Key Takeaways
- A new Strategy& (PwC) report argues that food security demands a holistic, four-pillar approach — covering availability, affordability, safety and quality, and sustainability — and warns that isolated initiatives often improve one pillar while inadvertently undermining another.
- The report identifies five government tools for improving food security: technology and AI-driven innovation, funding and incentives, education and partnerships, strategy and planning, and policymaking and regulation.
- Countries are grouped into four archetypes based on their food security strengths and gaps — from capital-rich GCC states to affordability-first nations like Egypt and Pakistan, sustainability leaders like Denmark and Austria, and high-quality exporters like the US and Argentina.
- Case studies including Sri Lanka's abrupt organic farming ban (which caused a 20% rice production drop) and Egypt's wheat import dependency (which left it exposed after the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war) illustrate the real-world costs of unbalanced food policy.
- The report concludes that food security resilience increasingly depends on diversified sourcing, flexible logistics, and shock-ready policy design — not domestic production alone — and calls for coordinated public-private partnerships.
Strategy& Report: Governments Must Take a Holistic Approach to Food Security
A new report from Strategy&, part of the PwC network, argues that governments worldwide are approaching food security too narrowly — and that fragmented, single-objective interventions risk creating as many problems as they solve. Titled Food Forward: How Governments Can Be More Intentional About Food Security, the report lays out a comprehensive framework for addressing the four interdependent pillars of food security: availability, affordability, safety and quality, and sustainability. With the global population expected to reach 9–10 billion by 2050 and approximately 10% of the world currently undernourished, the report frames food system resilience as one of the defining policy challenges of the coming decades.
The Four Pillars and the Risk of Isolated Initiatives Highlighted in The Strategy& Report
The report's central insight is that the four pillars of food security are deeply interdependent: progress in one can undermine progress in another if not carefully managed. Intensifying agricultural production to boost availability can degrade soil and deplete water resources. Enforcing strict safety standards can raise costs and reduce affordability. The report illustrates this through two real-world cases.
In 2021, Sri Lanka abruptly banned synthetic fertilisers and pesticides with the aim of transitioning to organic agriculture. The decision triggered a 20% drop in rice production and required the country to import US$450 million worth of grain to meet domestic demand. Tea production fell approximately 18%. The government ultimately reversed the ban and subsidised affected farmers.
Egypt offers a parallel case. The world's largest wheat importer, sourcing 82% of its supply from Russia and Ukraine, Egypt's subsidised affordability-first approach left its food system acutely exposed when the 2022 war between those two nations disrupted global grain trade. The government's post-war response was projected to increase subsidy spending by 42%.
Five Tools and Four Country Archetypes
To help governments respond more effectively, the report outlines five tools from a food security action toolkit: technology and AI-driven innovation; funding and incentives; education and partnerships; strategy and planning; and policymaking and regulation. These tools are not universally applicable — the report groups countries into four archetypes and recommends tailored combinations of tools for each.
Capital-rich, resource-scarce nations such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Oman (Archetype 1) are advised to diversify trade routes and accelerate AI-enabled agritech adoption. Affordability-first countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Thailand (Archetype 2) should invest in nutrition education, food labelling reform, and more targeted subsidy design. Sustainability champions such as Denmark, Austria, and Poland (Archetype 3) need to address the affordability gap their high production standards have created. And high-quality food exporters such as the US, Argentina, and China (Archetype 4) face growing domestic affordability gaps that require public-private infrastructure investment and localised supply incentives.
Coordinated Action and Private Sector Partnerships Are Essential
The report closes by emphasising that no government can address food security alone. Properly structured public-private partnerships are identified as critical enablers, particularly in the early phases of new initiatives. Food security resilience, the report argues, increasingly depends not just on domestic production capacity, but on diversified sourcing, flexible logistics networks, and policy frameworks designed to absorb shocks. Download the full report for the complete country-by-country analysis and policy recommendations by Strategy&.
