes, initially affecting the wealthiest in society but then gradually becoming a problem for the most marginalised or socio-economically disadvantaged sections of society.” But there are also political and institutional drivers, like violence and armed conflict and policies and governance (e.g. land policy, agricultural policy or labour market regulations). In addition, sociocultural drivers like cultural norms or gender-based violence produce and reinforce existing inequalities. Historical inequities will therefore persist if they are not addressed explicitly with equity-sensitive policies and practices.

Chapter five focuses on actions that can be taken within food and other systems to improve food security by presenting priority areas that hold significant potential for reducing inequalities. The proposed actions are grouped into four broad categories: food production; food supply chains; food environment and consumption; and enabling environment, broader context and governance. First, within food production, options to reduce inequalities in the area of food security and nutrition include: enabling more equal access to land, forests, livestock and fisheries, applying agroecological principles across production and broader food systems, establishing inclusive producer organizations, and investing in equity-sensitive public agricultural and food- systems research and other rural public investments. The latter includes, for example, incorporating gender equity into strategic prioritizing, which may lead to new areas of emphasis, such as on crops or livestock particularly important for household food security, or investments in crops and livestock for marginal environments and low-potential rain-fed areas, as well as climate-resilient technologies for smallholders. Second, the action areas in food supply chains mentioned in the report are adopting inclusive value chain approaches; developing labour-protection policies, strategies, and programmes for food-system workers; considering territorial approaches in food system and regional development planning; investing in equity-sensitive storage, food processing and distribution infrastructure; and investing in improved information systems, leveraging digital technologies. With regard to food environment and consumption, the main action areas include food-environment planning and governance; incorporating behavioural insights into policymaking and programming; and strengthening social protection. Within the last category, the authors mention food- and nutrition-sensitive policy and planning and addressing corporate power asymmetries in governance, just to name two aspects.

The sixth chapter provides recommendations to support a fundamental transformation of food systems. As Bhavani Shankar outlines during the presentation of the report, there are ten broad recommendations grouped into four cluster but within these ten broad recommendations, there are many sub-recommendations, i.e. more sharp and precise recommendations. For example, cluster A focuses on addressing inequalities within food systems. The first broad recommendation is thus that “states, intergovernmental organizations, the private sector and civil society should work across sectors to ensure more equitable access to land, forests, aquatic resources and other food-production resources, applying rights-based approaches”. A related sub-recommendation is to bolster the land and resource rights of women, peasants, Indigenous Peoples and other marginalized groups, including legal recognition and inheritance rights. Cluster B looks at inequalities in related systems and one recommendation is that States should ensure universal access to services and resources that have a direct impact on food security and nutrition. More precisely, states should ensure universal access to FSN-relevant services, including primary healthcare, immunization, nutrition education, sanitation and safe drinking water, just to name on example. Cluster C focuses on tackling social and political drivers of inequality while cluster D includes recommendations related to strengthening data and knowledge systems to enable improved understanding and monitoring of equity in domains relevant for food security and nutrition. All recommendations can be found in the report and or the executive summary of the report. (ab)

While people grappled with a severe food crisis and farmers saw their costs increase, the world’s largest fertiliser companies tripled their profits during the past five years. The profits of the big nine fertiliser companies grew exponentially from an average of around US$14 billion before the Covid-19 pandemic to US$28 billion in 2021 and then to an astounding US$49 billion last year, a brief published by GRAIN and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) reveals. The document released on May 23th presents the latest data on fertilizer industry profits and is an update to the report ““The Fertiliser Trap”, published by the two organisations in November 2022. GRAIN and IATP look at how these companies have contributed to the current food crisis by increasing prices far beyond increases to production costs and thereby boosting their profit margins by a massive 36% in 2022. “To deal with fertiliser cartel’s profiteering, actions must focus on supporting farmers to reduce or eliminate their use of chemical fertilisers”, they write in the brief. Such actions would not only help to bring the costs of fertilisers down, but could also help address the climate crisis and its impacts on food production due to the greenhouse gas emissions caused by chemical fertilisers.

The two organisations say that there are shocked by the scale of profiteering. Given the sky high fertiliser prices of 2022, it was expected that fertiliser companies would generate large profits but GRAIN and IATP were surprised by the record revenues the firms earned. A graph compiled by the organisations depicts the total profits of the big nine fertiliser companies over the past five years, rising from $14 billion dollars before the pandemic to US$28 billion in 2021 and then to US$49 billion in 2022. The report says that international agencies like the World Bank argue that the Russian war in Ukraine is responsible for the spike in fertiliser prices because the war lead to high natural gas prices (used to produce nitrogen fertiliser) due to shortages and trade disruptions. But another graph presented in the report shows that the problem also has to do with the monopoly power of the fertiliser companies. The big nine fertiliser companies increased prices far beyond the increases in production costs and boosted their profit margins to a massive 36% in 2022.

According to the report, “fertiliser prices are coming down from their stratospheric heights earlier this year, but the effects of the price spike are still being felt. The high prices and lack of supply in some countries caused farmers to cut fertiliser use, thereby reducing production levels and contributing to an alarming rise in global food insecurity.” The NGOs argue that the high prices have also pushed many farmers deeper into debt: “Farmers from Cameroon to the U.S. say they are still spending three times as much on fertilisers as they were a few years ago. And in countries where fertilisers are heavily subsidised, the price spike has saddled governments with huge debts.” The report cites India as an example where the central government’s expenditure on fertiliser subsidies last year skyrocketed from US$9.8 billion to US$17.1 billion. The organisations denounce that “people are paying the price for the fertiliser industry’s price gouging.” Not only people but also the planet is paying a high price. Chemical fertilisers are a major source of environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, with nitrogen fertilisers alone accounting for one out of every 40 tonnes of annual emissions.

IATP and GRAIN say that bold new approaches are urgently needed to reign in corporate power in the food system and turn the food crisis around. When it comes to fertilisers, policy actions like windfall taxes and price controls could be a solution. But to deal with both profiteering and environmental catastrophe we need to transition food production to rely far less on chemical fertilisers. “The fertiliser industry will be pushing for the opposite when it gathers for its annual meeting in Prague this week, yet around the world there are farmers and rural movements already leading a transition away from chemical fertilisers, with plenty of successful examples to learn from,” they write. What’s holding us back is the structural political change needed at all levels to address the excess profiteering from the fertiliser industry, and chart a new path toward more resilient food systems, the brief concludes. (ab)

Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production, warns a new report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But there are “multiple, feasible and effective options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to human-caused climate change”, according to the scientists, and these options are available now and need to be taken without delay. The synthesis report, released on March 20, summarises the UN body’s most up-to-date knowledge of science related to climate change, its impacts and risks, and mitigation and adaptation. It includes the contributions of the three IPCC working groups to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) and the findings of three special reports published between 2018 and 2022. The summary was prepared by 93 authors and approved during a week-long IPCC session in Interlaken in March. “Mainstreaming effective and equitable climate action will not only reduce losses and damages for nature and people, it will also provide wider benefits,” explained IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee. “This Synthesis Report underscores the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that, if we act now, we can still secure a liveable sustainable future for all.”

The scientists first looked at current status and trends with regard to our changing climate, pointing at the drivers of climate change and its impacts. Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels, they find. Global net anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have reached 59 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) – about 12% higher than in 2010 and 54% higher than in 1990. In 2019, around 79% of global greenhouse gas emissions came from the sectors of energy, industry, transport and buildings together and the rest from agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). Global warming has resulted in more frequent and more intense extreme weather events such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones. This has led to widespread negative impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people. According to the report, 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are heavily exposed to climate change. “Almost half of the world’s population lives in regions that are highly vulnerable to climate change,” said Aditi Mukherji, one of the authors. “Climate justice is crucial because those who have contributed least to climate change are being disproportionately affected,” she added. Increasing weather and climate extremes have exposed millions of people to acute food insecurity and reduced water security, hindering efforts to meet the Sustainable Development Goals. The main impacts are observed in many locations and/or communities in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, the world’s least developed countries, Small Islands and the Arctic. “In the last decade, deaths from floods, droughts and storms were 15 times higher in highly vulnerable regions,” Dr Mukherji explains. Indigenous Peoples, small-scale food producers and low-income households were affected most.

The authors also look at the pace and scale of what has been done so far. They establish that adaptation planning and implementation has progressed across all sectors and regions. Examples of effective adaptation options in the agricultural sector that are mentioned include “cultivar improvements, on-farm water management and storage, soil moisture conservation, irrigation, agroforestry, community-based adaptation, farm and landscape level diversification in agriculture, sustainable land management approaches, use of agroecological principles and practices and other approaches that work with natural processes”. The scientists also write that ecosystem-based adaptation approaches such as urban greening, restoration of wetlands and upstream forest ecosystems have been effective in reducing flood risks and urban heat. “Some land-related adaptation actions such as sustainable food production, improved and sustainable forest management, soil organic carbon management, ecosystem conservation and land restoration, reduced deforestation and degradation, and reduced food loss and waste are being undertaken, and can have mitigation co-benefits,” they add. But despite progress in some sectors, adaptation gaps exist, and will continue to grow at current rates of implementation. Maladaptation is happening in some sectors and regions and current global financial flows for adaptation are insufficient, especially in developing countries.

The next section of the report analyses future climate change, risks, and long-term responses. The scientists warn that continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming and by 2030, global surface temperature in any individual year could already exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850-1900. Risks and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages from climate change will intensify with every increment of global warming: They are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, and even higher at 2°C. With further warming, climate change risks will become increasingly complex and more difficult to manage because risk drivers will interact. Climate-driven food insecurity and supply instability, for example, are projected to increase with increasing global warming, interacting with non-climatic risk drivers such as competition for land between urban expansion and food production, pandemics and conflict. Some future changes are unavoidable and/or irreversible but the good news is that they can be limited by a deep, rapid and sustained global reduction of emissions. However, adaptation options that are feasible and effective today would become constrained and less effective with increasing global warming and losses and damages would increase. All global modelled pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C involve rapid and deep and, in most cases, immediate greenhouse gas emissions reductions in all sectors this decade.

The final section of the report is dedicated to responses in the near term and stresses the urgency of near-term integrated climate action. The authors highlight that there is a rapidly closing window of opportunity. “Rapid and far-reaching transitions across all sectors and systems are necessary to achieve deep and sustained emissions reductions and secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.” These system transitions involve a significant upscaling of different mitigation and adaptation options. “Feasible, effective, and low-cost options for mitigation and adaptation are already available, with differences across systems and regions,” the report finds. There are many options in agriculture and land use that would provide benefits and that could be upscaled in the near-term across most regions. According to the report, conservation, improved management, and restoration of forests and other ecosystems offer the largest share of economic mitigation potential, with reduced deforestation in tropical regions having the highest total mitigation potential. “Effective adaptation options include cultivar improvements, agroforestry, community-based adaptation, farm and landscape diversification, and urban agriculture.” Some options, like the conservation of high-carbon ecosystems such as peatlands would deliver immediate benefits, while others, such as restoration of high-carbon ecosystems, take decades to show measurable results.

The authors also focus on equity and inclusion, governance and policies. They underline that prioritising equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes is important. Integrating climate adaptation into social protection programs, including cash transfers and public works programs, is highly feasible and increases resilience to climate change, especially when supported by basic services and infrastructure. “The greatest gains in wellbeing could come from prioritizing climate risk reduction for low-income and marginalised communities, including people living in informal settlements,” said Christopher Trisos, one of the report’s authors. Finally, the authors highlight that effective climate action is enabled by political commitment, well-aligned multilevel governance, institutional frameworks, laws, policies and strategies. “Drawing on diverse knowledges and cultural values, meaningful participation and inclusive engagement processes – including Indigenous Knowledge, local knowledge, and scientific knowledge – facilitates climate resilient development, builds capacity and allows locally appropriate and socially acceptable solutions.” However, accelerated climate action will only come about if there is a many-fold increase in finance, says Trisos. Insufficient and misaligned finance will hold back progress. (ab)

The world is currently on the brink of a growing debt crisis that could plunge millions more into hunger as countries struggle to feed their populations, leading food experts have warned. According to a new report, unsustainable and inequitable food systems are a key contributor to the spiralling debt crisis. The 31-pager, published on March 6th by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES Food), an international group of 23 food system experts, argues that import dependencies, extractive financial flows, boom-bust commodity cycles, and climate-vulnerable food systems are combining to destabilize the finances of the world’s poorest countries. “Last year’s record high food prices may have receded, but the food crisis is still biting and it’s entering a dangerous new phase – of skyrocketing debt distress and spiralling hunger in dozens of low and middle-income countries,” says IPES-Food expert economist Jennifer Clapp. “Rising debt bills are becoming unaffordable for many governments, just as they struggle to pay for food and fertilizer imports – and they’re running out of road. Decades of progress in reducing hunger risks being undone.” And the situation is already grave. At the end of 2022, some 349 million people were facing acute food insecurity, with 49 million on the brink of famine, while some 828 million people were chronically undernourished. The report therefore calls for comprehensive debt relief and a radical transformation of food systems to build a basis for sustainable public finances in low-income countries and durable progress in the fight against hunger and poverty.

The introduction to the report gives an overview of the rapidly unfolding hunger crisis and debt crisis. Following a decade of steadily rising debt levels, public finances in low-income countries have come under even greater pressure due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic disruptions caused by the Ukraine war. In 2022, low-income countries were not only affected by rising food prices but also soaring import costs for fertilizer and energy. Rapidly rising interest rates in wealthy countries have played a key role in turning those pressures into an emerging debt crisis. By January 2023, US federal reserve rates had risen from 0.08% to 4.33% in less than a year, with over a third of developing countries seeing their currencies depreciate by more than 10% against the dollar. This meant that dollar-denominated debts suddenly became more costly to service. As a result, global public debt rose to its highest levels in almost 60 years and the debt servicing costs of the world’s poorest countries increased by 35% in 2022. About 60% of low-income countries, and 30% of middle-income countries, are now considered at high risk of (or already in) debt distress. A map in the report shows that some of these countries are also classified by UN agencies as suffering from acute food insecurity or a major food crisis. 21 countries are nearing catastrophic levels of both debt distress and food insecurity – including Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Haiti, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. IPES-Food says that Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Suriname, and Zambia already defaulted on sovereign debts between 2020-2022, raising concerns that another 12 governments could also be close to default. And in January 2023, Ghana requested urgent restructuring of its foreign debt, while Pakistan's foreign reserves had reportedly run dry, leaving food shipments sitting in its ports and sparking emergency talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Debt accrued by low-income countries is frequently blamed on economic mismanagement, corruption, and external shocks but this does not tell the whole story. The IPES Food experts argue that, although rarely acknowledged by policymakers, today's unsustainable and inequitable global food systems are a key contributor to the debt crisis. Chapter 2 identifies four ways in which food systems are deepening the current debt crisis. The first driver is import and dollar dependencies which generate high debts and prevent countries investing in diversifying their food systems and economies. Export orientation was heavily prioritized through structural adjustment programmes which included the promotion of cash crop exports and cheap grain imports, and the withdrawal of state subsidies for food and fuel. These reforms were accompanied by multilateral trade liberalization that exposed developing world agriculture to unfair competition with highly subsidized production in the Global North. The authors explain that the effects of these policies have been particularly acute in Africa, with staple food production declining and the continent’s food import bills more than tripling over recent decades. Agricultural exports have grown in parallel. Many developing countries have specialized in cash crops, to generate dollars to pay off debts and import staple foods, often at the expense of diverse food crops traditionally consumed by local populations. “Many African countries’ economies and food systems are on the brink of meltdown,” says Million Belay, IPES-Food expert and co-ordinator of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa. “We’re selling coffee and cotton to the rich to pay off debts, while we import increasingly unaffordable staple foods from outside, climate change batters our harvests, and interest payments spiral out of control.”

The second driver are extractive financial flows. Over decades, governments have cut social spending and outsourced food system investment to corporate actors and creditors – resulting in uneven development, persistent hunger, and the depletion of state capacity – and ultimately funneling resources out of the Global South, the report summarizes. “With initial policy reforms failing to deliver the desired results, and public resources perpetually strained in low-income countries, governments have increasingly turned to public-private partnerships (PPPs) to finance development projects. Agriculture-focused PPPs have become particularly prominent in the wake of the 2007-2008 food price spikes, coming alongside (and sometimes enmeshed with) development aid.” The report refers to corporate-friendly partnerships with a focus on boosting productivity via chemical inputs, and developing agri-exports and growth corridors, e. g. the Gates Foundation-led Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), the US-led Feed the Future initiative or the now-defunct G8 New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition. The authors criticise that PPPs and other agri-development financing vehicles have further contributed to the erosion of state functions and accountability mechanisms and did not meet their proclaimed goals. For example, AGRA continues to receive millions of dollars of funding despite failing to deliver on stated hunger and poverty reduction goals, while “Feed the Future” has offered limited returns on huge private sector investment to date. The external debt is increasingly owed to private creditors such as banks and companies. In 2022, poorer countries paid 47% of external debt payments to private lenders, 12% to China, 14% to other governments, and the remaining 27% to multilateral institutions like the IMF. Financial transfers from the Global North are often dwarfed by the funds funnelled out of developing countries. In 2021, developing countries paid $356 billion in interest payments alone, while only $185 billion were received in aid. For many countries, this results in a perpetual strain on public finances, low capacity for state action, and insufficient investment in resilience and social policies like anti-hunger programmes. During the first year of the pandemic, 64 developing countries spent more on debt payments than on healthcare.

A third driver are boom-bust cycles and corporate consolidation: When food prices rise, powerful and highly concentrated agribusinesses benefit while farmers get squeezed. “Grain trading giants such as Cargill are getting rich, as are many multinational energy companies. But growers themselves are barely in the black,” an article in the Financial Times is quoted. When prices crash, many farms and food businesses fail, leading to further corporate consolidation. In 2022, the nine top fertilizer companies were expected to quadruple their profits compared to 2020, while governments in the Global South were depleting their public finances to subsidize their farmers’ access to fertilizer. However, “for the world’s poorest rural communities, many of whom are net food buyers and have little access to state support, there is no upside to global price volatility,” the authors write. Frequently, animals are sold and families have to increase household debt in response to the current food price crisis. Through these cycles of boom, bust, and corporate consolidations, economic inequalities and power imbalances are growing – within agriculture, between farmers and agribusinesses, and among world regions – and investment in resilience is undermined. The fourth driver is the climate crisis. “Climate breakdown is fast becoming the biggest driver of economic collapse and debt distress in the Global South, decimating harvests and destroying livelihoods in countries least responsible for the crisis. With climate finance failing to materialize, it is becoming harder for low-income countries to repay debts and invest in climate-resilient food systems,” the authors warn. In most low-income countries, debt servicing costs continue to exceed climate spending. The lack of public funding leaves low-income countries increasingly reliant on further debt to address climate resilience – but instead of being able to access low-cost capital, countries are being penalized for their climate vulnerabilities in the shape of higher interest rates, the authors conclude.

In the final chapter the authors argue that comprehensive debt relief must go hand-in-hand with food system transformation, to build a basis for sustainable public finances in low-income countries and durable progress in the fight against hunger and poverty. In order to break the cycle of unsustainable food systems, hunger and debt, IPES-Food calls for urgent action to provide debt relief and development finance on a right scale sufficient to meet the needs of COVID-19 recovery, climate-resilient food systems, and the Sustainable Development Goals. Their second recommendation is to repair historical food system injustices and return resources to the Global South. This could be done through windfall taxes on food profiteers and steps to achieve tax justice and repay ‘ecological’ and historical debts. Thirdly, they call for the democratization of financial and food systems governance. They argue that institutions like the World Bank and IMF must finally be reformed to break free from Global North biases over decision-making which disregards the interests of poor countries and marginalized populations. “Yes, the debts of poorer nations should be canceled to allow them to feed their people – but this is not enough,” said Lim Li Ching, co-chair of IPES-Food. “To get off the debt treadmill, it’s vital to break the vicious cycle of unsustainable food systems, hunger, and debt – by also investing in building resilient food and farming, repairing the historical injustices that have left poor countries funneling resources to the rich, and reforming international decision-making on food and debt to put poor countries first.” (ab)

Organic farmland and retail sales both continued to grow worldwide, according to a new report published by FiBL and IFOAM – Organics International on February 14th. More than 76.4 million hectares of land were farmed organically at the end of 2021, representing a growth of 1.7 % or 1.3 million hectares compared to the previous year. The growth trend of the past years continued although at a slower pace. This is the message of the 24th edition of “The World of Organic Agriculture”, presented at BIOFACH, the world’s leading trade fair for organic food. The report collects data on 191 countries with organic farming activities. Australia has the largest area farmed organically with 35.7 million hectares, but it is estimated that 97 % of the farmland is extensive grazing areas. Argentina ranks second (4.1 million hectares), followed by France with 2.77 million hectares. France reported a significant increase of 8.9 % compared to the previous year. China is ranked fourth with 2.75 million hectares and an increase of 13.1 %, followed by Uruguay with 2.74 million hectares. Due to the large area of organic farmland in Australia, almost half of the global organic area lies in Oceania (36 million hectares). Europe had the second largest area (17.8 million hectares or 23 %), followed by Latin America (9.9 million hectares or 13 %). The highest absolute growth was registered in Europe (up 747,924 hectares or 4.4 %) while Africa showed the strongest relative growth (up 17.3 %). The organic farmland decreased in Latin and North America.

Currently, only 1.6% of the world’s agricultural land is farmed organically, but many countries have far higher shares. In 20 countries, 10% or more of all agricultural land was under organic management in 2021, up from 18 countries in 2020. The top five countries with the largest share of organic land were Liechtenstein (40.2 %), Samoa (29.1 %), Austria (26.5%), Sao Tome and Principe (21.1 %) and Sweden (20.2 %). 86 countries experienced an increase in the area of their organic agricultural land, while a decrease was reported in 37 countries. Many countries kept up or initiated support activities for organic agriculture, including new action plans or policies aiming to foster growth. According to the report, there were 3.7 million organic farmers worldwide and their number increased by 4.9 % compared to the year before. However, the authors point out that calculating precise figures is difficult here because some countries only report the number of companies, projects or growers groups which may each comprise many individual producers, hence the total number might even be higher. Almost half of the world’s organic producers (48.6 %) live in Asia, while Africa is home to 30.6 % and Europe to 12 % of organic producers. The country with the highest absolute numbers is India with 1.6 million farmers, followed by Uganda (400,000) and Ethiopia (218,000).

Consumer demand for organic products across the globe continued to grow, but slower than in 2020. Global retail sales of organic food and drink reached around 125 billion euros in 2021 and experienced a total increase of 4 billion euros (+3 %) from the previous year. In 2021, the United States was the leading market (48.6 billion euros), followed by Germany (15.9bn euros), France (12.7bn euros) and China (11.3bn euros). Estonia was the country that registered the biggest market growth with an increase of 21 %. Looking at the shares the organic market has of the total market, the leader was Denmark with 13%, followed by Austria (11.6 %), Luxembourg (11 %) and Switzerland (10.9 %). Swiss consumers spent the most on organic food with 425 euros, followed by per capita consumer spending in Denmark (384 euros) and Luxembourg (313 euros). “Growth in the global market for organic food and drink slowed in 2021,” writes Amarjit Sahota in a special chapter on the global organic market. “Market growth rates slowed as consumer buying habits returned to pre-pandemic levels. The exceptionally high growth in 2020 was because of COVID-19 elevating consumer interest in health & wellness issues,” he explained. “Organic foods were sought after as consumers focused on disease avoidance and building personal immunity. Demand for organic foods surged after the pandemic began in the spring of 2020. Slower growth occurred in 2021, and there is expected to be lower growth in 2022.” The next edition of “The World of Organic Agriculture” will show how the war in Ukraine, rising food prices, inflation and weakening economic conditions, especially in Europe, will affect the organic food market. (ab)