2026 Global Report on Food Crises says conflict still drives hunger

If you hear the phrase 'food crisis', you might picture empty shelves or failed harvests. In a speech published on gov.uk for the launch of the 10th Global Report on Food Crises, Minister Chapman asks us to start somewhere else: conflict. From the Middle East to Sudan and Ukraine, she says violence and instability are still pushing more people into severe hunger. That matters because hunger is rarely only about whether food exists. It is also about whether farmers can plant safely, whether roads and ports stay open, whether wages still come in, and whether aid can reach people before the damage becomes much harder to reverse. Chapman says this is why the UK has joined the Global Network Against Food Crises and wants evidence, coordination and shared action to guide the response.

One figure in the speech explains the scale of the problem. More than 80 per cent of people suffering severe hunger live in places affected by long-running conflict, fragility and crisis. That shifts how we should read the story. Hunger is not simply a weather story or a bad harvest story; very often it is a story about war, displacement and broken systems. **What this means:** when conflict drags on, it interrupts production, trade and everyday livelihoods all at once. Climate change and economic shocks then pile pressure onto places already under strain, which is why food insecurity can worsen so quickly.

Chapman also points to a newer pressure point: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. For many readers, that may sound distant, but it matters because it is a major route for fuel and fertiliser supplies. When those flows are disrupted, prices rise, and the poorest households usually feel it first. The speech notes that the UN does not see a global food price crisis as unavoidable. But it also warns that the longer these pressures continue, the greater the risk becomes. Countries that rely on Gulf fertiliser imports, including parts of Asia, are exposed, while many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa face the extra squeeze of higher fuel and transport costs feeding into food prices.

From there, Chapman moves from diagnosis to challenge. Her first argument is that the world has to act earlier and spend more on resilience. In other words, we cannot keep waiting for a crisis to fully explode before money and attention appear. She says systems should be strengthened before risks escalate, so communities can hold on to jobs, crops and income when shocks hit. The Food Crisis Preparedness Plans are presented as one route into that earlier action. Chapman points to a recent roundtable she co-chaired with Somalia's Deputy Prime Minister as proof that country-led early warning can bring partners together sooner and save more lives.

There is an honest note in this part of the speech. Chapman says many people in rooms like this already agree with the principle, yet the big change in behaviour has still not happened. She says that at last week's World Bank Spring Meetings there was a shared push to get finance ready to surge, but plans on paper only matter if institutions actually use them. She argues that forecasts should be used better and funding should be aimed where it can cut suffering now while reducing future need. She also calls for stronger engagement from climate funds and international financial institutions, especially in fragile countries. If governments, donors and agencies keep working separately, people pay the price. If they coordinate early, resources go further and responses become less chaotic.

Her next point is about the limits of short-term aid. Humanitarian assistance will always be necessary when lives are at immediate risk, but Chapman says long-term problems need long-term investment too. That includes work that reduces risk, supports recovery and deals with root causes rather than only the aftermath. She illustrates this with a striking account of a conversation with Uganda's Finance Minister. The message was blunt: the world keeps bringing short-term funding to long-term problems, then wonders why the same crisis returns. That is also why Chapman says the response has to be political as well as practical, drawing on diplomacy, science, peacekeeping and trade rather than treating hunger as a stand-alone issue.

The speech ends with a reminder that no country or institution can close the gap between need and available money on its own. Strong partnerships, Chapman says, are essential across governments, multilateral bodies, civil society, the private sector and, most importantly, local communities. That final point may be the most important lesson in the whole piece. Local leadership is not an optional extra; it is what makes response plans credible and useful. Chapman points to an upcoming Global Partnerships Conference being organised with BII, CIFF and South Africa as an example of that approach. The wider message from the 2026 Global Report on Food Crises is clear: food and nutrition support development, stability and peace, so if we want fewer emergencies, we have to listen earlier, act earlier and stop treating hunger as someone else's problem.