Disaster Risk Reduction Financing Roundtable: Delivering on the Seville Commitment

Investing in agrifood systems is central to disaster risk reduction and resilience-building within the humanitarian-development-peace nexus. This is essential to lifting people out of protracted humanitarian crises and safeguarding development gains. FAO research shows that context-specific agricultural interventions deliver high returns: on average, farm-level good practices for DRR perform 2.2 times better than previously used practices under hazard conditions, and every USD 1 invested in anticipatory action can generate up to USD 7 in benefits and avoided losses.

Financing patterns remain misaligned with these returns. Between 2015 and 2023, ODA to food security and nutrition increased by 12 percent, compared with a 37 percent increase in total ODA. Over the same period, donors increased emergency food assistance by 25 percent. This indicates a continued underprioritization of long-term food security and nutrition, with more resources spent responding to crises than preventing them.

A similar imbalance is evident in food-crisis contexts. Thirty-six of the 53 countries facing high acute food insecurity (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) are in protracted crises, having remained in crisis conditions for eight years or more. Yet, on average, only 3 percent of global development assistance has been allocated to food sectors in these countries, while 33 percent of global humanitarian funding flows to them. This underscores that financing largely targets the symptoms of food crises rather than their underlying causes, despite the strong reliance of food-insecure populations on agriculture for their livelihoods.

These challenges are worsening. In 2025, both humanitarian and development assistance to food sectors (food, agriculture and nutrition) in food-crisis contexts are estimated to have declined sharply, further constraining prevention and resilience-building efforts.

Within humanitarian funding for food sectors, allocations remain narrowly focused. Over the period 2016-2025, food assistance (cash and in-kind) accounted for 85 percent of funding, followed by nutrition (10 percent) and emergency agriculture (5 percent). This persists despite the fact that many acutely food-insecure households remain engaged in agriculture and retain the capacity to sustain local food production during crises.

Climate finance brings yet another challenge. Small-scale agriculture-responsible for roughly one-third of global food production-receives under 1 percent of climate finance . At the same time, in developing countries agriculture absorbs 23 percent of total disaster-related losses and damages.

Against this backdrop, five priorities are critical to strengthening financing for disaster risk reduction:

First, generate robust data and analysis to support evidence-based decision-making related to financing for disaster risk reduction.

Second, scale up anticipatory action, increasing the volume and quality of financing for agrifood systems transformation. Investments in resilient agrifood systems are among the most effective tools for preventing, mitigating and responding to food crises.

Third, promote a more equitable, needs-based allocation of humanitarian and development finance for agriculture-one that is informed by the priorities of affected populations and supports longer-term investments capable of addressing the root causes of vulnerability and food crises.

Fourth, encourage the reorientation of domestic public resources towards anticipatory, shock-responsive interventions before crises fully materialize. This includes scaling up climate-resilient agricultural practices, strengthening early warning systems, and expanding social protection for vulnerable populations.

Fifth, mainstream food-crisis prevention and mitigation objectives across development, humanitarian and climate financing priorities, recognizing the interconnected drivers of food crises and the need for coordinated, cross-sectoral responses to build agrifood systems resilience.

Finally, it is essential to acknowledge that limited fiscal space severely constrains many food-crisis countries. Without substantial concessional financing and innovative solutions - such as debt swaps for food security - the scale and sustainability of these measures will remain insufficient. The Food Security Crisis Facility (FSFC) is another example of an innovative instrument designed to ensure financing before crises escalate.