Progress towards global nutrition targets is too slow, and rising food prices threaten to put healthy diets even further out of reach for many, according to the 2026 State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World  published recently by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Even before delivery systems began to strain under the combined pressure of climate change, conflict, disease outbreaks, economic shocks, and steep reductions in aid,2.6 billion people could not afford a healthy diet, according to the 2025 edition of the FAO report, which is published annually.

Climate shocks, conflict, and funding cuts are all hitting our food and health systems at the same time, and often in the same places. These converging pressures make it hard for countries to address all forms of malnutrition, with consequences reaching far beyond health. 

Nutrition is foundational to economic development, with an estimated return of $23 for every $1 invested. Despite decades of evidence, proven interventions, and global commitments, malnutrition persists at scale.

The problem is not a lack of evidence, but that nutrition continues to be treated as a sectoral issue instead of a shared outcome across food, health, and social protection systems, according to the report. 

If we are serious about achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 (zero hunger) and SDG 3 (health) by 2030, and building resilience in an era of overlapping crises, integration and accountability must become the norm rather than the exception.

Fragmented systems won’t deliver

For too long, nutrition has been viewed as an outcome that would naturally emerge from improvements in agriculture, health, or social protection. But nutrition depends on how these systems work together.

Food systems determine whether healthy diets are available, affordable, and sustainable. Health systems prevent and treat malnutrition across the life course. Social protection systems help households maintain access to nutritious foods when shocks occur. If these systems operate in isolation, they miss opportunities to maximise impact.

Climate change, conflict, and disease outbreaks do not respect institutional boundaries. The ongoing Ebola outbreak in central Africa is a reminder that health emergencies can simultaneously strain health systems, disrupt livelihoods and food access, and threaten nutrition outcomes. Yet policy responses stay siloed, governed by separate strategies, budgets, and delivery mechanisms.

Food policies that focus primarily on production may increase food availability without improving diet quality. Health interventions can address malnutrition and diet-related disease, but without supportive food environments, they largely remain therapeutic. Likewise, social protection programmes can reduce vulnerability, but if nutrition objectives are not embedded in their design, they may miss opportunities to improve long-term nutrition outcomes.

International integration

The UN report argues that improving nutrition requires intentional integration across systems.

This means using primary healthcare as a platform not only for treatment but also for prevention and behaviour change. It means designing food system reforms to improve nutritional outcomes, not simply agricultural productivity or emissions targets. And it means ensuring social protection programmes explicitly safeguard access to healthy diets.

“The lesson that we have learned is that integration cannot be improvised at the moment of shock. It’s built in advance, or it’s missed,” emphasizes Dr Giacomo Zanello, report co-author and co-chair of the Global Nutrition Report’s Independent Expert Group (IEG).

Countries that have begun integrating nutrition into universal health coverage and broader social policy reforms offer early lessons. Embedding nutrition services within existing systems can help strengthen continuity and resilience of delivery.

The challenge facing policymakers today is less whether these systems are connected and more how to operationalize that connection through deliberate policy choices, coordinated institutions, and shared objectives.

Governance and financing 

If integration is the goal, governance is what makes it possible. There is a disconnect between promises on paper and the systems needed to deliver them. 

Despite a proliferation of commitments, including through the Nutrition for Growth summits, weaknesses remain in financing, coordination, and accountability mechanisms.

This helps explain why progress continues to lag despite widespread agreement on what works.

The challenge is not simply whether ambitious commitments are made. It is whether governments, donors, and institutions are held accountable for achieving outcomes. Too often, success is assessed through strategies published, meetings convened, or budgets allocated. 

The report argues for a stronger focus on substantive accountability: whether policies are improving diets, nutrition, and health outcomes.

Achieving this requires stronger governance arrangements. Policy coherence and cross-sector integration must move beyond aspiration and become embedded in coordination platforms with clear authority, mandates, and accountability mechanisms that encourage health, food, agriculture, and climate actors to work toward common outcomes.

Financing must become more strategic as well. The fiscal space is shrinking in many countries due to debt pressures, competing national priorities and declining external assistance. In this context, governments cannot simply spend their way out of malnutrition. They must prioritize investments that generate the greatest nutrition, health and resilience benefits.

“Successful implementation requires sharper prioritization, strong domestic policies, and sequencing that is firmly grounded in political feasibility,” stresses Dr Shibani Ghosh, also co-chair of the IEG and report co-author.

The report points to the importance of linking financing to substantive performance and outcomes, rather than focusing solely on inputs. Investments should support interventions that improve nutrition while also strengthening resilience, sustainability, and equity.

The result is a compelling case for viewing nutrition investments not as costs to be managed, but as catalysts for broader development gains.

Data, gender, and implementation capacity

Even the best policies will fail if countries lack the tools to implement them effectively.

One clear lesson is that stronger data systems are fundamental to better nutrition outcomes. Many countries lack timely information on diet quality, service coverage, and vulnerability to shocks, and data is becoming scarcer. This limits governments’ ability to target interventions, allocate efficiently, and monitor progress.

Strengthening nutrition surveillance and information systems should be treated as a core policy priority. Government decision-making and accountability can be improved by integrating nutrition indicators into health information systems, drawing on food price and climate data to anticipate risks, and investing in digital tools that support frontline workers.

Human capacity is critical. Delivering integrated nutrition services requires trained health workers, agricultural extension officers, social protection administrators, and local leaders capable of working across sectors. Without investment in this workforce, even well-designed policies fail to reach communities effectively.

Gender equity represents another critical implementation challenge. Women often bear primary responsibility for food preparation, caregiving, and household nutrition decisions, yet they frequently face barriers to resources, services, and decision-making power. These inequities have direct implications for nutrition outcomes.

Roughly seven in 10 “Nutrition for Growth” commitments show no meaningful connection to gender. This is a striking gap given the evidence linking women’s empowerment to improved health and nutrition outcomes. Policies that fail to address these realities risk reinforcing inequities rather than reducing them.

Integrating gender considerations into food and health systems is not an optional add-on. It is essential to achieving sustainable nutrition gains.

Civil society support

While governments remain responsible for delivering results, civil society has a critical role to play in ensuring commitments translate into action.

Civil society organizations ensure nutrition remains a political priority between global summits, international declarations, and funding announcements. They help monitor commitments, amplify the lived experiences of affected communities, and demand transparency when progress falls short.

This role becomes especially important when nutrition programmes struggle to compete for attention and resources.

The distinction between procedural and substantive accountability matters. Publishing a commitment or progress report is not the same as delivering results. Genuine accountability requires independent scrutiny extending well beyond new commitments.

Groups like the Scaling Up Nutrition Civil Society Network have already demonstrated how this can work by following commitments, documenting implementation gaps, and maintaining public attention on nutrition priorities. Their continued engagement is essential for governments and donors to move beyond promises and deliver real change.

The persistence of malnutrition is not a mystery. It reflects policy choices that continue to treat nutrition as peripheral rather than foundational, even as climate shocks, conflict, and economic pressures expose the costs of that approach.

The 2026 Global Nutrition Report arrives at a pivotal moment. As governments prepare for COP31, its message is simple: nutrition is not only a health issue. It is also a climate, food systems, and development issue.

The tools exist. The framework exists. The evidence exists.

What remains is the political will to act and the accountability to ensure promises translate into results. In today’s constrained fiscal environment, nutrition remains one of the smartest investments available because it improves health, strengthens resilience, and supports long-term economic development.

As underscored by Dr Lawrence Haddad: “We are not going to be the burst pipe under pressure. We are going to become the diamonds under pressure.”

Irshad Danish is a policy advocacy and governance specialist and co-chair of the Global Nutrition Report Stakeholder Group, working on nutrition, social protection, accountability, and food systems policy.

Dr Supreet Kaur is head of Programs, Policy and External Relations at the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). She is also co-chair of the Global Nutrition Report Stakeholder Group and has extensive experience across food systems transformation, micronutrient deficiencies, nutrition policy, and social protection.

Image Credits: SUN Movement, Michael Casmir, Pierce Mill Media, Pier Paolo Cito/ FAO, Rafael Duarte/ ILO.