Fourth Special Report
The International Development Committee published its Third Report of Session 2024–25, The Government’s efforts to achieve SDG2: Zero Hunger (HC 515), on 18 March 2025. The Government’s response was received on 14 May 2025 and is appended below.
Appendix: Government Response
Introduction
1. The UK Government is grateful to the International Development Committee for its report on The Government’s efforts to achieve SDG2: Zero Hunger, published on 18 March 2025.
2. The scale and intensity of food insecurity continues to be persistently high with three quarters of a billion people – one in five in Africa – facing hunger last year, and famine risks increasing. Climate change, conflict and economic shocks are exacerbating the risks. Global action on agriculture and food and nutrition security is essential to reduce the mounting humanitarian need, address the climate and nature crises and drive sustainable and inclusive growth.
3. The Government is committed to continuing to drive global efforts to end hunger and malnutrition and to building healthier, fairer and more resilient food systems, which deliver for both our domestic and international interests.
4. This response addresses the Committee’s recommendations in the order in which they appear in the report.
Climate and its interrelationship with hunger
Conclusions and Recommendation 1
The world is off target to achieve SDG2 and shows signs of waning in its resolve. An urgent and concerted effort at local, national and international levels is required to not only tackle the effects of poor nutrition and food insecurity, but also the underlying causes. All activities need to prioritise the inclusion and strengthening of food systems.
Climate change and hunger are intrinsically linked. We recognise the emphasis the Government is putting on improving the impact of climate finance as it relates to food systems.
We recommend the Government conduct an assessment of UK climate finance to ensure it addresses the impact of climate change on nutrition and food systems. The UK’s agricultural investments need to be assessed more rigorously for the adaption and mitigation challenges posed by climate change. (Recommendation 1)
Government Response: Partially Agree
5. The Government recognises the critical role sustainable land-use, agriculture and food systems play in tackling the climate and nature crises through their capacity to mitigate emissions, protect and restore ecosystems and build the resilience of communities and economies. We agree that UK investment in agriculture—with important benefits for food security, growth and health—should be assessed rigorously for its impact on climate and nature, and the contribution it makes to climate adaptation and mitigation.
6. The current Spending Review will determine future spending priorities for UK climate finance, including how it will address the impact of climate change on nutrition and food systems; in this light, a separate assessment would not be appropriate at this stage.
7. The FCDO reports annually on the proportion of our bilateral ICF spend that is nutrition-related (including nutrition-specific or nutrition-sensitive objectives), as part of an annual accountability report on progress against FCDO’s nutrition pledges, including our commitment to integrate nutrition objectives in FCDO’s bilateral ODA portfolio.
8. In 2023, ICAI conducted a review, “UK aid to agriculture in a time of climate change”, which was rated green-amber; since then, the FCDO has developed guidance on use of ICF for food and agriculture programmes. The majority of FCDO’s non-humanitarian food and nutrition programming builds in explicit climate outcomes and action and is eligible to spend International Climate Finance (ICF). Examples include: (i) the Just Rural Transition (JRT) support programme, which works with partner countries to design and implement more sustainable agriculture policies and fiscal reforms for climate, nature and development co-benefits; (ii) the UK’s contribution to the Global Agricultural and Food Security Program (GAFSP), supporting critical food security interventions and promoting climate-resilient and sustainable practices in the world’s poorest countries; (iii) the Global Land Governance Programme, supporting the rights of Indigenous People and Local Communities and security of land and forest tenure for sustainable land management and loss of forests, including as carbon sinks.
Gender and age dimensions and their interrelationship with hunger
Conclusions and Recommendation 2
The inclusion of women in the design of Zero Hunger policy and programming is vital for equitable and cost-effective progress toward SDG2. Moreover, programming that does not use carefully disaggregated data to ensure it is sensitive to both gender and age dimensions of hunger is unlikely to achieve sustainable results. (Conclusion, Paragraph 20)
We call on the Government to renew its focus on improving both the gender relevance of nutrition-specific funding as well as the sensitivity of gender-specific programming to food systems and nutrition. (Recommendation 2)
Government Response – Agree
9. The UK is committed to tackling gender inequality around the world and has placed empowering women and girls at the heart of its international work. Investing in women and girls and breaking down the barriers they face is essential to development and the UK’s missions overseas.
10. The Government recognises the importance of including women and girls in policy and programming targeting food security and nutrition, and of considering nutrition in relevant gender programmes. Women and girls are disproportionally affected by malnutrition, especially in LMICs where undernutrition and anaemia are acknowledged to be major risk factors in pregnancy and delivery. Therefore, improving girls’ and women’s nutrition is critical to improving maternal and new-born health, a current FCDO priority.
11. Our food and nutrition investments already have a strong gender focus. Our analysis through the Nutrition Accountability Report shows that in 2022, 88% of our nutrition-related spend was gender sensitive. The FCDO currently supports programmes that scale up high impact maternal nutrition interventions through the health sector and build gender equality and inclusion in agrifood systems, including through the UK support to the Child Nutrition Fund (CNF), which promotes nutrition interventions targeting pregnant and lactating women and children under five; and the Commercial Agriculture for Smallholders and Agribusiness (CASA) programme, which works with agribusinesses to adopt gender-responsive practices to sustainably increase economic opportunities for women.
12. However, there is room to improve. The 2024 Commercial Agricultural Portfolio Review is expected to be published by June, providing insights into 31 of FCDO’s programmes including on women’s economic empowerment and nutrition. We will ensure future programmes consider gender equality, strengthen the integration of nutrition objectives and uphold a do no harm approach in design and implementation.
Smallholder farmers and sustainable food systems
Conclusions and Recommendation 3
Smallholder farmers in low-income countries are vital players in sustainable food systems. We welcome some of the steps taken to assess the impact of new trade deals on low-income countries. Currently, though, there is more to be done to ensure that the range of tools the UK has to alleviate poverty are sensitive to the role smallholders have to play, and the factors that determine their success or failure.
We recommend the Government assess its trade, agriculture, climate and gender programmes against the impact they have on smallholder farmers. Where necessary, these programmes should be adjusted to mitigate harm against smallholder famers and to enhance their place within sustainable food systems. (Recommendation 3)
Government Response – Partially Agree
13. We agree that smallholder farmers are vital players in the global food system and that it is important to consider the impact relevant government programmes have on them. Smallholder farmers have been central to UK’s ODA policy and programming on food and agriculture, and we support a range of programmes and initiatives to promote food security while also helping smallholders to benefit from sustainably increased incomes (including moving beyond farming). Our programmes have focused on supporting farmers in the most climate vulnerable countries to adopt sustainable and resilient agricultural practices and to secure access to local markets.
14. The UK already has social and environmental safeguarding frameworks in place to ensure we effectively assess, manage and mitigate any negative consequences a programme or policy may have on individuals, communities, or groups. DBT publishes scoping assessments for new free trade agreements, prior to negotiations commencing, impact assessments after negotiations have concluded, and post implementation reviews within five years of the FTA coming into force. These provide an assessment of the potential implications for different groups in the labour market, including women. The UK recognises the importance of expanding our understanding of the gender impacts of trade. We are committed to building our evidence base through analysis of qualitative and quantitative data, which is used to inform our trade agreement implementation activities.
15. In light of these existing processes and in the context of the current Spending Review we do not think a separate assessment of government programmes’ impact on smallholder farmers is warranted at this stage. Depending on the outcome of the Spending Review and the scope and focus of future ODA programmes, we will consider the case for further impact assessment in 2026.
Disability and food insecurity
Conclusion and Recommendation 4
Disabled people are particularly vulnerable to hunger and their needs must be incorporated into all Zero Hunger focussed programming. The Government have made important steps in this direction.
We recommend the Government specifically address the linkages between nutrition and disability in the refresh of the Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy. We request the relevant section of the updated strategy is shared with the Committee. (Recommendation 4)
Government Response – Partially Agree
16. The Government recognises the linkages between the prevalence of disability and inadequate nutrition. Children with disabilities suffer disproportionately higher rates of malnutrition yet are less likely to benefit from nutritional programmes. This is most often due to an interplay of factors including physical problems in feeding, a lack of knowledge or skills among caregivers regarding feeding practices, or broader societal causes related to neglect or stigma. Malnutrition itself can also cause life-long functional and cognitive impairment.
17. In February, the Prime Minister announced the government’s commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, to be funded by a reduction to ODA spending. Reducing the overall size of our ODA budget will necessarily have an impact on the scale and shape of the work we do. It was therefore necessary to pause the refresh of our Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy. We will consider options for updating it once the multi-year Spending Review has concluded and our future priorities and resource allocation decisions on international development are clearer.
Conflict and fragile states
Conclusion and Recommendation 5
Conflict breeds hunger and hunger breeds conflict. We recommend that stabilisation and peace building at both the programme and diplomatic level is made a priority for the Government as it seeks to end hunger by 2030. (Recommendation 5)
Government response – Partially Agree
18. The UK remains committed to working at all levels to promote stabilisation and peacebuilding. The Government recognises that the drivers of acute food insecurity are complex, often involving multiple and interrelated factors arising from armed conflict and insecurity, economic shocks and weather extremes. We agree that food insecurity is a factor driving conflict and that conflict drives food insecurity.
19. We are proactively addressing conflict-induced hunger. The UK uses its seat at the UN Security Council to champion and implement Resolution 2417 which enables reporting and early warnings when parties to conflict cause food insecurity and famine risk. We used our position to urge swift action when such warnings have been issued last year on Gaza and Sudan. The UK has produced a Legal Handbook on the international rules that play a role in avoiding and addressing food insecurity in armed conflict to promote understanding and improve compliance with international humanitarian law.
20. Alongside diplomatic levers, our bilateral peacebuilding, human rights and wider development programme work helps to address the root causes of violence and the environments where conflicts are more likely to take place. To support our programme work, UK expertise works across the world to provide analysis and advice on preventing the spread and escalation of conflict risks, working closely across Government, civil society and the international community.
21. As well as bilateral programmes, the UK is one of the biggest contributors to the UN Peacebuilding Fund, the primary mechanism supporting UN prevention and peacebuilding activity in over 40 countries including Sudan, South Sudan, West Africa, and the Sahel. The UK has contributed over £175 million since the inception of the fund in 2006, including £5 million in 2024/2025.
UK Government spending and the impact of reductions in funding
Conclusions and recommendations (6–8)
The handling of the merger of DFID with the FCO, and that of the subsequent sudden and drastic cuts in programme spending, was very damaging for the UK’s efforts toward SDG2. Not only did it damage the UK’s reputation as a leader and innovator toward the goal of ending hunger and malnutrition but reduced the support to millions of people around the world who depended on these programmes.
The reduction of ODA from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI in February 2025 could not have come at a worse time, with cuts in donor spending across Europe and in the United States of America and ever-increasing need. If the Government fails to learn the lessons from the handling of the cuts in 2020, the misery inflicted on millions will be incalculable, the progress that has been made will stall, and the damage to the UK’s reputation will be all but impossible to reverse. We urge the Government to reconsider the reduction in Official Development Assistance (Recommendation 6)
Government Response – Disagree
22. At this time of profound change, with conflicts overseas undermining security and prosperity at home, the Prime Minister has taken the decision to increase spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP from 2027, funded by reducing ODA to 0.3% of GNI and reinvesting it into defence. Protecting our national security is the first duty of any government.
23. We have learned lessons from previous reductions, including by gradually reducing the ODA budget to 0.3% of GNI in 2027 to help smooth the transition and by carefully considering the significant shifts that will be required to deliver reductions over the course of the Spending Review.
24. The decision to reduce the ODA budget was a necessary one that reflects the evolving nature of the threats we face, and the strategic shifts required to meet them, while maintaining economic stability. We therefore disagree with this recommendation.
25. We remain committed to returning to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when fiscal circumstances allow.
We recommend that the FCDO put measures in place to ensure that all Official Development Assistance committed to nutrition and food security related programming is predictable and long term, with better safeguards against, and warnings of, any changes to funding agreements with delivery partners. We request the Government outline clearly in their response how it intends to ensure future programmes keep to these standards, and to send us an update on the detail of the implementation measures before the summer Parliamentary recess. (Recommendation 7)
Government Response: Partially Agree
26. We agree about the value of predictable and long-term programming. At the Spring Statement it was confirmed that the FCDO will no longer be required to adjust its budgets to hit a calendar year ODA spending commitment. This means the FCDO will no longer be automatically exposed to the volatility of fluctuations in GNI or spending by other government departments, thereby providing the FCDO’s ODA budget greater certainty and predictability.
27. However, while we are committed to taking a long-term approach to our development work, including ODA, decisions on how the ODA budget will be used are being worked through as part of the ongoing Spending Review and final 2025/26 FCDO ODA allocations are yet to be set. Until final ODA allocations are set this summer, we are prioritising meeting legally binding commitments and delivering work already underway while maximising the FCDO’s flexibility in 2025/26. To allow for critical new development work to continue, the Minister for Development is running an exemptions process, through which some additional programming may proceed. In that context, we therefore partially agree with the recommendation and will consider if there is relevant information we can share with you ahead of the summer Parliamentary recess.
28. Where changes to funding agreements are required, these will be managed in-line with obligations of agreements to ensure responsible revisions or exits. Programme teams will open dialogue with partners with regards to any future changes in budgets as soon as any decisions are made.
Where cuts are to be made as part of this spending review, we request the Government informs the Committee of the steps it will take to ensure that there will be a phased transition with clear communication to implementing partners, avoiding some of the damage that was done when budgets were reduced in 2020. (Recommendation 8)
Government Response – Agree
29. Programme teams will be in dialogue with partners with regards to any future changes in budgets as early as is possible in the decision-making processes. Centrally, we are also having regular strategic engagement with partner and supplier representatives on the approach to decisions, planning and timelines. We will ensure responsible exit from any agreements that must be cut. For all types of agreements, suppliers and partners will be given at least the minimum notice period of the agreement and reasonable exit costs will be negotiated in-line with the individual agreements.
30. We are committed to keeping the International Development Committee and our implementing partners closely and regularly updated as changes to the ODA budget are implemented. The Minister for Development issued letters on 13 March and 27 March to the Committee on actions the FCDO is taking to manage the ODA reduction and looks forward to joining the Committee for an oral evidence session on Tuesday 13 May. The Chancellor’s Spring Statement set out the UK’s ODA profile up to 2029/30, tracking a gradual reduction to 0.3% of GNI in 2027. Decisions on how the ODA budget will be used are being worked through as part of the ongoing Spending Review.
Leadership on the international stage
Conclusion and Recommendations 9–12
Successive UK Governments have been innovative and effective leaders in the efforts to tackle hunger. The UK has the convening power and expertise to be a considerable force for good in tackling the challenges of international fundraising, trade reform, climate and development policy which will be needed. However, the will to continue in this role must come from the top of Government and be undertaken with humility and in the spirit of partnership.
The Government has an excellent opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to leadership on SDG2 by doing everything it can to ensure that the Nutrition for Growth summit is a success. We wait with anticipation for the announcements the Government intends to make at the summit regarding the integration of programming around this goal. Beyond this, there is scope for the Government to use its convening power to coordinate a series of international actions and milestones to harmonise the work of the various fora working on aspects of the Goal.
We recommend the Government lead by example at the Nutrition for Growth summit with a commitment to making a generous and well-targeted pledge as well as a new reach commitment on nutrition and food security within the next six months. This would focus efforts and improve accountability. (Recommendation 9)
Government Response – Partially Agree
31. The UK is committed to maintaining a leadership role on food security and nutrition and to continuing to drive global action on addressing SDG2: Zero Hunger.
32. Due to the ongoing Spending Review process the UK was not able to make a funding commitment at the Nutrition for Growth Summit. However, we remain committed to integrating nutrition objectives and interventions across our development portfolio and in Paris, the Minister for Development launched the Global Compact on Nutrition Integration to boost impact and leverage additional finance for nutrition across different sectors, including health, agriculture and climate. So far, more than 85 countries and organisations have joined the Compact.
33. Setting out a roadmap for the Compact and exploring options for future pledges and policy commitments to N4G once the Spending Review is finalised will be a key area of work for FCDO in 2025.
The Government should attend the Financing for Development conference in June with new and innovative solutions for the raising of private investment toward addressing malnutrition and building sustainable food systems. (Recommendation 10)
Government Response – Partially Agree
34. The Government recognises that inclusive and well-targeted finance is critical to achieving strong development outcomes and to supporting sustainable growth of agrifood sectors in low-income countries. The UK is working with partners to help unlock more and better targeted finance from all sources for the SDGs and we will use the Financing for Development Conference in June, and other relevant events, to push for reform of the global financial system to this effect.
35. The UK is working to catalyse better targeted private investment in the agrifood sector and increase access to finance for small agribusinesses and smallholder farmers through our programmes and investments. This includes contributing to the new Financing Agri-SMEs in Africa (FASA) Fund and funding a new £20m local currency pilot through the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). This builds on longstanding work by the UK Government to mobilise investment in low-income country agrifood sectors through the Commercial Agriculture for Smallholders and Agribusiness (CASA) programme and our support to AgDevCo.
36. Furthermore, the UK will look to continue to work with partners to explore innovative and more sustainable ways to finance nutrition. As co-founders of the Child Nutrition Fund (CNF) with UNICEF, the UK played an important role in setting up a new funding mechanism to support government-led initiatives to treat and end malnutrition and wasting in women and children. In addition, through our support to the Access to Nutrition Initiative, we have helped investors take nutrition more seriously in their financing decisions. The UK will continue to push International Financial Institutions, including the regional development banks, to do more to leverage nutrition financing.
The Government should lead action on debt relief for countries affected by hunger and malnutrition including exploring the potential of debt suspension clauses for low-income countries at high risk of backsliding on food security and nutrition. (Recommendation 11)
Government Response – Partially Agree
37. This Government has committed to tackling unsustainable debt and is leading efforts to ensure all developing countries have the fiscal space to invest in development. The UK has a strong record of working bilaterally and with international partners to assist countries on their road to longer-term debt sustainability and will continue to do so.
38. Debt relief is a tool provided multilaterally with other creditors where we have financial exposure and at the request of a debtor country. The UK remains committed to working with other creditors to build consensus to address country debt vulnerabilities and provide swift debt treatments where they are required, in line with the IMF and World Bank Debt Sustainability Analyses.
39. The Common Framework was set up in 2020 to bring all G20 creditors together to coordinate on restructurings for the first time. Where we are a creditor, we have fully engaged in multilateral negotiations with debtor countries to put their debt back on a sustainable trajectory but we recognise progress has been too slow and are calling on all G20 partners to strengthen, speed up and expand the G20 Common Framework to all middle-income countries.
40. The UK championed the major debt relief initiatives of recent decades, including the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI). Under the HIPC Initiative, the Government has cancelled 100% of loans owed by HIPC-countries when they have reached the HIPC Completion Point. This has amounted to a UK contribution of £650m. The Government has also provided £1.4 bn of relief through contributions to the MDRI. The Government is committed to meeting its obligations in terms of debt owed by the remaining eligible countries as they qualify. HIPC has delivered an estimated $74.8 bn of relief in total so far, freeing up space for investment in social spending.
41. The UK was also the first bilateral creditor to systematically offer Natural Disaster Clauses (also known as Climate Resilient Debt Clauses) – a form of debt suspension clause for exogenous climate or health shocks - through UK Export Finance lending to all countries. Natural Disaster Clauses are a contractual innovation that allows borrowers to temporarily pause debt repayments when hit by a major climate or health shock, thereby freeing up money for the country to use for relief and recovery. In total, six bilateral creditors and six MDBs have now launched CRDC pilots or are committed to doing so.
42. The Government also seeks to ensure longer-term debt sustainability through our positions on the Boards of the World Bank and IMF, and working in international fora such as the G7, G20, Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable and Paris Club to influence coordinated approaches to debt relief and to strengthen the international debt architecture - supporting countries to have the fiscal space to invest in their long term development, including food security.
The Government should work internationally to drive coherence around SDG 2 championing the idea of an international plan to advance efforts to tackle hunger and malnutrition. (Recommendation 12)
Government Response – Partially Agree
43. The UK is already helping to drive coherence between existing international efforts and actions to achieve SDG2, including through our engagement in multilateral fora such as the G7, G20 and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN. A multitude of international strategies and plans already exists and an additional international plan is unlikely to add value at this stage.
44. The UK will continue to promote coordination between ongoing global, national and subnational initiatives to make progress on food security and nutrition. Such initiatives include: FAO’s Global Roadmap on achieving SDG2 without breaching 1.5 °C, the UN Food System Summit process, the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty, COP28 Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action, and the Global Compact on Nutrition Integration.
Learning and application of best practice
Conclusion and Recommendation (13–14)
The UK has a tremendous array of research institutes and a strong history of contributing to the fields of nutrition and food security. There is more the Government could be doing to make use of these resources and to integrate learning into programming.
The potential of local knowledge and understanding in developing solutions to nutrition and food security challenges, particularly in terms of climate adaption and mitigation, is not always fully realised.
Beyond the OECD Development Assistance Committee nutrition indicators, monitoring of the contribution that the FCDO’s programming is making toward the SDG2 goal has been insufficient. In order to know and understand what works, the FCDO needs a common set of indicators that can be measured at multiple levels.
We support the Government’s commitment to strengthening the evidence base for the prevention of child wasting.
The Government should work with governments and organisations to ensure continued long-term, predictable financial support for Ready-to use Therapeutic Foods and Multiple Micronutrient Supplementation packs, to address the needs of children and pregnant women in humanitarian situations. This should support local production, where possible, and partner with national governments in the promotion of their use. In addition, we recommend the Government take advantage of the match-funding mechanism of the Child Nutrition Fund as part of its Nutrition for Growth pledge, to mobilise domestic resources and philanthropic funding to address malnutrition. To take full advantage of this, we recommend the Government pledge at least £50 million to the Child Nutrition Fund, as part of its Nutrition for Growth pledge, to maximise these opportunities. (Recommendation 13)
Government Response – Partially Agree
45. The decision on what the UK will spend its future ODA budget on is being worked through following the decision to reduce UK ODA from 0.5% of GNI currently to 0.3% in 2027. We will be taking a rigorous approach to ensure all ODA delivers value for money and will set out our spending plans following the completion of the Spending Review. We are therefore not in a position to agree or disagree to the recommendation regarding any future pledge to the Child Nutrition Fund.
46. The FCDO agrees on the importance of ensuring that funding for key nutrition commodities and services is predictable and long-term and that, to support sustainability, this should be done in partnership with national governments and support local production wherever possible. This is why the UK is proud to have co-founded the Child Nutrition Fund (CNF) which we continue to support as a member of its steering committee. FCDO investment in the CNF so far totals over £15 million. The CNF has used FCDO’s and others’ contributions to leverage an additional $33 million in domestic contributions from several high-burden countries. Our wider investments through the Child Wasting and Innovation Programme (CWIP) have also supported the diversification of the local supplier base for key commodities which has led to an increase in proportion of RUTF coming from local producers in West and Central Africa from 26% in 2019 to 78% in 2024. Our CWIP investments have also supported eleven national governments to integrate RUTF into national supply chain systems and the generation of evidence around more cost-effective formulations of RUTF using locally available ingredients.
We can see the potential for much wider application of cash transfers as a tool to tackle hunger. However, we also appreciate they need to complement other components of a sustainable food system.
We urge the Government to continue to explore the application of cash transfers alongside a locally led process of agricultural and nutritional development. (Recommendation 14)
Government Response – Partially Agree
47. The Government recognises the important role of cash transfers in alleviating poverty and vulnerability by helping people to meet their basic needs and supporting human development.
48. We know that, when integrated with wider policies and programmes, cash transfers increase consumption and contribute to positive food security outcomes, as well as help smallholder farmers to overcome liquidity and credit constrains so that they can invest in agricultural inputs, technologies and practices. We also know that it is harder for cash transfers to have a positive impact on nutrition unless there is intentionality as part of the design and targeting of such programmes, especially during the crucial first 1,000 days from conception to age two. For example, the FCDO recently conducted a review of its programming in Zambia, including on cash transfers, with the objective of strengthening nutrition integration to capitalise on co-benefits. The review concluded that nutritional outcomes could be improved through a range of pathways, including robust nutrition social behaviour change communication and referral to nutrition-specific health services and women’s empowerment activities alongside cash programming.
49. Yet, social protection systems are not systematically designed and leveraged as platforms for improving food security and nutrition. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic only around 8% of the announced social protection measures were aimed at addressing food and nutrition needs. We will take this recommendation and further action on this area into consideration within the refresh of FCDO priorities as part of the ongoing Spending Review.
Toward solutions—The Zero Hunger strategic delivery framework
Conclusions and Recommendations (15–18)
We are encouraged that the department appears to understand the importance of harmonising development programming and the importance of considering issues of age, gender, nutrition and food security across the piece. However, it is important that this Government build on the progress of the last by identifying where there is still room for improvement, adequately focussing on addressing underlying causes of hunger, and addressing any inconsistency in policy. It is also important that this is seen as a whole of Government approach rather than simply one that impacts departments spending Official Development Assistance, and that measurement of progress is vital across the full range of programming.
We recommend that by the end of 2025 a Zero Hunger strategic delivery framework is created that acknowledges the complex interrelationships between climate, gender, disability, conflict, food security and nutrition. The framework should have clear and practical guidance for civil servants and delivery partners as to how programming should take into account aspects of SDG2 in its design and how they can access technical support. Specifically:
a. It should facilitate impact measurement for how programming contributes to SDG2 using the OECD Development Assistance Committee nutrition indicators, as well as consistent indicators on sustainable food systems. There should also be guidance on disaggregated data collection for women, youth and people with disabilities as well as a designated hub for the processing of the data.
b. The framework should have inter-departmental applicability ensuring all programming receiving Official Development Assistance is being guided by its principles and objectives.
c. We recommend all programmes eligible for funding should be required to demonstrate alignment to the strategy and set out how they address or consider the complex dimensions of hunger.
d. We recommend that the delivery framework provides clear principles to guide UK diplomatic and trade activity as it relates to achieving SDG2 and guidance on how to measure policy impact in this area.
e. As part of the framework, we recommend that the FCDO implement a standardised approach for lessons learning and information sharing between locally and centrally managed programme staff. (Recommendation 15)
Government Response – Partially Agree
50. We agree, in principle, that any HMG work towards achieving a world without hunger and malnutrition should be guided by a common approach to ensure a coordinated approach across government departments and effective and context-specific interventions. We also recognise the many interlinkages between HMG’s wider work on growth, climate change, nature, gender, disability, and conflict and UK efforts to improve food security and nutrition, particularly in low-income and fragile and conflict affected states.
51. The FCDO is working closely with other government departments, including DEFRA, DBT, DESNZ and DHSC on policies and programmes relating to food, agriculture and nutrition, including on the international dimensions of the new UK Food Strategy.
52. Decisions on how the ODA budget will be used are being worked through as part of the ongoing Spending Review. Decisions on delivery frameworks for future work on specific sectors will therefore need to follow the completion of the Spending Review and subsequent departmental prioritisation and allocation process.
Within the Zero Hunger delivery framework we recommend significant attention is paid to increasing local ownership across the breadth of FCDO programming that impacts on, or is impacted by, nutrition and food security:
a. As part of the Zero Hunger strategic framework, the Government should set an ambition for the percentage of Zero Hunger related funding to be delivered by local organisations by 2028.
b. Specific guidance on local ownership should support staff and partners in setting risk thresholds appropriate to this way of working and flexible approaches to processes. Specifically, the Government needs to consider how it can make its tendering process more accessible for small and medium sized businesses, and local organisations, to apply for and deliver.
c. Funding mechanisms should be more flexible to the needs of individual local partners and, where necessary, allow for longer project cycles, higher in direct costs, in order to achieve the capacity-building required to close any gaps between accountability requirements and local capacity.
d. We encourage the Government to take every opportunity to support its Official Development Assistance-eligible partners in their own plans around food systems and nutrition. (Recommendation 16)
Government Response – Partially Agree
53. Locally driven action and ownership is at the heart of our efforts to modernise our approach to development and partnerships. It is part of our increased focus on systems strengthening and underpins much of our development work, including current work to drive forward the new Global Compact and Coalition on Nutrition Integration, launched at Nutrition for Growth Paris (see detail in our response to recommendation 11), our backing for the Africa-wide Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme, and our support for local organisations’ action to build resilience and strengthen food security.
54. Decisions on how the ODA budget will be used are being worked through as part of the ongoing Spending Review. Any decisions to develop new delivery frameworks for future work on specific sectors will therefore need to follow the completion of the Spending Review and subsequent departmental prioritisation and allocation process.
Beyond the Nutrition for Growth summit, we encourage the Government to see SDG2 as an issue of vital strategic importance to the UK’s national and international interests. Consequently, it should be adopted as a cross-cutting issue across diplomatic activity with heads of missions being made aware of its linkages and obliged to report on activity towards this goal as part of their internal reporting processes. Guidance should be given as part of the Zero Hunger delivery framework. (Recommendation 17)
Government Response – Agree
55. Making progress on SDG2 is crucial for our international and national interests, especially as malnutrition affects every country in the world, including the UK. In fragile contexts, food insecurity, hunger and malnutrition are exacerbated by and fuel conflict. We also recognise that progress against SDG2 is vital to making progress across many other SDGs and that as such, nutrition needs to be placed at the heart of sustainable development.
56. Our continued efforts to integrate nutrition objectives across our ODA portfolio and the launch of the Global Nutrition Integration Compact at N4G Paris demonstrate our determination to make nutrition a cross-cutting development and diplomatic issue in the Department. Developing a roadmap to take forward the Global Nutrition Integration Compact and ensure tangible progress on the ground will be a priority for 2025. We already report on progress towards integrating nutrition objectives through the annual publication of our Nutrition Accountability Report and will consider how to report on progress with this recommendation as we refresh our priorities and overall development approach.
57. We will continue to build capability and increase awareness on the links between food security, nutrition and wider development objectives across the Department as well as use our programmatic, influence and diplomatic tools to do so. However, positioning SDG2 as a cross-government priority goes beyond the capacity of relevant FCDO teams and is a matter for other Departments to consider. This will also depend on the outcome of the ongoing spending review and decisions on how to allocate our reduced ODA footprint across government.
The Government needs to re-double its efforts to reform the financial systems which precipitate the strangling unsustainable debt faced by many food-insecure countries. The Government should state clearly what it intends to do regarding the reform of financial systems that stifle investment in low-income countries. (Recommendation 18)
Government Response – Agree
58. The UK is committed to driving faster reform of the global financial system, working with partners to strengthen the voice of the poorest and most vulnerable and tackle unsustainable debt, and unlocking greater levels of private investment. The UK’s ambition is to lead the G7 on international institutional reform.
59. The UK has already played a leading role in pushing for and implementing reforms. We have used our seat on the boards of the IMF, World Bank and Regional Development Banks (RDBs) to argue for a bolder approach which helps unlock more finance to the poorest and most vulnerable. This includes pushing the MDBs on implementing the G20’s Capital Adequacy Framework (CAF) review and therefore taking on more risk and unlocking more lending from their own resources. Actions undertaken by MDBs have already enabled them to expand lending by over $200bn over the next decade and there is more to do. We are proud of how MDBs have stepped up to the challenge and we are keen to work in partnership to see how we can go further. We have led the way on offering guarantees to Multilateral Development Banks, extending guarantees to unlock more than $6bn of additional finance, including for climate, in African, Asian and Pacific countries.
60. We have also been championing a bolder system to deliver for the poorest and most fragile states and supporting the International Financial Institutions to develop new operating models, tailormade to fragile states’ unique and challenging circumstances. We championed this approach during the last World Bank International Development Association (IDA) replenishment in 2024 and look forward to the upcoming World Bank Fragility Review. We are also pushing to ensure that resources are spent effectively, through strong public financial management systems and promoting fiscal transparency.
61. The UK will continue to play a leading role in championing reforms across the Global Financial System and will use our position at the Financial Institutions, at the G7 and G20 make progress. The City of London is the largest sustainable development finance hub in the world, and we are working closely with institutional investors to enable more of this capital to flow to developing countries for the SDGs. We will also use major upcoming moments, including the UN’s 4th Financing for Development (FFD4), to build international consensus and momentum.
The Government needs to ensure that research is coherent with its aspirations to fighting hunger and considers the inter-related factors facing nutrition and food systems. As part of the Zero Hunger delivery framework there should be clear guidance on this to those commissioning research. (Recommendation 19)
Government Response – Partially Agree
62. We agree that research must address the interconnected factors impacting nutrition and food systems in order to effectively fight hunger. That is why, the FCDO has adopted a food systems approach to tackling hunger and malnutrition in its research programming. Through the Gilbert Initiative, FCDO, DEFRA and DSIT (via UKRI) commit to transforming climate-resilient food systems through research and innovation to support a food system that by 2030: feeds nine billion people with nutritious, safe foods; uses environmental resources sustainably; enhances resilience and adaptation to climate change; and generates inclusive growth and jobs.
63. The Initiative coordinates ODA R&D (and leverages non-ODA R&D) investments in evidence generation, technology development and delivery across five key areas: climate resilient agriculture technologies, pathways to scale, tackling global pest and disease threats, sustainable and healthy diets, and resilience in fragile and conflict affected states. It also promotes the partnerships and skills needed to deliver SDG2, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture, and SDG13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts, as well as other linked SDGs. This approach integrates cross cutting themes such as climate, gender and resilience, and we continue to work across HMG to share lessons and build programming on nutrition and food systems.
64. FCDO’s Management Response to ICAI commits us to integrating climate and nature considerations in all agriculture programmes and investments, including research. This is embedded in the Programme Operating Framework (PrOF Rule 5) and is complemented by more detailed technical guidance and facilities for staff designing programming.
65. FCDO’s approach and internal guidance supports the breadth of FCDO’s work to deliver a research, science and technology portfolio which is integral to HMG’s development objectives and programming. Research and development is governed by the rules of FCDO’s Programme Operating Framework. These are supported by an extensive set of guidance notes, including on the Definition of Research, which aligns with the Frascati definition and covers Open Access. We do not envisage a need currently for additional sector specific guidance on research commissioning.
The Government should review the staffing complement and structure working on SDG2 across departments, and the anticipated need in coming years, hiring new staff where needed. (Recommendation 20)
Government Response – Agree
66. Capable, experienced staff are critical to our ability to deliver on SDG2 and we recognise the importance of investing in our experts to retain their knowledge and skills. We hope to recruit new Food and Agriculture advisory expertise to fill critical gaps in 2025/2026. In addition, we intend to implement a new annual Strategic Oversight Board for capability in food, agriculture and livelihoods across FCDO to ensure we have the right people in the right place, following prioritisation and planning exercises underway. We will also strengthen FCDO’s nutrition capacity across key cadres both through internal and external learning and development initiatives to ensure we have sufficient capability to drive the integration of nutrition objectives across relevant ODA programmes.