Hunger and Food Systems in Conflict Settings

The Two-Way Links between Conflict and Hunger

Failing food systems and the consequent increase in hunger are among the most pressing issues of our time. The world is falling far short of what is needed to achieve Zero Hunger—the second of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The figures are stark: in 2020, 155 million people were acutely food insecure—an increase of nearly 20 million from the year before. Nearly 30 million people were on the verge of starvation, meaning they did not know where their next meal was coming from (FSIN and GNAFC 2021).

Despite the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, violent conflict remained the main driver of global hunger in 2020 (WFP USA 2021). The number of active violent conflicts is on the rise, and they are becoming increasingly severe and protracted (Pettersson and Öberg 2020). Moreover, there is a pattern of increased violent conflict some two to three years after a major economic crisis—as was the case after the 2008–2009 financial crisis, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the mid-1970s oil price shock—so there are reasons for concern that the number of armed conflicts may well increase in the next two to three years.

A list of those countries facing the worst food crises includes a litany of violent hot spots: Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, South Sudan, Syria, Yemen. All are plagued with ongoing violence and hunger on a tragic scale (FSIN and GNAFC 2021). Of the 10 countries with alarming or extremely alarming hunger in this report, conflict is a major driver in 8 (Figure 2.1).

The broader humanitarian context is rapidly deteriorating, reflecting an increased risk of violent conflict, a growing number of people suffering from hunger worldwide, the unfolding impact of climate change, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first year of the pandemic distorted decades of development. It triggered the deepest global recession in nearly 100 years (OCHA 2021a). It pushed between 88 and 115 million people into extreme poverty in 2020, with estimates warning that a further 25–35 million could fall into extreme poverty in 2021 (World Bank 2020). This situation reverses decades of progress in poverty reduction. The mid- to longterm horizon is darkened by climate change and extreme weather events, which are also drivers of hunger and will increase the risk of conflict in the coming years. While the current situation is grave, heads of major humanitarian organizations are warning of an even more critical humanitarian agenda ahead (Jochum 2020; OCHA 2021b; SIPRI 2020).

The two-way linkages between hunger and conflict are well established and beyond doubt (FSIN and GNAFC 2021; Holleman et al. 2017; Martin-Shields and Stojetz 2019). Violent conflict has a devastating impact on food systems, as it “negatively affects almost every aspect of a food system, from production, harvesting, processing, and transport to input supply, financing, marketing, and consumption” (FAO, IFAD et al. 2021, 54). Lasting food insecurity is a principal legacy of war (Messer and Cohen 2007). At the same time, heightened food insecurity can contribute to violent conflict. Without resolving food insecurity, it will be difficult to build sustainable peace, and without peace the likelihood of ending global hunger is minimal. The situation demands action that is urgent, decisive, and sustained.

The good news is that it is possible to begin to break the destructive linkages between conflict and hunger in the midst of ongoing conflict. Even where there is extreme vulnerability, it is possible to start building resilience. Research from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) shows that, especially when working together, actors such as community groups, local and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), United Nations agencies, and states can create conditions for food security and sustainable peace (Delgado et al. 2019; Delgado 2020; Delgado, Murugani, and Tschunkert 2021). Even small-scale interventions can go a long way toward reducing vulnerability and strengthening local pockets of peace.

Food systems encompass everyone

Food systems in conflict-affected countries are characterized by a high level of informality, structural weakness, and vulnerability to shocks. To appreciate their vulnerability, we first need to understand that food systems comprise everything and everybody connected to the production, distribution, consumption, and disposal of food. It is useful to think of food systems as the combination of four systems:

• the natural system of earth, water, and climate, which determines the basic conditions for the production of food;

• the technical agricultural system, including the crops grown and livestock raised;

• the logistical and distributive system that takes products from point of origin to market and onward to waste disposal; and

• the social and economic system that shapes relationships, including international ones, between producers, distributors, and consumers.

Because food systems are also social systems and reflect the inequalities found in all societies, food security is vulnerable to challenges ranging from pandemics to violence.

Violent conflicts affect food systems directly and indirectly - with major impacts in rural areas

In conflict-affected countries, about 60 percent of people live in rural areas. Agriculture is the mainstay of their livelihoods, and food systems tend to be localized and traditional (Vos et al. 2020). Violent conflict has a direct negative impact on these food systems. It reduces people’s ability to produce, trade, and buy food. Violent conflict can also affect food systems indirectly through its impacts on health, energy, and transport systems. In many cases, the effects of violent conflict and of climate change intersect with each other to exacerbate communities’ risks and vulnerabilities. Likewise, a failure in the food system has a social impact. Extreme circumstances tend to reduce people’s inhibitions against engaging in violence. Food insecurity creates grievances that can escalate into instability and violent conflict, acting as a channel for individuals or groups to express broader socioeconomic and political grievances.

Under conflict, black markets flourish

Armed conflict generally reduces the functioning of formal markets and the capacity and presence of the national government in conflict-affected areas. This double effect has a heavy impact on food systems. It makes resources less available—including agricultural inputs like seeds and feed—and reduces the ability of governments to effectively use measures such as rationing and price controls to mitigate the impact of violence. Violent conflict makes it harder for farmers to get their products to market and increases the costs for consumers. This confluence of factors in turn generates the conditions under which black markets flourish. In many conflict-affected settings, informal arrangements come to dominate most transactions all along the supply chain (Delgado, Murugani, and Tschunkert 2021). In Afghanistan, for example, where food systems have been affected by decades of armed conflict, there is a striking lack of formal markets for agricultural inputs. These have instead been smuggled in from neighboring countries (Hiller, Hilhorst, and Weijs 2014). Similarly, since the collapse of the Siad Barre regime in Somalia in 1991, that country has maintained a functioning informal economy dominated by livestock, remittance inflows, and money transfers. The livestock sector, which provides food and income to more than 60 percent of the population, has been a major contributor to the thriving unofficial economy thanks to unregistered livestock exports to Ethiopia and Kenya (Maystadt and Ecker 2014).

Although informal markets can serve an important function for conflict-burdened communities, they can also heighten households’ exposure to risks and shocks. This is because small-scale producers lack access to insurance, credit, and cash flows with which to cushion the impact of the unreliable supply chains and volatile prices that characterize informal markets. Worse, the war economies that informal arrangements underpin can have a corrosive influence on the sustainability of peace, even after the fighting stops (Pugh, Cooper, and Goodhand 2004).

Though Venezuela is experiencing an economic and political crisis rather than open armed conflict, it represents another case in point. Until the mid-2010s, the country benefited from abundant petroleum resources and a relatively strong economy. When oil prices started to drop in 2014, the resulting crisis quickly worsened food insecurity.

The government responded by providing subsidized food boxes to vulnerable households. However, corrupt officials have diverted food boxes to the black market, exacerbating food shortages and allowing some of those who operate the scheme to overcharge both the government and consumers (Pielago 2020). At the same time, there have been reports that the government is using the subsidized food to reward political loyalty (Rendon and Mendales 2018). The humanitarian crisis has pushed many civilians into criminal activity in order to survive and consequently strengthened criminal networks. As a result, crime and violence in Venezuela have spiraled, and the gangs’ reach now extends into neighboring Colombia and Central America (van Roekel and de Theije 2020).

Violent conflict is increasing

As a general proposition, peace is more likely to be built and sustained if it is linked to secure livelihoods and food security, and vice versa (Vos et al. 2020). Yet current global, regional, and national trends are discouraging and threaten the achievement of Zero Hunger and other SDG ambitions by 2030. Global security has deteriorated significantly since 2010. In 2020, worldwide, there were 56 armed conflicts involving states, either in conflict with other states or with rebel forces; 72 violent conflicts in which states were not involved (nonstate); and a further 41 in which the state or a rebel force was the only actor and its opponents were unarmed (UCDP 2020; Figure 2.2).

All three forms of conflict have risen significantly in the past decade, with nonstate conflicts alone increasing by 148 percent. By 2020, military spending had risen to its highest level since before the end of the Cold War, as had the international trade in major weapons (Wezeman et al. 2020). The increasingly toxic nature of global geopolitics is clear in the triangular relationship between China, Russia, and the United States and their respective allies (Smith 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021). This international context is not conducive to cooperation or conflict mediation.

Recovery is long and complex

Emerging and recovering from violent conflict can take decades. Violence continues in Afghanistan, which now has the second-highest number of people in emergency food insecurity in the world (OCHA 2021c). Although Somalia gradually recovered from food insecurity and famine in 2011, food insecurity is worsening once again, and more than half a million people are on the brink of famine, in large part owing to conflict (WFP 2021b; FSIN and GNAFC 2021). Youth unemployment is high (it stood at 67 percent a few years ago)—a key concern, as unemployed youth are a prime target for extremist recruitment (World Bank 2015). Syria and Yemen are further examples of protracted armed conflicts with profound crises of food insecurity, ill health, and social trauma (WFP 2021d,e). Support for these countries must address the livelihood needs of hard-hit, long-suffering communities so they can, in time, generate food security for themselves. If not, the cycle of grievance will continue, potentially fueling a resurgence of violent conflict (Strandh and Yusriza 2021; Vos et al. 2020). Because of this kind of feedback loop and risk of conflict recidivism, the World Bank estimates that it takes an average of 15–30 years for a conflict-affected country to raise itself from the level of Haiti—which in 2020 ranked 170th out of 189 in the Human Development Index—to that of a reasonably well-functioning state such as Ghana, which ranked 138th that same year (World Bank 2011; UNDP 2020).

The pathways from conflict to increased food insecurity—and from increased food insecurity to conflict—are unique to each case and often complex. That is because, as the examples cited show, there are many underlying causes of both food insecurity and conflict, interacting in different combinations. The capacity of people and communities to cope with threats to their livelihoods is also specific to each setting. Breaking the links between conflict and hunger and fully harnessing the potential of food systems to contribute to peace will demand good contextual evidence, well-grounded knowledge of the setting, and cooperation between peace, humanitarian, and development actors.

Evidence shows advances are possible

Research demonstrates that progress is possible even in the most unfavorable circumstances. SIPRI’s research on the impact of the work of the World Food Programme (WFP) on the prospects for peace suggests that, even in an inimical global environment, efforts can be made to leverage resilient food systems to help advance peace (Delgado et al. 2019). Scaling up these efforts could generate tangible progress, if not fulfillment of the highest ambition.

In northeast Nigeria, many communities lie in areas controlled by nonstate armed groups. Those who have managed to escape have mostly fled to garrison towns surrounded by defensive trenches. Having lost access to their livelihoods, they depend on food aid. The risk of famine is steadily increasing. However, humanitarian organizations are implementing small-scale interventions to enhance resilience by enabling households to cultivate food crops in the trenches. Although most households still depend on food aid, this practice helps them meet their immediate food needs and prevents the loss of skills from one generation to the next. It maintains employment and contributes to a sense of community engagement. Furthermore, SIPRI’s research suggests that generating hope for better livelihoods in the area helps prevent recruitment by nonstate armed groups (Delgado, Tschunkert, and Riquier 2021).

Similar findings have emerged in remote areas of Colombia. In the wake of the 2016 peace accords between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), small-scale livelihood interventions helped reintegrate former rebel combatants. Local production of animal feed increased the viability of keeping small farm animals. The ex-combatants and local farmers received training on climate-resilient farming practices and on marketing. The money earned through the projects went toward salaries, and additional gains were reinvested in community works. These activities generated both employment and a sense of engagement among ex-combatants, which are crucial for maintaining their motivation to remain part of the peace process, especially given that some nonstate armed groups continue to offer lucrative alternatives. The ex-combatants’ active engagement in the projects, their leadership skills, and their commitment were important catalysts for wider community engagement and critical elements in the reconciliation and reincorporation process. Furthermore, the intervention increased the economic value of local perishable products; generated local markets in an area largely cut off from wider markets, allowing community members to diversify production and increase income, nutritional intake, and food security; and made communities more resilient to the impact of climate change (Delgado 2020).

Similar kinds of action can help build sustainable and equitable local food systems in violence-affected urban areas as well. Capacity building and skills training for vulnerable youth in gang-controlled areas in San Salvador, which involved linking up with restaurateurs and retailers, had a dampening effect on gang recruitment. It is worth noting, however, that capacity building and skills training to give young people the chance to obtain jobs can have the unintended consequence of serving as a push factor for irregular migration abroad. A cook in El Salvador earns US$300 per month on average, whereas a similar job in the United States pays on average US$500 a week. Nationwide in El Salvador, more than 360,000 young people enter the job market each year whereas only 127,000 jobs are created annually (ECLAC 2019). While economic migration per se can be positive, irregular migration risks exposing individuals to severe violations of their human and civil rights in countries of transit and destination (Delgado 2019).

These examples illustrate some of the pathways for strengthening food systems and helping generate conditions conducive to peace. Sustainable, equitable food systems offer food and nutrition security while limiting negative environmental impacts. They are socially inclusive and improve general well-being. They thus contribute to allaround community resilience, which equips communities to respond well to challenges such as climate change, extreme weather events, economic shocks, and the risk of violent conflict (CIAT 2019; Policy Link 2021). The fact that food systems are social systems (as well as natural, agricultural, and logistical systems) means that strengthening them demands much more than technical knowledge and resources. Especially for those undertaking or supporting interventions from abroad, contextual knowledge and sensitivity to conflict risk are essential attributes.

Unintended consequences pose risks

While progress is always possible, care is always needed. The risk of unintended consequences, seen with the San Salvador culinary projects, arises in different ways in many places. In the Colombian agricultural projects, reincorporation of ex-combatants may ultimately depend on fundamental social change; if that does not happen, setbacks may occur. Further, project-based interventions can be unsustainable and generate aid dependency. Enhancing food security enhances the prospects for peace but does not guarantee it; any return to violent conflict generates vulnerability to food insecurity—and the risk of a return to violent conflict is always present. A World Bank study found that of the 103 countries that experienced civil war in the 65 years after 1945, only 44 avoided relapse after peace had been agreed to; in fact, most civil wars today are, in one way or another, continuations of previous conflicts (Walter 2011). All who are attempting to build peace would do well to pay attention to these risks. In rural Colombia, one community that had integrated former combatants yearned for improved infrastructure. However, they cautiously rejected the construction of a road to the community for fear of retaliatory attacks by other nonstate armed groups (Delgado 2020).

The complexities of food systems and of conflict and peace-building environments present many difficulties. It is hard for individual organizations and institutions working in the fields of food security and peace building to take full account of the diversity of actors, the multiplicity of levels and processes, and the effects of feedback loops. The scale of the task, however, does not constitute a reason not to try. At a modest level of ambition, the challenge is to ensure that food assistance is delivered in a way that is sensitive to the risk of conflict. More ambitiously, in working to achieve the linked goals of sustainable food security and sustainable peace, the challenge is not simply to avoid doing harm but to do good. This work calls for integrating a peace-building lens into the effort to create resilient food systems and a food security lens into peace building. To move along that road, we see four priorities.

Priority 1: Adopt a flexible and agile approach

Understanding local context is crucial. How peace is understood can vary dramatically along ethnic, sectarian, regional, or political lines, where perceptions of risks and grievances may differ (Kanbur, Rajaram, and Varshney 2010; McKeown, Cavdar, and Taylor 2019). Using a definition of peace from one group can create grievances with another. Challenges in building peace also evolve over time, and new concerns are identified.

Concurrently, new challenges to the community arise—an extreme weather event, an economic downturn, violent conflict in a neighboring area, a pandemic—and responses to them may be decisive for sustaining or undermining the prospects for peace. Likewise, food systems are highly contextual, face evolving challenges in achieving security, and must thus be supported with flexibility and responsiveness.

Lastly, both food systems and peace are generated by the intersection of different processes and dynamics and are challenged by a cluster of different risk factors. Thus, action to support peace building as part of food security interventions must be flexible, agile, and able to adapt to changing circumstances and concerns.

Priority 2: Work through partnerships

Although understanding the local context is crucial, it is not enough. It is also important to know what has worked in other contexts, what has not worked, and what has caused problems. This is where partnerships come in. The insights of the people, groups, and organizations who truly know the locality must be brought together with the knowledge generated through research and action in a range of different contexts. National governments and international organizations, whether NGOs or UN agencies, cannot be successful without local partners, and local partners are likewise unlikely to be successful on their own. No single person or organization can know or do it all—the answer is to work together.

It matters, though, how partnerships are designed. All too often, national governments and international agencies conduct their own strategic planning and bring in local groups only as implementing partners. To be more effective, partnerships must involve local partners at the idea stage of strategies and projects, as well as during implementation and monitoring.

Priority 3: Pursue integrative ways of working

If peace is a precondition for food security, while food security is a precondition for peace, and resilience in the face of climate change strengthens both, it makes sense to find ways to work on all three issues at once. Working in partnership makes this easier. One way to do this in a conflict-affected country is to institutionalize cooperation in the form of food-and-peace hubs. This proposal for hubs, which emerged in the buildup to the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit, would draw in those organizations—from communities, from provincial and national governments, and from international actors - that are working to tackle food insecurity and build peace. The aim is to convene them all, enable access to resources, and encourage and incentivize cooperation. This approach would connect not only different actors but also different issues and problems in fruitful ways.

Many issues remain to be worked out to make this concept viable. Connecting the different actors and stakeholders—a key part of the concept—will work only if there is enough mutual respect and commonality of purpose. Forward movement on peace and food security will depend on what the World Bank’s seminal 2011 report Conflict, Security, and Development referred to as “inclusive-enough coalitions” (World Bank 2011).

However, it is not easy to assess whether coalitions and partnerships are inclusive enough in the abstract. It takes the test of experience: we will know they are adequately constituted if they work. Bringing actors together in food-and-peace hubs does not guarantee the consolidation of peace and sustainable food security. The hubs are only a mechanism for achieving what is fundamental— partnerships of equals involving everyone who needs to be involved.

Priority 4: Break down funding siloes

This essay’s emphasis on intersecting risks is increasingly widely accepted. No international conference on these issues is complete without several ministers and senior officials saying that we must all break out of—or break down—the siloes in our thinking and in our actions between different but evidently related issues. The fact that this exhortation is a cliché does not make it untrue or uninteresting. Such statements are obvious but generate no action. Why not? A large part of the answer is because financing is still siloed. Governments, aid agencies, and donors that claim to want an integrative approach must reexamine how they allocate funding and try new, more integrated funding models that direct funding precisely toward the points of intersection. To do so, they need a mechanism that is able also to act on those points of intersection—such as the food-and-peace hubs.