The world is not on track to achieve UN Sustainable Development Goal 2 – Zero hunger - by 2030. After rising between 2019-2021, the number of people suffering from hunger has since stagnated over the past three year. Conflict and climate crises continue to intensify, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic linger. But this trajectory is not inevitable—we have the evidence, tools and political will to change it. 

In 2021, we participated and co-led the Ceres2030 project, a collaborative effort with researchers worldwide that charted a clear, evidence-based roadmap to end hunger by 2030. Drawing on thousands of peer-reviewed articles coupled with economic modeling; the project identified and costed the most promising interventions to end hunger.   

But the global roadmap was only the beginning. We have since used this methodology, expanding it further through Hesat2030, and applied it to nine country-level deep dives. Working together with government, civil society, farmers, academia, we co-create roadmaps that reflect national priorities while identifying a set of interventions that deliver the highest social, economic, and environmental returns. Their ambition? Reduce hunger to less than 3% of the population, double the number of people who can afford a healthy diet, and double farmer incomes within the limits set in the Paris Agreement. 

The cost to achieve these outcomes vary between countries —ranging from USD 500 million in Malawi to nearly USD 5 billion in Nigeria. Unfortunately, delivering these outcomes is challenged by a current context where donor budgets are shrinking, economies are under strain, and developing countries are mired in debt. Yet these costs will only continue to rise as we approach the 2030 deadline. 

Why these roadmaps can succeed 

The country roadmaps are built on a foundation of data and evidence. However, data alone cannot tell the full story. Governance structures, inclusivity, and political context matter, but cannot be easily quantified. For this reason, the Zero Hunger Coalition, launched during the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, initiated a process that improve the likelihood that these country roadmaps will be implemented. 

First, countries have taken ownership of the country roadmaps. By explicitly requesting these roadmaps, governments have not only indicated their support for the roadmaps but also their willingness to transition towards sustainable and resilient food systems.  

Second, the country roadmaps articulate national priorities. Governments, as well as the private sector, civil society, multilateral organizations, donor agencies, researchers, and local institutions, have participated in extensive national consultations to define priorities.  

Finally, the roadmaps align with existing national food systems transformation frameworks, such as the UNFSS pathways and, for African countries, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). Rather than introducing a disparate approach, the country roadmaps enhance the existing frameworks and serve to identify gaps and challenges.  

Each country roadmap is the result of extensive, nationally owned process, aligning stakeholders' engagement and policy priorities with an evidence-based understanding of what is needed to achieve our outcomes, how interventions can be leveraged to optimize outcomes and an understanding of the trade-offs. By embedding local knowledge and priorities into the process, we ensure roadmaps are not only technically sound but also politically feasible and socially relevant. This delivers a comprehensive guide for action. 

What the roadmaps have already achieved 

These country roadmaps have already had a tangible impact; they have influenced policy action, strengthened national governance systems and, through the Zero Hunger Coalition, offered a platform for sharing experiences.  

In Malawi, the country roadmap has provided policy makers with the evidence to shape policy. By demonstrating the linkages between food, climate and nutrition, they have increased the alignment between policy documents and influenced the national policies on agriculture and nutrition. In Nigeria, the country roadmap directly informed the national food systems transformation pathway while, in Madagascar, it is influencing the development of the country’s food systems action plan as well as national climate goals. 

National governance systems and coordination have also improved. The roadmaps have catalyzed dialogue between ministries, and other stakeholders and led to the revival of national food systems taskforces in Benin, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Madagascar that focus on long-term planning and a multisectoral approach. In Madagascar, the taskforce now leads national and local implementation and conducts ongoing assessments to refine strategies in real time. 

Through the Zero Hunger Coalition’s South-South dialogues, Benin, the DRC and Madagascar are now exchanging best practices and innovative solutions to common challenges. Madagascar’s success in establishing an effective taskforce inspired Benin to replicate a similar model within a year. 

What we need now 

With the country roadmaps, we have identified the most effective interventions to end hunger and malnutrition, improve the livelihood of farmers within the boundaries of the Paris climate agreement. Through the process undertaken by the Zero Hunger Coalition, we have the political will and stakeholder engagement to take action.  

Yet, a key challenge remains: financing. 

In 2021, Ceres2030 estimated it would take USD 330 billion annually to end hunger. Today, that figure has soared to USD 540 billion per year. This is the cost of our inaction. And with countries under fiscal pressure and donor funds shrinking, additional resources are no longer available. Instead, the development community must find innovative approaches to fill this gap by mobilizing private capital. 

Our current attempts have fallen short: only 2% of ODA in agriculture is directed towards blended finance. Yet, despite this limited spending, blended finance has managed to leverage over $1 billion annually in public and private investment. 

This shows the potential of catalytic public funding. But also, that this catalytic approach is underused. 

Moving forward, we must rethink how public money can be used more strategically to crowd in private investment. Otherwise, we risk falling short of our goals - not for a lack of ideas or political will, but rather for a lack of financing that matches the scale of the challenge.