Ending Hunger Remains the Goal - Even Beyond 2030

It is easy to become frustrated or even cynical about the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) not being achieved. But it is too simplistic to just ask: Were goals achieved or not?Rather, we ought to ask: Did the setting of the SDGs create added policy action and have impact on people? And: How would the hunger situation look without the SDG2 – “Zero Hunger”? Probably much worse.

When the international community adopted the SDGs in 2015, ending hunger “in all its forms” by 2030 was among the most morally compelling and politically resonant commitments. SDG2 encapsulated the ambition to eradicate undernourishment, reduce all forms of malnutrition, double agricultural productivity for smallholders, and ensure sustainable food systems within 15 years. At the time, the goal appeared challenging but achievable, building on decades of progress in reducing global hunger. More than a decade later, however, the world is not on track. What needs to change if the world is to end hunger soon?

Global Hunger: Lack of Progress

According to recent estimates by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), between 638 and 720 million people, corresponding to 7.8 and 8.8 percent of the global population, respectively, faced hunger in 2024. Roughly 2.4 billion people, or nearly 30 percent of humanity, experienced moderate or severe food insecurity, meaning they lacked regular access to adequate, nutritious food. The world is also failing on critical nutrition targets. Progress is insufficient to meet the 2030 goals for reducing child stunting, child wasting, child overweight, and low birthweight – key indicators of severe and long-term malnutrition.

These failures have lifelong consequences, undermining human capital and economic growth – it is a failure of morality. The global decline in undernourishment that characterized the early 2000s stalled around 2015 – precisely when the SDGs were adopted. Since 2018, the world has experienced what can only be described as lost years for SDG2, during which hunger increased rather than decreased.

Drivers of Stagnation: Conflict, Climate, and Fragile Multilateralism

Several interlinked drivers explain the lack of progress on SDG2. Armed conflict remains the single most important cause of acute food insecurity. Protracted crises in countries such as Yemen, Sudan, Gaza, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and parts of the Sahel continue to displace populations, disrupt food production, and destroy livelihoods. The Russian war against Ukraine intensified global food insecurity by disrupting exports of cereals, fertilizers, and energy, leading often to higher prices worldwide.

Climate change has become an increasingly dominant driver of hunger. Since 2000, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events—droughts, floods, heatwaves, and storms—have increased substantially. Countries most exposed to climate shocks also exhibit the highest prevalence of undernourishment, particularly in Africa and South Asia. Climate impacts interact with poverty, weak infrastructure, and fragile institutions, amplifying vulnerability. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed structural weaknesses in global and national food systems and public health. Lockdowns, and disruptions to supply chains pushed millions into food insecurity, especially in urban areas and among informal workers. Many countries have yet to fully recover.

The recent and worrying trend of growing skepticism toward development cooperation needs to be seen in a global context. Political support and funding for international assistance have weakened in several high-income countries – including Germany –, and competing priorities, such as geopolitical tensions and domestic fiscal pressures, have crowded out investments in food security and humanitarian actions. The drivers of this change in the background are the dramatic regression of liberal democracies worldwide, and reduced acceptance of multilateral policies and related institutions. Over the past decade, the two large authoritarian powers, Russia and China, have projected their influence around the world. In many developed democracies in Europe, populist nationalist parties are on the rise. Authoritarian government tendencies are increasing in general, and importantly so in the USA. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 and then a second time in 2024, has contributed to reorientations of the global order.

Commitments versus Reality: Financing Gap and UN Food Systems Summits

Goals have been set and commitments made by high level Forums: At the 2015 G7 Elmau Summit, member states pledged to help lift 500 million people out of hunger and malnutrition by 2030 through increased bilateral and multilateral assistance. This commitment was reaffirmed in 2022 with a joint pledge of US$ 14 billion for global food security. Actually, there was significant action and funding following these commitments, and Germany provided leadership. Similarly, both the Indian and Brazilian G20 presidencies placed hunger eradication at the top of their agendas in 2023 and 2024, reflecting renewed political attention to the issue.

Overall official development assistance (ODA) had increased in recent years. Germany reached the long-standing target of allocating 0.7 percent of gross national income to ODA in 2023. While G7 aid related to food security and rural development nearly tripled between 2000 and 2022 – from US$ 9 billion to US$ 24 billion – this momentum is weakening. Now our research suggests that the cost of ending hunger has risen sharply as a result of delayed action to address SDG2 from the beginning.

Positive Impact of UN Food Systems Summit

Re-mobilizing for achieving SDG2 was at the center of the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 (UNFSS), and the follow-up in the so-called Stock Taking Summits 2023 and 2025. This Summit process actually had a major positive impact on policy mobilization at the level of countries in the Global South (the development of “National Pathways for Food Systems Transformation”), and mobilizing investments in important action areas (e.g. school meals program). For the first time, this food summit had a strong science basis. It was and is open to all stakeholders. About 120 countries have established their National Pathways, formulating their action areas and investment initiatives, strengthening partnerships.

That is new, and while not all of these National Pathways are sound, many are, and deserve support by development partnership. The private sector is increasingly engaged with innovative start up initiatives, as became clear at the UNFSS 2025. The process would have been much more impactful if civil society organizations had more actively engaged, rather than sitting on the fence or even campaigning against the UNFSS. The constructive engagement by Welthungerhilfe in the UNFSS was one of the exceptions among German NGOs.

The Cost of Complacency: Delayed Action was Expensive

Recent analyses using a marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) approach provide sobering insights into the consequences of inaction (1). With only a few years remaining until 2030, the range of technically feasible interventions narrows dramatically. Measures that require long gestation periods – such as agricultural research, education, or institutional reform –cannot deliver large impacts quickly enough. As a result, policymakers would be forced to rely on more expensive, short-term interventions. A short-term scenario of lifting 700 million people out of hunger and malnutrition by 2030 would require increasing investments by about US$ 93 billion annually – about three times the US$ 30 billion per year estimated in 2020. Key measures include school feeding programs, humanitarian assistance, female literacy improvement, and the scaling up or establishment of humanitarian aid and social protection (see table). While such interventions are essential for saving lives and reducing suffering, they are not a sustainable or economically efficient pathway to ending hunger.

Updating the Goal: Ending Hunger by 2040 Instead of 2030

Given the current trajectory, extending the SDG2 horizon to 2040 is unfortunately emerging as a pragmatic response. Such an extension would be a consequence of insufficient action during the first decade of the SDGs and should not be seen as an excuse for further delay. However, it could allow for a more balanced investment strategy that combines short-term relief with long-term structural change.

Under a scenario “ending hunger by 2040” it becomes more affordable and sustainable, because it would allow to combine immediate interventions with investments that take longer to bear fruit. To lift around 700 million people out of hunger by 2040, additional annual investments would need to be approximately US$ 21 billion. This package would include not only social protection, school feeding, humanitarian assistance, and measures to improve female literacy, but also agricultural extension services, agricultural research and development, agricultural information services based on information and communication technology, and small-scale irrigation expansion in Africa. These measures are relatively low-cost per person and generate lasting productivity gains. Crucially, these interventions interact and reinforce one another. Productivity growth reduces food prices and raises incomes, social protection builds resilience to shocks, education empowers women and improves nutrition outcomes, and innovation enhances climate resilience.

Implications for Development Policy

SDG2 was never an unrealistic aspiration. The world has the knowledge, resources, and technologies needed to end hunger soon. As the 2030 deadline approaches, the choice is stark: continue with incremental and fragmented efforts, or mobilize the scale of action required to end hunger once and for all. There are challenges in food systems governance and global policy coordination that need to be addressed. Immediate and concerted efforts are required to mobilize substantial investments in short-term hunger reduction. Humanitarian assistance and social protection programs remain indispensable, especially in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. But short-term actions must be systematically combined with long-term strategies. Ending hunger sustainably requires a comprehensive innovation agenda that balances emergency responses with investments in productivity, resilience, and environmental sustainability.

Global governance of food and nutrition needs reform for agrifood systems transformation. This may be more difficult in global context of global power policies. But there may be some “islands of consensus” for joint action, and ending hunger may be one of these. While the United Nations, G7 and G20 have played an important agenda-setting role, they must strengthen implementation capacities, efficiency, and accountability mechanisms. More structured engagement with innovative private sector, financial institutions, and the scientific community is needed on the way forward. Any further delay of action at scale costs more lives among the hungry poor, undermines development, and makes progress more costly. Ending hunger soon is a moral obligation; it also is one of the smartest investments the global community can make for a more stable, equitable, and sustainable future.

Reference:

_{1) Joachim von Braun, Bezawit Beyene Chichaibelu, David Laborde and Maximo Torero Cullen (2024). Cost of Ending Hunger – Consequences of Complacency, and Financial Needs for SDG2 Achievement. ZEF – Discussion Papers on Development Policy No. 347, Center for Development Research, Bonn, May 2024 https://bonndoc.ulb.uni-bonn.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11811/12000/zef-dp_347.pdf?sequence=2}