At the launch of the 10th Global Report on Food Crises, Development Minister Chapman used the occasion to make a clear policy argument: hunger is worsening, the main drivers are already well understood, and the international response is still too reactive. In the UK government's published speech, the report was treated not simply as an annual assessment, but as a test of whether states and donors are willing to change how they act. Chapman said the UK's participation in the Global Network Against Food Crises reflects a preference for policy shaped by shared evidence, early warning and tighter coordination. The emphasis was on turning analysis into earlier decisions, rather than adding another layer of diagnosis.
The speech placed conflict at the centre of the food security picture. Referring to the Middle East, Sudan and Ukraine, Chapman said the world is more fragile than it has been in decades and argued that conflict remains a leading cause of hunger and malnutrition. That assessment aligns with the report finding cited in the speech: more than 80 per cent of people facing severe hunger live in places affected by protracted conflict, fragility or crisis. Chapman's point was that war does not just destroy crops or supply lines in isolation; it also disrupts trade, livelihoods and local markets, while climate stress and economic shocks make those effects harder to absorb.
Chapman also tied geopolitical disruption to immediate market risk. She cited the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as a fresh pressure point, warning that higher fuel and fertiliser costs travel quickly through food systems and usually hit poorer households first. The speech said the United Nations does not regard a global food price crisis as inevitable, but does see the risk rising if these pressures persist. Countries dependent on Gulf fertiliser imports, including in parts of Asia, were described as highly exposed, while many states in sub-Saharan Africa face additional pressure as higher fuel and transport costs feed through into domestic prices.
A central message in the speech was that earlier action still has not been matched by a serious shift in practice. Chapman said governments, donors and agencies have spent years agreeing that prevention is preferable to late emergency response, yet the necessary change in behaviour remains limited. The policy answer set out by the minister was greater investment in resilience: stronger systems to identify risk before it escalates, earlier support to protect livelihoods, and more consistent help for communities adapting to climate change. In practical terms, that means using early warnings soon enough to steady household incomes and food access before a local shock turns into a large humanitarian emergency.
Chapman pointed to Food Crisis Preparedness Plans as one way of doing that. She said she had recently co-chaired, with Somalia's Deputy Prime Minister, the first global roundtable to trigger one of the plans, presenting it as an example of country-led early warning backed by shared evidence and coordinated partner action. The description was measured rather than sweeping. Chapman said the approach does not solve every resource problem, but it does improve coordination and can save more lives by moving sooner. For policymakers, the implication is straightforward: warning systems only matter if they trigger pre-agreed financing and operational decisions in time.
The speech then turned to the use of scarce resources. Chapman argued that forecasts must be used more systematically so funding reaches the points of highest impact, reducing immediate suffering while also cutting the risk of larger needs later. The criticism extended beyond funding levels to the way institutions behave, with too much of the system still responding after crisis escalation rather than acting on credible signals beforehand. She also made an explicit case for stronger coordination between agencies and donors. In her account, siloed working continues even when the human cost is already visible. That is why the speech called for deeper engagement from climate funds and international financial institutions, particularly in fragile countries where the scale of need cannot be met by humanitarian budgets alone.
The final section widened the argument from aid delivery to the broader policy toolkit. Humanitarian assistance, Chapman said, will always be necessary to save lives, but long-term food insecurity will not be reduced by short funding cycles and stand-alone projects. She cited a recent conversation with Uganda's finance minister, who argued that long-term problems are still being met with short-term instruments, producing the same discussions repeatedly. From that starting point, Chapman said governments need to use diplomacy, science, peacekeeping and trade alongside development finance if they want more durable results. She also argued that no single actor can close the gap between need and available resources, which is why stronger partnerships across governments, multilaterals, civil society, business and local institutions are essential. A forthcoming Global Partnerships Conference, convened with BII, CIFF and South Africa, was presented as the next opportunity to test that country-led approach in practice. The wider message of the 2026 report, as the minister framed it, is that food and nutrition policy now sits directly alongside development, stability and peace.