Discussions on food security, and sustainable development more generally, often include references to the food-energy-water nexus, meaning that three of the resources most intimately linked to human health and well-being are deeply interrelated. But the future of the world’s food supply is likely to depend at least as much on another trilateral relationship: the one between climate change, food, and geopolitics.
The relationship between climate change, food production, and food security needs little explanation. More frequent extreme weather, less predictable water supply, more crop disease, and other climate impacts are making crop production less predictable and contributing to spikes in food prices. It does bear mention, however, that most of the core inputs for agricultural production, including land, water, and nitrogen, are highly constrained and cannot be increased without incurring significant tradeoffs, not least to the environment and biodiversity.
Geopolitics, though, is a newer and less obvious influence on food security. Unfortunately, it may be the most pernicious one of all. The significance of geopolitics arises from a major turn in world affairs over the past decade or so, from one in which major powers backed international institutions, free trade, and other elements of a broadly liberal world order to one marked by an emphasis on national sovereignty, great power rivalry, and large-scale warfare.
Each of these manifestations of geopolitics carries harmful implications for food security and sustainability worldwide. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has created an unprecedented risk to the world’s food supply with the belligerents accounting for nearly a third of global wheat production. Though disaster has so far been averted thanks to the intervention of international organizations, the conflict has severely destabilized food supplies, especially to the Middle East and North Africa. Future large-scale conflicts could well see intensified weaponization of crop exports.
The resurgence of great power rivalry, meanwhile, is pushing countries to prioritize self-sufficiency in major crops, often at a high financial and environmental cost. China is perhaps the best example. Food security, and especially food self-sufficiency, has long been a high priority for the Chinese government, reflecting in part a long and tragic history of famine and a perception that averting it is an important element of state legitimacy. Accordingly, China maintains large strategic reserves of key foodstuffs, including pork, and has set strict limits on the amount of land that can be taken out of cultivation. Like other governments, the Chinese government also provides extensive policy support to the agricultural sector.
This emphasis is despite the fact that China’s agricultural system is largely dominated by smallholder farmers with low efficiency and competitiveness, making the prioritization of self-sufficiency a significant financial commitment for the Chinese government. Prioritization of food self-sufficiency moreover exacerbates China’s exposure to water scarcity and other environmental challenges. The acquisition of farmland and agribusiness resources by Chinese entities has further stoked tension in regions as varied as the US and Southwest and Southern Africa. Finally, the Chinese government also invests heavily in agricultural research and development, including in areas like genetically modified crops that have historically been dominated by foreign agribusiness firms, leading to considerable trade-related disputes.
Perhaps most dangerous of all for food security and sustainability is the fragmentation of the global economic and trade system. Although the agricultural sector has long been subject to significant trade barriers, recent moves by the US and other governments to impose tariffs threaten to decouple major agricultural markets. Integration of food and commodity markets in the post-Second World War period has played a significant role in reducing the incidence of famine. At the same time, integrated agricultural markets help to buffer the impact of extreme weather and climate disruptions on food production.
Even as the challenges posed by the food-climate-geopolitics nexus grow more acute, the safety net for global food security has become badly frayed. Demands on the world’s food aid system have been unsustainable for some time but were exacerbated by recent conflicts in the Middle East, the Sudan, and elsewhere. The dismantling of the US Agency for International Development by the Trump Administration threatens to plunge this already fragile system into complete chaos.
The increasing salience of geopolitics for the world’s food system carries generally disconcerting implications. In particular, it may suggest that food supplies may be increasingly weaponized in both conflict and competition scenarios. The risk of weaponization may be especially high in less economically developed countries and regions. It also implies that the world’s food system and agricultural market is likely to become increasingly fragmented, with potentially harmful consequences for affordability and resilience amidst climate and other shocks.
Against this rather bleak outlook, two areas stand out as priorities for investment. One is the international institutions, like the World Food Program (WFP), that act as a safety net for the poorest and most marginalized communities around the world. While support for such institutions is under threat from US government and other national policies, philanthropic organizations and like-minded governments might help to fill the gap in funding and resources.
A second priority is research, development, and innovation in the food system. Advances in synthetic biology in particular hold significant promise to help produce more and more nutritious food that might also be more resilient to climate and other disruptions. However, to maximize the benefits of such progress, governments and other actors would need to ensure that synbio crops and foods could be distributed to the poorest countries and markets.
It almost goes without saying that the current moment is one of extreme disruption and uncertainty. This is especially true for food in light of the convergence of climate change, geopolitics, and financial pressures. The silver lining may be that there is an opportunity to create and envision a more sustainable global food system. It seems clear that such a system must produce more and more nutritious food while being more resilient to extreme weather and demanding little if any additional water, land, or other resources. This is a daunting challenge, and unprecedented institutional and technological effort will be required to meet it.
* * *
Dr Scott Moore is Practice Professor of Political Science and Director of China Programs and Strategic Initiatives, Penn Global University of Pennsylvania.
This article was written for Perry World House’s 2025 Conference, ‘Feeding a Climate Changed World.’ This meeting was made possible in part by a generous grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The views expressed are solely the author’s and do not reflect those of Perry World House, the University of Pennsylvania, or the Carnegie Corporation of New York.