10045th meeting of the United Nations Security Council - Conflict-related food insecurity: Framing the global dialogue: addressing food insecurity as a driver of conflict and[...]

10045th meeting of the United Nations Security Council - Conflict-related food insecurity: Framing the global dialogue: addressing food insecurity as a driver of conflict and ensuring food security for sustainable peace

Máximo Torero, FAO Chief Economist

17/11/2025

1. At the outset, I wish to thank His Excellency the President of Sierra Leone for convening this timely and important open debate on Conflict-Related Food Insecurity Addressing Food Insecurity as a Driver and Consequence of Conflict, and for inviting FAO to contribute to this discussion.

   Mr President,

2. Around the world, nearly 673 million people still go to bed hungry. In Africa, 307 million men, women, and children lack sufficient food; in Asia, the number rises to 323 million; while in Latin America and the Caribbean, 34 million face undernourishment. These are not abstract statistics. They represent children whose growth is stunted, families forced to leave their homes, and nations whose social fabric is under strain. More and more, hunger and instability go hand in hand.
3. Food insecurity is no longer just a humanitarian challenge; it is a matter of global peace and security. When families cannot afford to eat, social contracts weaken. When farmers lose their crops to droughts or floods, and conflicts or wars, local markets falter, and tensions flare. When international food prices spike, or price volatility becomes excessive, protests erupt in cities from Port-au-Prince to Cairo. Rigorous empirical research confirms this: higher global food prices and excessive volatility are directly associated with more social unrest events, with effects strongest in poorer countries and urban settings. ^1,
4. For over two decades, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, together with its partners, has been at the forefront of global efforts to shape evidence-based responses to food insecurity, particularly in the world's most fragile and conflict-affected settings.
5. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC, was first developed by FAO in 2004 in Somalia. At the time, the need for a robust, consensus-driven, and actionable food security measurement tool was clear-humanitarian actors required reliable information to guide effective response in a complex and volatile environment. What began as a country-specific tool has since evolved into a global standard, serving as a "common currency" for food security and nutrition analysis in emergency contexts.
6. The IPC now provides comparable findings in over 30 countries, many of which are facing the world's most severe food crises-such as Gaza, South Sudan, Sudan and Yemen. When combined with the Cadre Harmonisé, a similar analytical framework used in 17 countries across West Africa and the Sahel, their combined coverage extended to nearly 50 countries globally.
7. Designed to generate actionable knowledge in difficult contexts, these tools collectively inform over US$6 billion in humanitarian assistance each year, guiding strategic decisions and resource allocation in some of the most complex and high-risk environments.
8. Today, the IPC Global Initiative-hosted by FAO-brings together 21 international and intergovernmental institutions, including UN agencies, regional organizations, and NGOs. These partners work collectively to ensure the technical quality, neutrality, and comparability of food security and nutrition analysis in the emergency contexts in which they are applied.
9. How does this work? Based on careful analysis of all available information, the IPC framework assigns geographic areas into one of five phases of acute food insecurity and of acute malnutrition, based on the most severe condition faced by at least 20% of the population. Phase 1 corresponds to minimal or no food insecurity, while phase 5, Famine, is the most extreme category, indicating catastrophic conditions marked by starvation, destitution, extreme levels of acute malnutrition and elevated mortality.
10. IPC is now the primary mechanism the international community to determine whether Famine is happening or projected to occur in a country.
11. The IPC process ensures the highest quality and neutrality of food insecurity classifications through a rigorous, standardized system built on cross-validation of multiple data sources and expert technical consensus. All evidence used must meet strict IPC methodological criteria, and datasets are systematically triangulated - combining food security, nutrition, livelihoods, market, and climate indicators - to confirm consistency and reliability. A multi-agency team of government specialists, FAO, WFP, UNICEF, NGOs, and independent experts jointly reviews and validates the evidence, ensuring that classifications reflect a convergence of robust, independently verified information. Finally, regional and global IPC Quality Assurance teams conduct an additional layer of review before results are released, guaranteeing that every classification is grounded in sound, cross-checked data and expert validation.
12. When an IPC analysis in a country indicates a situation of Famine, an ad hoc dedicated procedure is triggered to rigorously assess the plausibility of that conclusion. At this stage, the Famine Review Committee, or FRC, is convened. This is a group of highly respected, independent experts in food security, nutrition, and public health. The FRC's role is to examine the available evidence, debate the findings, and ensure that the analysis meets the highest standards of technical rigor, integrity and neutrality.
13. Only after this review is a Famine classification confirmed and communicated. This process is essential to maintaining trust in IPC results, especially in politically sensitive environments.
14. In the current global context of escalating conflict and fragility and shrinking humanitarian funding that drives geographic and sectoral prioritization, the IPC is more critical than ever-and must not only be supported but protected as a cornerstone of evidence-based decision-making.
15. Just in the past year, the Famine Review Committee has confirmed Famine on three separate occasions: twice in Sudan (December 2024 and November 2025) and once in Gaza (August 2025). This marks the first time that Famine - driven by conflict - has been confirmed more than once in a single year.
16. When a Famine is confirmed, the IPC provides the critical evidence that decision makers need to act. Alongside its findings, the Famine Review Committee issues a set of targeted recommendations addressed to key stakeholders. These include recommended action for senior decision-makers and resource partners, which must be considered for swift implementation through existing humanitarian and diplomatic mechanisms.
17. But we can all agree waiting for a Famine to happen to take decisive action is far too late. In both Sudan and Gaza, the IPC had already issued early warning signals, calling for immediate action to prevent the worst outcomes. These warnings were delivered in two ways: first, by projecting (or forecasting) famine within a defined future period based on the most likely scenario; second, by issuing "risk of Famine" statements grounded in alternative worst-case scenarios. These warnings offered a critical window of opportunity - first, for humanitarian diplomacy to secure access to affected populations; and second, to respond to critical needs before conditions deteriorated further.
18. The IPC is not just a technical tool-it is a lifeline for the millions of people living on the frontlines of conflict and hunger. It provides the international community with the clarity and credibility needed to act decisively, especially in the most complex environments. The recent confirmations of Famine in Sudan and Gaza are stark reminders that conflict continues to drive food insecurity and malnutrition to catastrophic levels.
19. The lesson is clear: where there is hunger, there will be unrest. Where there is resilience, there can be peace. Global leaders must treat food security as a peace dividend, not an afterthought. If we are serious about preventing conflict, we must be serious about ensuring that every person, in every country, has access to affordable, nutritious, and healthy food.
    
20. Food security is not only a moral imperative. It is the most practical path to peace.