The Feeding Resilience Plan

The report identifies the intersection of food insecurity and climate change as a critical threat to US national security, citing risks such as political instability, the weaponization of food by adversaries, and geopolitical competition over agricultural technology and fish stocks. It highlights gaps in the US policy landscape, including institutional silos and underfunding of agricultural R&D. To address these, the authors propose 'The Feeding Resilience Plan,' which recommends a new Food Security Executive Order, a standing National Security Council process, expanded forecasting via FEWSNET, increased investment in climate-resilient agricultural innovation, and diplomatic engagement to oppose food weaponization and cooperate with partners and competitors like China.

• Climate change is projected to reduce global calorie production and push over 500 million additional people into severe food insecurity, even under a moderate emissions scenario.
• Food insecurity and price volatility are direct drivers of political instability; in 2022, 20 countries experienced food-related protests that contributed to government collapses in nations such as Haiti and Sri Lanka.
• The report identifies a 'vicious cycle' where conflict is the primary cause of hunger in approximately one-third of countries facing acute food insecurity, with ten of the twelve countries facing emergency-level insecurity experiencing 'high' or 'extreme' conflict.
• China has become the world's largest funder of agricultural R&D by tripling its investments, while US public agricultural R&D funding has decreased by one-third over the last twenty years.
• Russia has weaponized food insecurity to gain leverage with Global South countries, such as promising 50,000 tons of food aid to nations including Burkina Faso, Mali, and Somalia during a 2023 summit.
• Control over transboundary water resources for agriculture is a major geopolitical flashpoint, exemplified by tensions between Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan over the Grand Ethiopia Renaissance Dam, and between Turkey and downstream nations like Iraq and Syria.
• US policy suffers from institutional silos and coordination gaps; for instance, the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) lacks specific actions for the defense or intelligence sectors and is primarily led by USAID.
• The report recommends that the US government issue a new Food Security Executive Order and establish a standing National Security Council process to integrate food, climate, and security directorates.
• The authors propose expanding USAID's Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET) to include longer-term warnings based on climate projections and security considerations.
• Strategic investment in agricultural R&D is presented as a tool for both stability and economic gain, noting that public funding for such research has historically provided a 20-to-1 return for the US economy.

APA

Ellison, T., & Sikorsky, E. (2024). The Feeding Resilience Plan. The Council on Strategic Risks. https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Feeding-Resilience-Final-Report.pdf

Chicago

Ellison, Tom, and Erin Sikorsky. The Feeding Resilience Plan. The Council on Strategic Risks, 2024. https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Feeding-Resilience-Final-Report.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Ellison |first1=Tom |last2=Sikorsky |first2=Erin |title=The Feeding Resilience Plan |publisher=The Council on Strategic Risks |date=September 2024 |url=https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Feeding-Resilience-Final-Report.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{ellison2024feeding, author = {Ellison, Tom and Sikorsky, Erin}, title = {{The Feeding Resilience Plan}}, institution = {The Council on Strategic Risks}, year = {2024}, month = sep, url = {https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Feeding-Resilience-Final-Report.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }