France hosted the “Nutrition for Growth” summit March 27-28,
bringing the global fight against hunger into the spotlight — and onto a difficult
stage dominated by defense priorities and deep budget cuts. Once again, hopes
to end malnutrition by 2030 — a core U.N. goal — appeared to be slipping
further out of reach, as experts called for a fundamental rethink of the entire
model.
This edition of the nutrition summit followed the precedent set by the
United Kingdom after the 2012 London Olympics. Meant to align with the Olympic
cycle, the global initiative envisioned a “nutrition troika”
connecting Tokyo, Paris and Los Angeles. But the model was already faltering.
The U.S. government, under the Trump administration, pulled out of the effort —
despite it being the host for the 2028 Games in Los Angeles.
“Worse, the White House ordered the destruction of all preparatory materials
related to the Paris summit,” said a source familiar with the process. The move
dealt a major blow to the U.N.’s goal of ending hunger and malnutrition
worldwide within the decade.
The Trump administration had slashed the number of humanitarian programs
funded by USAID from 5,000 to 500, placing the agency under tighter political
control. In the absence of federal support, organizers considered turning to
California or even the 2032 Olympic host, Australia, to sustain the momentum. A
diplomat involved in the summit said Australia had already signaled its
commitment to continuing the initiative.
The challenge remained immense. The COVID-19 pandemic, rising conflicts, and climate disruptions have wiped out decades of progress. In 2023, between 713 million and 757 million people were undernourished -152 million more than in 2019, according to U.N. data.
Financial pledges were expected at the Paris summit, but the fiscal room was
tight. French President Emmanuel Macron planned to announce €1.2 billion (about $1.3 billion) in funding
through 2030. He was joined by Lesotho’s King Letsie III, a vocal advocate on
nutrition, and Brazilian First Lady Rosângela Lula da Silva, who recently
launched a Global Alliance Against Hunger with 80 member nations. The European
Union was expected to commit €3 billion over five years.
800,000 at immediate risk
“These sums are welcome, but from what I understand, they’re mostly a
repackaging of existing funds,” said Michael Siegel, advocacy director for
Action Against Hunger (ACF), which issued a dire warning. An internal impact
study showed that current budget cuts would affect 1.5 million recipients —
including 800,000 whose lives were at immediate risk.
ACF was overhauling its operations to focus on “life-saving” programs. “Our
colleagues cried when they received USAID’s termination letter,” Siegel said.
“In the Democratic Republic of Congo, nutrition centers have stopped admitting
children. We’re sending families home.”
From therapeutic treatment to water access, social protection, and
agroecology, NGOs argued they had tested solutions to hunger. “The problem is,
we no longer know who to turn to for funding. This will fundamentally
change the nature of aid,” Siegel warned.
Foreign aid budgets from Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and Germany were
all trending downward. The U.K. openly prioritized military rearmament. France
also cut its public aid budget by €2 billion this year to reduce its deficit.
Summit organizers pointed to the presence of private-sector players in Paris
as a partial solution — but it wasn’t enough, said Mathilde Lécluse, climate
and nutrition advocacy officer for UNICEF France.
‘The architecture of global food aid is collapsing’
“The global architecture of food assistance is collapsing,” Lécluse said,
noting that malnutrition was responsible for one out of every two deaths among
children under 5. “Private funding can help, but it can’t replace public
funding. It’s mostly channeled into sectors with potential for return on
investment.”
UNICEF advocated for targeting aid to the “first 1,000 days” — from
pregnancy through age 2 — a critical window for child development. “We’re
entering an era of impossible choices,” Lécluse said. “We’re forced to
prioritize emergency treatment for severely malnourished children and drop
preventive measures, even though prevention is the key to avoiding such
crises.”
Focusing aid on the poorest countries
The World Bank made an economic case: every dollar invested in nutrition
could save $23 in future costs—$35 in South Africa and $53 in Indonesia. Agnès
Soucat, head of health and social protection at France’s development agency
(AFD), viewed that return as essential. Starting in 2026, AFD planned to reduce
grants to emerging and middle-income countries to focus on the poorest states.
“There’s an issue of sovereignty when aid comes in the form of grants. It
can replace government spending,” said Soucat, a former World Bank official.
She cited India and Indonesia as countries with the capacity to fund their own
nutrition programs. Nations like Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Kenya, while less
wealthy, could also do more, she argued.
The emphasis now was on optimization. Soucat proposed a “toolbox” of solutions:
new concessional loans with 50-year terms, sugar taxes, and targeted subsidies
for legumes. “By cutting wasteful spending, we can improve the nutritional
quality of existing programs,” she said.
The Paris summit would open the window for additional financial
pledges, with more announcements expected in the coming months. On the agenda:
a joint French-Brazilian resolution at the U.N. General Assembly, backed by 75
countries, calling for a decade of action against malnutrition — and the
Scaling Up Nutrition global gathering set for Nov. 4-6 in Kigali, Rwanda.
