Food Sovereignty under Overlapping Global Crises: Policy Action Pathways for Sustainable Food Systems

Food Sovereignty Under Compounding Global Crises: Policy Action Pathways for Sustainable Food Systems

Subtitle: A policy and practice review published in *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems* notes that climate shocks, armed conflict, economic recession, and the aftermath of the pandemic are compounding to weaken food systems in the Global South, and five interrelated pathways are seen as focal points for policy and practice

Introduction

Global hunger levels remain persistently high. A policy and practice review published in *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems* on May 25, 2026, citing 2024 data from FAO and other institutions, notes that more than 733 million people go to bed hungry every day. The Global Hunger Index (GHI) report published by Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe shows that nine countries are at the most severe hunger level, while another 34 are classified as having “serious” hunger—all located in the Global South.

In this review, titled “Food sovereignty amidst global catastrophes: a call to action for sustainable food systems,” the author team from the Department of Food Science and Technology at Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources in Malawi (Gareth Osman, Isabel Chikwenga, Richard Banda, Chimwemwe Chilenga, Khumbo Mhango, Victor Munkhuwa, Millias Mchimwa, Urunji Mezuwa, corresponding author William Kasapila) argues that climate, conflict, economic shocks, and epidemics are no longer independent challenges; rather, they act together on food systems in prolonged, overlapping ways. With less than five years until the 2030 deadline for the Sustainable Development Goals, this situation means a worrying reversal in related progress.

Main Text

Crises Are No Longer Isolated Events

The review groups the drivers of the current global food crisis into several categories: climate change, armed conflict and war, economic shocks associated with global recession, soaring food, energy, and fertilizer prices, and the long-term socioeconomic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors interact, weakening food systems and eroding livelihoods.

The authors note that the most severely affected countries were often already in a vulnerable state before the crisis arrived—poverty, weak infrastructure, and fragile governance systems. Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia have been hit hardest over the past two decades. Without intervention, the consequences may form a vicious cycle of poverty and hunger that will be difficult to break even around 2030.### From Food Security to Food Sovereignty

The article provides a clear definition of “food sovereignty”: it is not merely the availability of food, but who controls the food system, how decisions are made, and whose interests are prioritized (Food Sovereignty Forum, 2007). It emphasizes that people, communities, and nations have the right to define their own food and agricultural systems in socially just, environmentally sustainable, and culturally appropriate ways.

The author particularly distinguishes food security from food sovereignty: availability, access, utilization, and stability are necessary conditions, but they are not sufficient to ensure sovereignty. Unlike “national self-sufficiency,” food sovereignty allows trade and exchange, but insists that such participation must not undermine local autonomy, governance capacity, and the agency of producers and consumers.

Five Pathways

The review adopts a structured integrative narrative review method, draws on the three-stage framework of Jernigan et al. (2021), and uses the food system framework of the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE, 2017) as an analytical lens—a framework that divides the food system into three interconnected parts: food supply chains, food environments, and consumer behavior, which is used to code and interpret the evidence. The entire review revolves around two questions: through which pathways crises weaken food sovereignty; and in Global South countries, which specific actions are most likely to enhance resilience.

From this, five interrelated pathways are identified:

1. Access to productive resources: basic conditions such as land, water resources, and inputs; 2. Productive capacity and agroecological resilience: including agroecological practices, as well as the soil and biodiversity foundations pointed to by regenerative agriculture; 3. Trade, markets, and economic accessibility: how price volatility and market access affect household-level food access; 4. Food consumption and nutrition: moving from calorie supply to nutritional quality and dietary diversity; 5. Governance and institutional capacity: policy space, public institutional capacity, and community agency.

The author emphasizes that these pathways are not a parallel checklist but are nested within one another: the strength or weakness of governance capacity often determines whether the other four pathways can truly function.

Who Should Bear ResponsibilityThe conclusion of the review offers recommendations for multiple stakeholders: wealthy countries, governments of Global South countries, multilateral donors, humanitarian organizations, investors, and private enterprises should all assume greater responsibility within their respective jurisdictions—this is also a commitment made by all parties at occasions such as COP29, the G20 Summit, and the UN Food Systems Summit+4. The authors call for directing investment toward sustainable agriculture and food systems to avoid recurring food crises and hunger. The article also points out that these actions are directly related to several Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Industry Impact

From the perspective of agricultural technology (AgriTech / Agricultural Technology) and the food industry, the value of this review lies not in proposing a particular technological solution, but in reordering priorities.

Agricultural Production Efficiency: The article lists "production capacity and agroecological resilience" as an independent pathway, implying that the logic of purely pursuing yield increases is being subjected to stricter scrutiny. For tools such as precision agriculture (Precision Agriculture), smart irrigation, and soil sensors to be truly implemented, they need to match local resource conditions and farm operating scales, rather than being promoted as a uniform template.

Farm Operating Models and Labor Structure: When governance capacity and policy space are placed at the center, technology adoption at the farm level is no longer just a matter of return on investment. The position of cooperatives, producer organizations, and smallholders in the decision-making chain will directly affect the actual penetration rate of smart farming (Smart Farming) solutions.

Food Supply Chains and Food Prices: The review separately addresses trade, markets, and economic accessibility, indicating that the impact of food price transmission mechanisms and market access conditions on household food access may be no less than technological improvements at the production end. This is an important reminder for companies engaged in the digitalization of the global food supply chain (Global Food Supply Chain) and agricultural trade.

Agricultural Investment Directions: The article calls on all parties to fulfill commitments made at climate summits and high-level forums, directing funds toward sustainable farming (Sustainable Farming) and food systems. For capital focused on food technology (FoodTech), alternative proteins, food processing, and food safety, this provides a reference framework in the policy context; but it also means that evaluation criteria for ESG and climate adaptation projects may become stricter.

Global Trade Patterns and Food Security (Food Security): The concept of food sovereignty itself recognizes the legitimacy of trade, but adds the condition of "not harming local autonomy." This statement sets the premise for discussion on the future evolution of international agricultural supply chains.It should be noted that this review focuses on policy and governance and does not list technological tools such as agricultural AI (Agricultural AI) or agricultural robots as core variables. For the agritech industry, this itself is a signal: technology is seen as a possible supporting condition, rather than the solution itself.

Future Observations

• Next 3–5 years: As the 2030 deadline approaches, the policy space and institutional capacity of Global South countries in food systems governance will become key variables in assessing progress, not just production data.
• Direction of agritech development: Agricultural technologies and data platforms that can adapt to small-scale operations and low-infrastructure conditions may receive more policy attention than automation solutions aimed at large farms.
• Prospects for agricultural automation and agricultural AI applications: Technology’s role in improving production efficiency is still widely recognized, but under the food sovereignty framework, its evaluation criteria will increasingly incorporate impacts on local autonomy and producers’ agency.
• Changes in global food demand: The compounding of population growth and climate risks continues to make the stability of food supply systems a long-term issue.
• Hotspots for agricultural capital investment: Climate adaptation, regenerative agriculture, agroecological practices, and food supply chain resilience are expected to continue attracting public and private capital.
• Food tech innovation trends: As nutritional quality and dietary diversity are incorporated into pathways, the evaluation dimensions of food tech may expand from “new products” to “accessibility and nutritional outcomes.”

Conclusion

This review does not provide a techno-optimist answer. It is closer to a list of responsibilities: in an era where climate, conflict, economic, and health crises overlap, the question of food sovereignty ultimately points to governance capacity, policy space, and agency. For the agritech and food industries, this means the metric of innovation value is shifting—beyond efficiency, it must also answer who decides, who benefits, and whether the system can continue to function amid shocks.

Source: Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems — Food sovereignty amidst global catastrophes: a call to action for sustainable food systems