2026 Food Crises Report: UK Says Conflict Drives Hunger

In a speech published on GOV.UK for the launch of the 10th Global Report on Food Crises, Minister Chapman asks you to start with a hard truth: hunger is rising in a world shaped by war, displacement and repeated shocks. Pointing to the Middle East, Sudan and Ukraine, she says the world is more fragile than it has been for decades, and that food crises are getting worse rather than better. That matters because this is not presented as a farming story alone. Chapman links it to the UK’s work with the Global Network Against Food Crises and argues that if we want better answers, we need evidence, co-ordination and a willingness to stop treating each emergency as if it appeared out of nowhere.

The clearest message in the speech is that conflict remains one of the biggest drivers of hunger and malnutrition. According to the report as Chapman presents it, more than 80 per cent of people facing severe hunger live in places affected by long-running conflict, fragility or crisis. That figure helps you see the scale of the link. **What this means:** hunger is often not only about crops failing. It is also about roads becoming unsafe, markets shutting, jobs vanishing and families losing the income they need to buy food. When fighting interrupts production, trade and everyday life, the effects spread quickly.

Chapman also warns that conflict is now colliding with climate strain and economic shocks. Poor harvests, heat, flooding and rising costs can pile pressure on places that are already struggling. In the speech, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is offered as the latest example of how a geopolitical shock can push up fuel and fertiliser prices far beyond the area where the crisis began. The danger is uneven, and that is important to notice. Countries in Asia that depend on Gulf fertiliser imports are exposed when supply lines tighten. Across much of Sub-Saharan Africa, higher fuel and transport costs can push food prices even higher. Chapman notes that the UN does not say a global food price crisis is certain, but it does warn that the risk grows the longer these pressures continue.

That is why one of the speech’s strongest arguments is about acting earlier. Chapman says many rooms full of officials already agree that prevention matters, yet the big shift still has not happened. Too often, help arrives after livelihoods have collapsed and after a warning has turned into an emergency. She is asking for more investment in resilience, which in plain English means making sure communities are better able to withstand shocks before they become disasters. That includes protecting livelihoods, strengthening local systems and helping people adapt to climate change so that one failed season or one spike in prices does not immediately become a humanitarian crisis.

The example she chooses is the Food Crisis Preparedness Plans. Chapman points to a recent roundtable she co-chaired with Somalia’s Deputy Prime Minister as a sign of what a country-led early warning approach can do. When governments and partners share evidence early, they can spot trouble sooner and act before the damage widens. She does not pretend that this fixes everything. In the speech, she is quite open that preparedness plans do not magically create money or solve every problem. But she argues they do lead to better co-ordination and can save more lives. That fits with another point she makes after the World Bank Spring Meetings: having finance and tools ready is useful only if institutions actually use them in time.

A second lesson in the speech is about how money is used. Chapman wants funding targeted where it can reduce suffering now and cut future need as well. That means taking forecasts seriously, paying attention to evidence and breaking the habit of working in silos while warning signs are already visible. **What this means for you as a reader:** the argument is not simply ‘spend more’. It is also ‘spend sooner, spend smarter and work together’. Chapman says climate funds and international lenders need to do more in fragile countries, and that partnerships should feel fairer to the countries living with the highest risks.

Humanitarian assistance, she says, will always be essential because it saves lives. But the speech keeps returning to the same frustration: long-term problems are too often met with short-term projects. Chapman recalls a blunt conversation with Uganda’s finance minister, who told her that donors keep turning up with temporary fixes and then wonder why the same problems return. That is one of the most useful parts of the speech because it strips away official language. If hunger is tied to conflict, displacement, climate pressure, weak infrastructure and trade disruption, then the response cannot sit inside one aid budget alone. Chapman argues that diplomacy, science, peacekeeping and trade all have to be used together if governments want better outcomes.

The closing message is about partnership and who gets to lead. Chapman says no single government or institution can close the gap between need and resources. She calls for stronger work between governments, international bodies, civil society, business and local communities, with local leadership treated as essential rather than decorative. Her reference to a coming Global Partnerships Conference with BII, CIFF and South Africa is meant to show that countries most affected should help set the agenda. We can read the speech as a reminder that food and nutrition are not separate from peace or development. They sit alongside them. If you want the simplest version of Chapman’s case, it is this: hunger does not appear out of thin air. It is built by conflict, made worse by climate and prices, and prolonged when the world responds too late.