Hand in Hand for Better Foods and a Better Future? Taking Stock of Global Food Security after the 2025 World Food Forum – Australian Institute of International Affairs

Report on the World Food Forum: Aligning Agrifood Systems with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

The recent World Food Forum, facilitated by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), convened over 16,000 participants to foster partnerships for transforming agrifood systems. The event underscored commitments to sustainable agriculture, youth engagement, and innovation, directly supporting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. However, significant challenges persist, including geopolitical tensions, shifting investment priorities, and infrastructure deficits, which threaten progress on key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Forum Outcomes and Commitments to the SDGs

The Forum yielded critical outputs that align with a multi-faceted approach to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals:

1. Investment for SDG 2: Pledges amounting to $17.2 billion were made, demonstrating a financial commitment to advancing initiatives aimed at achieving SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).
2. Youth Empowerment and Innovation: A strong focus on youth-led solutions signals a strategic shift towards more inclusive and agile models, contributing to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by empowering the next generation of food system leaders.
3. Integrated Approaches for Multiple SDGs: The Forum recognized the necessity of breaking down silos to address the convergence of water (SDG 6), health (SDG 3), and food (SDG 2) systems, promoting a holistic framework for sustainable development.
4. Cultural Heritage and Biodiversity: An emphasis on cultural heritage, particularly indigenous methods for farming and preserving biodiversity, supports the objectives of SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Analysis of Prevailing Challenges to SDG Achievement

Despite ambitious commitments, several political and financial realities present obstacles to the successful implementation of the SDGs within the agrifood sector.

• Competing National Priorities and Funding for SDGs: A growing focus on defense and national security among major donor nations has led to reductions in foreign aid and development budgets. This shift directly challenges the financing required for SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and necessitates a stronger articulation of the interconnectedness between food security and global stability.
• Evolving Partnership Landscape: The global funding environment is evolving, with reduced contributions from some traditional donors and the emergence of new actors such as Brazil, the UAE, and China. Navigating this new landscape requires enhanced coordination under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) to maximize resource effectiveness and align diverse national interests with global food security objectives.
• Infrastructure Gaps vs. Localised Solutions: Modern agrifood systems are vulnerable to global supply chain disruptions, which are increasingly impacted by climate change (SDG 13). Addressing these vulnerabilities requires significant investment in resilient infrastructure (SDG 9). Concurrently, there is a critical need to channel more financing directly to local communities and smallholder farmers, as less than 5% of donor funds currently reach the local level, hindering progress on SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Conclusion: Re-evaluating Multilateral Engagement for SDG Implementation

The challenges identified raise a broader question regarding the efficacy of the current structure and frequency of multilateral engagements. The packed calendar of high-level summits, including the Africa Food Systems Forum, COP, and the G20, often involves similar stakeholders discussing related food security topics. A critical assessment is required to determine if these forums are translating commitments into measurable action or if a more cost-effective, equitable, and climate-conscious approach is needed to accelerate progress towards global food security and the comprehensive achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are relevant to the article:

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The entire article is centered on global food security, sustainable agriculture, and transforming agri-food systems. It discusses the World Food Forum, investment pledges for food security, and the launch of the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article heavily emphasizes the role of partnerships, multilateralism, and collaboration. It discusses the World Food Forum as a venue for connecting governments, multilateral organizations, and youth. It also highlights the challenges in global partnerships, such as shifting funding priorities among major donors (US, UK, Germany) and the emergence of new actors (Brazil, UAE, China).
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: The article points to “significant infrastructure gaps” and the need for “major infrastructure investments needed in ports, roads, and transit systems” to secure food supply chains. It also highlights the Forum’s focus on “technical innovation” and “youth-led solutions” as key to advancing agri-food systems.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The article links climate change directly to food security challenges, mentioning the need for a “climate-resilient agri-food system” and how climate change impacts “food supply chain chokepoints like the Panama Canal.” It also references major climate-related convenings like COP and Climate Week.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article implicitly addresses this goal through its focus on food security, a fundamental component of poverty reduction. The mention of the “Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty” launched by Brazil directly connects the fight against hunger with the fight against poverty.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. The article’s core theme is achieving global food security and addressing hunger through international efforts like the World Food Forum.
  • Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality. The article mentions commitments to “sustainable agriculture” and the need for a “climate-resilient agri-food system.”
  • Target 2.a: Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries. The article explicitly mentions “Investment pledges of $17.2 billion” and discusses the challenges and shifts in the funding landscape for food security.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  • Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments. The article directly discusses this by highlighting how major donors like the United Kingdom and Germany have “slashed support for foreign aid and global development.”
  • Target 17.3: Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources. The article discusses the shifting funding landscape, the need to bring new partners “into the fold,” and the emergence of new actors like Brazil, the UAE, and China in the food security space.
  • Target 17.16: Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries. The article describes the World Food Forum as a multi-stakeholder event and questions the effectiveness of the “cadence of multilateral summits” in fostering genuine action.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

  • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all. The article identifies “significant infrastructure gaps” and the vulnerability of “food supply chain chokepoints,” emphasizing the need for “major infrastructure investments needed in ports, roads, and transit systems.”
  • Target 9.b: Support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries. The article highlights the World Food Forum’s focus on “youth-led solutions and innovation” and “technical innovation” as key outputs.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators:

• Indicator for Target 2.a (Investment in agriculture): The article provides a specific financial figure: “Investment pledges of $17.2 billion.” This serves as a direct quantitative indicator of financial commitments to food security.
• Indicator for Target 17.2 (Official development assistance): The article implies the use of “percentage of GDP” as an indicator. It notes that some European donors are making “new commitments to spend 5% of GDP on defense and resilience,” which directly impacts and contrasts with their spending on foreign aid. This points to the official indicator of Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a proportion of Gross National Income (GNI).
• Indicator for localization of aid (relevant to multiple targets): The article provides a specific percentage: “less than 5% of donor funds trickle down to the local level.” This is a clear indicator measuring the effectiveness of aid delivery and the financing available to support local communities and farmers.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: internationalaffairs.org.au