Addressing Food Security in Violent Conflicts

Two of the most serious food crises at present are in the Gaza Strip and Sudan. Both contexts are characterised by decades of conflict and widespread food insecurity, which have left many people vulnerable. In Gaza, the Israeli government responded to the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023 with air strikes and ground offensives. In addition to buildings, schools, hospitals and roads, it has destroyed large parts of the agricultural infrastructure. Food prices have skyrocketed. Around 80 percent of the population of the Gaza Strip were displaced, most of them multiple times. The entire population (2.2 million people) is affected by the food crisis.

The war in Sudan, which broke out in April 2023 between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces, has caused one of the biggest humanitarian crises. Around 26 million people, more than half the population, are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. An estimated 125’000 people have died because of direct acts of violence, hunger or disease. Over 12 million people are displaced; three million have fled to neighboring countries.

Violent conflicts are the main cause of major food crises

Food crises are often the result of the interplay of violent conflicts, extreme weather events and economic crises. However, violent conflicts are the main cause of the major food crises of our time. According to the Global Report on Food Crises, in 2023, 135 of 280 million people in the 59 countries and regions analysed are suffering from acute food insecurity. In addition to the Gaza Strip and Sudan, this also includes other crisis such as the gang violence in Haiti, the ongoing conflicts in Yemen, the Central African Republic and Nigeria, the renewed escalation of violence in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the civil war in Myanmar. Even before the earthquake at the end of March, the war in Myanmar – combined with rising prices and extreme weather events – meant that almost 13 of 58 million inhabitants were affected by a food crisis.

Rural population particularly affected by violent conflicts

Violent conflicts affect people in urban areas and rural regions alike. The fighting in the Sudanese capital Khartoum and the attacks on cities in the Gaza Strip have had a devastating impact on the urban population. In many conflict regions, however, the fighting is concentrated in rural areas where people depend on small-scale agriculture and livestock farming. Many farmers live in poverty and have only limited resources to respond to crises and conflicts. If their livelihoods are destroyed, this has a direct impact on food security, for example when farmers can no longer cultivate their fields because it is too dangerous or because they cannot acquire seeds and fertilisers.

When warring parties destroy agricultural land and infrastructure, for example by bombing irrigation canals and roads or through landmines, this affects food production and livestock farming – even years after the end of a violent conflict. The impact on food security is particularly serious when acts of war lead to mass displacement of the rural population. As a result, local agricultural production and regional supply chains often collapse, and food prices rise. At the same time, displaced persons are no longer able to secure their livelihoods and are dependent on aid, at least temporarily.

For the warring parties, the continuous procurement of food is of strategic and economic importance. When warring parties take control of agricultural resources and livestock or levy taxes on agricultural products, this directly affects the local population and their food situation. In extreme cases, warring parties use starvation of parts of a population as a weapon of war, e.g., when they disrupt food supplies, block access to food or deliberately destroy agricultural infrastructure (the ‘scorched earth’ strategy). For example, the Israeli government has been blocking all humanitarian aid from entering the Gaza Strip since the beginning of March. In Sudan, too, both warring parties have regularly prevented or delayed the access for international aid organisations. They have also systematically destroyed crops, fields and agricultural equipment, particularly in areas controlled by the Rapid Support Forces.

The vicious circle of violent conflicts and food security

The links between food insecurity and violent conflicts result from a complex interplay of political, social, economic and environmental risks. They can lead to cascading effects or even to a vicious circle. Violent conflicts exacerbate existing vulnerabilities of affected persons and reduce their ability to cope with further “shocks” or adapt to new situations. Conflict-related price increases, for example, can further increase food insecurity and exacerbate conflicts. Similarly, in times of war, natural hazards and extreme weather events have a much harder impact on the affected population and can dramatically impede access to food.

Violent conflict affects particularly the food security of women, children and vulnerable persons. Women, for example, usually have limited access to land. In conflict situations, their access to resources can be further constrained and their food security disproportionately threatened. Negative coping strategies, such as skipping meals or switching to a less nutritious diet, lead to malnutrition. This can have serious health consequences, especially for children and pregnant women.

Armed conflicts also restrict urgently needed health care, e.g., when hospitals are destroyed, or fewer qualified staff are available. At the same time, family care is often reduced due to separation and displacement.

The weakness of international humanitarian assistance

Over the past three decades, humanitarian assistance has become faster and more effective. However, the food crises in the conflict contexts of recent years highlight the weakness of the system, despite existing legal regulations. The Right to Food is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966. According to this, it is primarily states, but also non-state actors such as international organisations, that must respect, protect and fulfil people's right of access to adequate food.

International humanitarian law protects access to food during armed conflict. The destruction of vital infrastructure is prohibited. In addition, warring parties must allow and facilitate assistance if the survival of the civilian population is at risk. Moreover, starvation as a weapon of war is classified as a war crime by the International Criminal Court.

However, the current situation shows that governments or warring parties are often unable or unwilling to prevent and address food crises and to protect the civilian population. At the same time, humanitarian aid is increasingly politicised: it is often prevented, as the examples of the wars in Gaza and Sudan show, or instrumentalised, such as during the civil war in Syria. Humanitarian aid workers can also become targets themselves; at least 399 aid workers have died in the Gaza Strip so far.

In addition, funding cuts from Western donor countries are already leading to reductions in humanitarian assistance in many crisis contexts. The freezing of funds from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) shows an increasing politicisation of humanitarian aid on the part of donor countries. There is a danger that humanitarian aid will be subordinated to (foreign) policy interests, at the expense of people affected by war and food insecurity.

Extensive reforms of the aid system are needed

To ensure food security in violent conflicts, far-reaching reforms are needed that concern the broader aid system:

• Accountability for the Right to Food must be improved. UN Security Council Resolution 2417, adopted in 2018, emphasises that parties to a conflict must comply with international law and condemns any denial of humanitarian access. Humanitarian organisations must report specifically on violations in conflict-related food crises and call on the Security Council to take action.
• The primary goal of humanitarian aid is and must be to save lives, reduce suffering and protect the rights of people in need. The only decisive factor for aid should be people’s need. Humanitarian organisations must publicly defend these goals vis-à-vis donor and recipient governments alike.
• In every crisis, local actors are the first to provide support, especially when international organisations are denied access. Local organisations must be strengthened and supported, especially in protracted crises, so that they can provide the necessary assistance on the ground. This would not only make humanitarian assistance more effective, but also cheaper.
• It is mostly local organisations and local staff from international organisations that provide support for people in conflict areas. These aid workers are exposed to the greatest security risks, but they enjoy fewer privileges than international personnel. Local staff therefore need better legal and contractual protection.
• People living in war and conflict zones react differently to food crises. Their coping and adaptation strategies depend on their available resources. For many of them, humanitarian aid is only one of several coping strategies. Good local practices should thus be better integrated into aid programmes. The needs of vulnerable groups, such as women, children and elderly people, must be given special consideration.
• In protracted crises, food aid should be combined with development and peace-building measures wherever possible (humanitarian-development-peace nexus) to promote sustainable agricultural and food systems, protect the environment and offer people prospects for a peaceful and self-determined future. However, this requires a solid analysis to better understand local food systems, structural vulnerabilities, but also various development and peace visions and to ensure conflict-sensitive support that is adapted to the local context.

Conflict-related food crises are human-made. Even if it is not only aid organisations that are requested to act, they have a responsibility not only to address these crises in the best possible way, but also to do more to prevent them.