Disrupted harvests: how Ukraine – Russia war influences global food systems – a systematic review

ABSTRACT

Amid Ukraine’s geopolitical turmoil, a ripple effect is echoing across global agricultural and food systems – a phenomenon with far-reaching implications for producers, traders, and consumers across the globe. This systematic study delves into this intricate interaction, examining scholarly literature to determine the magnitude and complexities of the war’s impact on global agri-food systems. Utilizing a rigourous methodology, we screened 236 articles from the Web of Science database as of March 2023, narrowing the corpus to 62 significant publications that meet comprehensive eligibility criteria. The war affected all food security dimensions, but the most dramatic impact was on food access. Indeed, the decrease in domestic food production and productivity; the damage to production assets, food production, and food stocks; the increase in production input prices; changes in land use and land degradation; and labour shortage in rural areas reduced food supply and availability, especially that of cereals. The decrease in food availability led to increased food prices and inflation, which, combined with the disruption of agri-food trade, markets, and supply chains, affected food access, especially for the poor and vulnerable people and groups. Effects on food utilization are mainly seen in the decrease in diet quality and dietary diversity. The war also affected the stability dimension, mainly owing to the volatility of food prices and the uncertainty of the future food supply. Similarly, the war has affected all the dimensions of food system sustainability (viz. environmental, social, economic, political). However, some phenomena have particularly affected the socio-economic dimension, such as food insecurity and malnutrition, poverty and vulnerability, and migration and displacement. Therefore, it is imperative to use evidence-based strategies and policies that are not only efficient and effective but also sustainable. Consequently, conducting extensive research into the conflict’s medium- and long-term consequences is crucial, especially in the context of developing countries, which have hitherto been largely overlooked in prior research.

KEYWORDS:

• Ukraine
• war
• food system
• food security
• agricultural policy
• systematic review

1. Introduction

The conflict that started in the spring of 2014 in the Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk regions) already had impacts on the agriculture and food sectors as well as on the food security of thousands of people in Ukraine (Nidzvetska et al. 2017; Summers and Bilukha 2018) and beyond. The conflict also determined a loss of cropland (Skakun et al. 2019). Moreover, western/international sanctions imposed after the annexation of Crimea affected the Russian economy (Borisov, Popova, and Rasoulinezhad 2020; Zheng et al. 2022), agriculture sector included (Klomp 2020). The various multilateral sanctions enacted by the European Union (EU) on Russia, as well as the retaliation measures taken by Russia, affected agri-food trade in Europe (Borisov, Popova, and Rasoulinezhad 2020; Klomp 2020). Later, the impacts of the war in eastern Ukraine were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Ustymenko et al. 2021).

However, the situation worsened when Russia started a large-scale “special operation” in Ukraine on February 24, 2022 (Al Jazeera 2023). The invasion resulted in civilian fatalities and injuries (Statista 2023), as well as the destruction of critical civilian infrastructure in Ukraine (e.g. roads, ports, airports, railways, electricity grids, and drinking water systems) (UN Press 2023). In addition, the conflict has jeopardized global food security (Ben Hassen and El Bilali 2022; FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO 2022; Jagtap et al. 2022). Indeed, the conflict disrupted food production and trade in one of the world’s most important food-exporting regions since Ukraine and Russia are global exporters of food and agricultural production inputs (FAO 2022a; Glauber and Laborde 2022). Despite contributing just around 2% to the global GDP, Russia and Ukraine are major exporters of fertilizers, minerals, agricultural products, and energy (FAO 2022a; KPMG 2020; OECD 2022). The two countries are major players in the global agriculture and food export markets, including wheat, corn/maize, barley, rye, oats, and sunflower (Table 1). Furthermore, prior to the conflict, Russia was one of the major global exporters of fertilizers, such as nitrogen, potassic, and phosphorous, as well as energy resources (oil and natural gas) (Benton et al. 2022; FAO 2022a; KPMG 2022; Rabobank 2022).

Table 1. Shares and ranks of Russia and Ukraine in the world’s production and export of selected agricultural commodities.

Commodity	Country	Production quantity		Export quantity
		Share (%)	Rank	Share (%)	Rank
Wheat	Russia	10	4	17	2
	Ukraine	4	7	12	5
Corn/maize	Russia	1	10	2	6
	Ukraine	4	6	17	4
Barley	Russia	12	2	13	4
	Ukraine	7	4	18	3
Rye	Russia	14	2	12	4
	Ukraine	5	4	40	1
Oats	Russia	17	2	6	4
	Ukraine	2	11	1	7
Sunflower	Russia	25	2	25	2
	Ukraine	30	1	50	1

Source: Adapted from Schwab (2022); data retrieved from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on 4 March 2022.

The war in Ukraine has led to significant agri-food trade disruptions (McMahon 2022; Mendez, Forcadell, and Horiachko 2022) with the introduction of numerous export restrictions that, combined with impacts on food prices (Bloem and Farris 2022; Galanakis 2023), affected food security in several countries (Anonymous 2022; Behnassi and El Haiba 2022; Bentley et al. 2022; Berkhout 2022; Gross 2022; McMahon 2022; Mendez, Forcadell, and Horiachko 2022; Tretter 2022). Indeed, in February 2022, the FAO’s Food Price Index soared by 21% compared to 2021, thus setting a new record and surpassing by 2.2% the previous peak in February 2011 (FAO 2022b). Based on the World Bank (2023) analysis, maize and wheat prices experienced a significant increase of 27% and 13%, respectively, in January 2023 compared to January 2021.

Food price increases drove up inflation; most world countries (not only lower-middle-income but also upper-middle-income and even high-income countries) had double-digit inflation in September–December 2022 (World Bank 2022). However, the impacts of the war varied from one region to another (FAO et al. 2022) and have been particularly noticed in countries reliant on food imports from Russia and/or Ukraine in sub-Saharan Africa (Wudil et al. 2022) and the Middle East and North Africa (ESCWA, FAO, UNEP & WFP 2022). The surge in prices of basic food items posed a severe threat of plunging millions of people into poverty and famine, particularly those residing in low-income nations that already struggle with food deficits (Allam, Bibri, and Sharpe 2022; Ben Hassen and El Bilali 2022; FAO et al. 2022; Jagtap et al. 2022; Zhou et al. 2023).

The war came at a delicate moment when the world was just recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. This combined its effects with those of the pandemic, which resulted in severe and far-reaching impacts on agriculture and food systems (Arora and Sarker 2023; Wudil et al. 2022). For instance, Arora and Sarker (2023) argue that “The economic and social impact of COVID-19 pandemic both on developing and developed countries has been significant. In addition to the impact of the pandemic, the current Ukraine war has also led to severe supply chain disruptions leading to a sharp increase in food and commodity prices globally”. Likewise, Wudil et al. (2022) posit that “Statistics show that food insecurity has risen since 2015 in Sub-Saharan African countries, and the situation has worsened owing to the Ukraine conflict and the ongoing implications of the COVID-19 threat”. Furthermore, the war might also jeopardize the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Arora and Sarker 2023; Ben Hassen and El Bilali 2022; Bin-Nashwan, Hassan, and Muneeza 2024; Pereira et al. 2022b). For instance, Pereira et al. (2022b) argue that

The escalation of this conflict is imposing severe threats to achieving the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) not only to the countries directly involved in the conflict but also to other countries, especially the developing ones that are more vulnerable to the economic crisis. (277)

Several scholars, government institutions/agencies, international organizations, and media outlets have examined the political and socio-economic implications of the Russo-Ukraine conflict (Ben Hassen and El Bilali 2022; FAO 2022c; Jelínková, Plaček, and Ochrana 2023; Mader 2024; Pennisi di Floristella and Chen 2023; Rosina 2023; Sim 2023; WFP 2022). Nevertheless, despite the increasing attention paid to the impact of conflicts on global agriculture and food systems, there is a lack of recent systematic reviews that have specifically addressed the global implications of the war in Ukraine on agri-food systems. Despite several studies on the conflict’s effect on food security and agriculture in different regions, nations, and even internationally, no comprehensive systematic review has consolidated and analyzed the available literature on the subject. Only three previous scholarly reviews dealt with the consequences of the war in Ukraine on the agri-food sector (Table 2). Hence, the primary objective of this review is to bridge this gap in the existing literature.

Table 2. Previous reviews dealing with the impacts of the war in Ukraine on agriculture and food systems.

Review	Publication date	Review type	Geographical coverage	Thematic focus
Wudil et al. (2022)	November 2022	Narrative review	Sub-Saharan Africa	Food security
Ben Hassen and El Bilali (2022)	August 2022	Narrative review	Global, with an emphasis on the Near East and North Africa region	Food security
Rabbi et al. (2023)	March 2023	Narrative review	Europe/European Union	Food security

Consequently, this systematic review aims to investigate the scholarly literature on the impacts of the war in Ukraine on global agriculture and food systems. The review comprehensively examines the literature to identify whether and how it addresses the impact of the conflict on agriculture and food systems worldwide. The article offers a comprehensive outlook on the geographic distribution of research in this field. It investigates the scope of the research by examining different agriculture subsectors and food chain stages. Additionally, the review analyzes the extent to which the literature addresses the issues of food security and food system sustainability in the context of the war in Ukraine. Therefore, this review has two main goals: (i) identify gaps in the literature and highlight areas where further research is needed, and (ii) provide a more nuanced and detailed understanding of how the conflict has impacted various facets of the agri-food system, such as production, distribution, and consumption, and the associated challenges of food security and sustainability.

Firstly, the methodology section (Section 2) explains the systematic review approach and the search strategy used to identify relevant literature. Secondly, the results section (Section 3) presents the review’s findings, including the geography and scope of the research and how it addresses food security and food system sustainability. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the main findings and their implications and suggests future research directions.

2. Methodology

The present article is based on a systematic review that analyzed all documents indexed in Clarivate Analytics – Web of Science. The PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Moher et al. 2009; Page et al. 2021) were followed. On 3 March 2023, a search was carried out using the following search query in the Topic field: Ukrain* AND (war OR conflict OR invasion) AND (agricultur* OR agro OR food). To ensure that the documents selected were relevant to the research question and met the standards of academic rigour, the systematic review followed two eligibility or inclusion criteria: thematic focus and document type. Firstly, to be included in the review, the document had to address both the war in Ukraine and agriculture/food. Secondly, the document type had to be a journal article, book chapter, or conference article. Therefore, the review excluded materials that may not provide original research or analysis, such as letters to editors, editorial materials, commentaries, notes, and reviews. The systematic review only included articles that fulfilled both criteria. A total of 236 documents were identified during the initial literature search (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Systematic review: articles selection process.

At first, 88 documents were excluded because they were published before the start of the conflict in 2022. Further, 22 documents were discarded based on the screening of titles because they do not deal with agri-food (10 documents) or the current war (12 documents). Additional 53 documents were excluded after reviewing their abstracts as they did not meet at least one of the inclusion criteria; 10 documents do not deal with agri-food, 35 do not address the war in Ukraine, and 8 do not have abstracts. In particular, many articles refer to the war in the introductory and/or conclusive parts but do not provide any specific analysis of its impacts. Finally, after analyzing the full-texts, a total of 11 documents were excluded from the study, which consisted of 9 editorial materials and 2 review articles (Arora and Sarker 2023; Bentley 2022; Bentley et al. 2022; Gross 2022; Mendez, Forcadell, and Horiachko 2022; Patel and Erickson 2022; Pereira et al. 2022b; Pörtner et al. 2022; Tollefson 2022) and 2 reviews (Ben Hassen and El Bilali 2022; Wudil et al. 2022).

Therefore, 62 documents were eligible and were included in the systematic review (Table 3).

Table 3. List of the selected eligible documents.

Year	Documents number	References
2023*	4	Babar et al. (Babar, Ahmad, and Yousaf 2023); Cui and Maghyereh (Cui and Maghyereh 2023); Feng et al. (Feng, Jia, and Lin 2023); Zhou et al. (Zhou et al. 2023)
2022	58	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022); Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Ali et al. (Ali, Manikas, and Sundarakani 2022); Astrov et al. (Astrov et al. 2022); Bin-Nashwan et al. (Bin-Nashwan, Hassan, and Muneeza 2024); Carriquiry et al. (Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022); Chumachenko et al. (Chumachenko et al. 2022); Ciot (Ciot 2023); Costello (Costello 2022); Estrada and Koutronas (Estrada and Koutronas 2022); Fang and Shao (Fang and Shao 2022); García Bernado (García Bernado 2022); Gole et al. (Gole et al. 2022); Halecki and Bedla (Halecki and Bedla 2022); Hall (Hall 2023); Hellegers (Hellegers 2022); Ihle et al. (Ihle et al. 2022); Ionescu et al. (Ionescu, Zlati, and Antohi 2022); Irtyshcheva et al. (Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022); Ishchenko et al. (Ishchenko et al. 2022); Jagtap et al. (Jagtap et al. 2022); Jain et al. (Jain et al. 2022); Jambor and Nagy (Jambor and Nagy 2022); Just and Echaust (Just and Echaust 2022); Karabag and Imre (Karabag and Imre 2022); Kappel (Kappel 2022); Kopytko et al. (Kopytko et al. 2022); Korneyev et al. (Korneyev et al. 2022); Kyriazis (Kyriazis 2022); Lagodiienko et al. (Lagodiienko et al. 2022); Legrand (Legrand 2022); Li and Song (Li and Song 2022); Liadze et al. (Liadze et al. 2022); Ma et al. (Ma et al. 2022); Mahran (Mahran 2023); Malysh et al. (Malysh et al. 2022); Mamonova (Mamonova 2023); Martin and Minot (Martin and Minot 2022); Martine (Martine 2022); Martinho (Martinho 2022); Min (Min 2022); Mottaleb et al. (Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022); Nasir et al. (Nasir, Nugroho, and Lakner 2022); Nchasi et al. (Nchasi et al. 2022); Nóia Júnior et al. (Nóia Júnior et al. 2022); Pavlova (Pavlova 2022); Pereira et al. (Pereira et al. 2022a); Rawtani et al. (Rawtani et al. 2022); Roitblat et al. (Roitblat et al. 2022); Saâdaoui et al. (Saâdaoui, Ben Jabeur, and Goodell 2022); Sargentis et al. (Sargentis et al. 2022); Shams Esfandabadi et al. (Shams Esfandabadi, Ranjbari, and Scagnelli 2022); Sohag et al. (Sohag et al. 2022); Sun et al. (Sun et al. 2022); Travnikar and Bele (Travnikar and Bele 2022); Vallova et al. (Vallova et al. 2022); von Cramon-Taubadel (von Cramon-Taubadel 2022); Yazbeck et al. (Yazbeck et al. 2022)

*As of 3rd March 2023.

The selected documents were analyzed based on various aspects, including the research geography, food security pillars, and sustainability dimensions (Table 4).

Table 4. Analyses undergone by the selected articles.

Topic	Description	Used method reference(s)
Research geography	Countries and regions covered by studies	El Bilali (2021); El Bilali and Ben Hassen (2020) and el Bilali et al. (2022)
Food security	Food security dimensions/pillars: availability, access, utilization/use, and stability	El Bilali (2019) and El Bilali (2021)
Sustainability	Sustainability dimensions: environment, economy, society, and policy and governance	el Bilali, Strassner, and ben Hassen (2021)

Like any other systematic review, this study has certain limitations. Specifically, the results may be influenced by the search strategy employed, including the choice of the search process. For instance, deciding to include only articles published in sources/journals indexed on the Web of Science may exclude relevant publications in non-indexed journals and grey literature such as reports. Similarly, the choice of search terms may influence the identification of relevant studies. Moreover, as the Russian-Ukrainian war is currently unabated, new studies are continuously published, which implies that the current systematic review covering articles published till March 2023 might not ideally and totally reflect the current state of play. It is important to acknowledge these limitations and interpret the findings of this review in light of them.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Research geography

Given the magnitude and scale of the conflict, it is no surprise that a large share (more than half) of the selected articles deals with the impacts of the conflict on agri-food systems and food security at the global level (Table 5). For instance, Feng, Jia, and Lin (2023) apply a quantitative multi-sector and multi-country general equilibrium trade model to assess the effects of the war on global agri-food trade patterns and food security. Meanwhile, Alexander et al. (2022) examine the impact of higher energy and fertilizer prices resulting from the war in Ukraine on global food prices and its potential implications on food security.

Table 5. Geography of the research on the impacts of the war in Ukraine on agri-food systems.

Continent/region (articles number)	Country or region (articles number)	Documents
Europe (19)	Europe (5)	Astrov et al. (Astrov et al. 2022) – Ukraine, Russia, and the rest of Europe; Estrada and Koutronas (Estrada and Koutronas 2022) – European Union and Russia; Jain et al. (Jain et al. 2022); Sohag et al. (Sohag et al. 2022) – Eastern and Western Europe; Sun et al. (Sun et al. 2022) – European Union and United Kingdom
	Ukraine (10)	Chumachenko et al. (Chumachenko et al. 2022); Ishchenko et al. (Ishchenko et al. 2022); Korneyev et al. (Korneyev et al. 2022); Lagodiienko et al. (Lagodiienko et al. 2022); Ma et al. (Ma et al. 2022); Malysh et al. (Malysh et al. 2022); Mamonova (Mamonova 2023); Nchasi et al. (Nchasi et al. 2022); Pavlova (Pavlova 2022); Rawtani et al. (Rawtani et al. 2022)
	European Union (2)	Ciot (Ciot 2023) – central and south-eastern Member States; Ionescu et al. (Ionescu, Zlati, and Antohi 2022)
	Slovakia (1)	Vallova et al. (Vallova et al. 2022)
	Slovenia (1)	Travnikar and Bele (Travnikar and Bele 2022)
Africa (2)	Africa (1)	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022)
	Egypt (1)	Mahran (Mahran 2023)
Asia (3)	United Arab Emirates (1)	Ali et al. (Ali, Manikas, and Sundarakani 2022)
	China (1)	Li and Song (Li and Song 2022)
	Lebanon (1)	Yazbeck et al. (Yazbeck et al. 2022)
Global* (38)	Global* (38)	Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Babar et al. (Babar, Ahmad, and Yousaf 2023); Bin-Nashwan et al. (Bin-Nashwan, Hassan, and Muneeza 2024); Carriquiry et al. (Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022); Costello (Costello 2022); Cui and Maghyereh (Cui and Maghyereh 2023); Fang and Shao (Fang and Shao 2022); Feng et al. (Feng, Jia, and Lin 2023); García Bernado (García Bernado 2022); Gole et al. (Gole et al. 2022); Halecki and Bedla (Halecki and Bedla 2022); Hall (Hall 2023); Hellegers (Hellegers 2022); Ihle et al. (Ihle et al. 2022); Irtyshcheva et al. (Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022); Jagtap et al. (Jagtap et al. 2022); Jambor and Nagy (Jambor and Nagy 2022); Just and Echaust (Just and Echaust 2022); Karabag and Imre (Karabag and Imre 2022); Kappel (Kappel 2022) – Russia and Africa; Kopytko et al. (Kopytko et al. 2022); Kyriazis (Kyriazis 2022); Legrand (Legrand 2022); Liadze et al. (Liadze et al. 2022); Martin and Minot (Martin and Minot 2022); Martine (Martine 2022); Martinho (Martinho 2022); Min (Min 2022); Mottaleb et al. (Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022); Nasir et al. (Nasir, Nugroho, and Lakner 2022); Nóia Júnior et al. (Nóia Júnior et al. 2022); Pereira et al. (Pereira et al. 2022a); Roitblat et al. (Roitblat et al. 2022) – Ukraine and Israel; Saâdaoui et al. (Saâdaoui, Ben Jabeur, and Goodell 2022); Sargentis et al. (Sargentis et al. 2022); Shams Esfandabadi et al. (Shams Esfandabadi, Ranjbari, and Scagnelli 2022); von Cramon-Taubadel (von Cramon-Taubadel 2022); Zhou et al. (Zhou et al. 2023)

*This group includes documents addressing at least two countries from different continents.

Only some articles deal with the effects of the war at national and regional levels. Nevertheless, many of the selected documents deal with the effects of the war on the agriculture and food system in Ukraine, with a particular focus on the eastern part of the country, which has been more impacted by the war. Studies deal, among others, with the impacts of the war on food security and the resilience of the national food system. For instance, Mamonova (2023) presents a mapping of food sovereignty and solidarity initiatives that emerged in rural areas of Ukraine during the conflict. Other studies focus on the war’s impacts on food supply and food security in neighboring European countries (e.g. Slovakia) or the European Union as a whole. For example, Sun et al. (2022) analyze the potential effects of adopting plant-based diets (cf. EAT-Lancet’s planetary health diet) on food resilience across Europe against the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Unexpectedly, no single article explicitly addresses the war’s implications regarding food security in Russia.

Surprisingly, only a few articles address the effects of the war on agri-food systems in developing countries, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, with only a few exceptions. For instance, in Lebanon, Yazbeck et al. (2022) contend that the conflict exacerbates food insecurity and contributes to a decline in dietary diversity and patterns. Abu Hatab (2022) sheds light on food security across Africa in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Meanwhile, no single article deals specifically with Northern America, Latin America, and Oceania. This might be because these regions are relatively far from the conflict area, and, more importantly, they do not rely on agri-food imports from Russia and Ukraine as they are large agri-food exporters.

3.2. Impacts on food security and nutrition

Based on the analysis of the scholarly literature, it can be concluded that the war has impacted all dimensions of food security, including availability, access, utilization, and stability. However, most selected articles deal with food access (Table 6). As pointed out by Abu Hatab (2022), the war disrupts food supply chains through different channels, such as the markets for energy and shipping routes, the supply and cost of inputs for agricultural production, the rise in domestic food prices, and the implementation of trade restrictions and other financial measures. Impact channels vary from one food security dimension to another and among countries and world regions.

Table 6. Impacts of the war on food security.

Food security dimension* (articles number, percentage**)	Impacts (articles number, percentage**)	Documents
Food availability (25, 40.32%)	Decrease in domestic food production and productivity (14, 22.58%)	Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Carriquiry et al. (Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022); Halecki and Bedla (Halecki and Bedla 2022); Irtyshcheva et al. (Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022); Lagodiienko et al. (Lagodiienko et al. 2022); Legrand (Legrand 2022); Ma et al. (Ma et al. 2022); Mamonova (Mamonova 2023); Mottaleb et al. (Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022); Nasir et al. (Nasir, Nugroho, and Lakner 2022); Nchasi et al. (Nchasi et al. 2022); Nóia Júnior et al. (Nóia Júnior et al. 2022); Saâdaoui et al. (Saâdaoui, Ben Jabeur, and Goodell 2022); von Cramon-Taubadel (von Cramon-Taubadel 2022)
	Damage to production assets, food production and food stocks (8, 12.90%)	Chumachenko et al. (Chumachenko et al. 2022); Costello (Costello 2022); Irtyshcheva et al. (Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022); Lagodiienko et al. (Lagodiienko et al. 2022); Ma et al. (Ma et al. 2022); Mamonova (Mamonova 2023); Nchasi et al. (Nchasi et al. 2022); Rawtani et al. (Rawtani et al. 2022)
	Increase in production input prices (10, 16.12%)	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022); Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Feng et al. (Feng, Jia, and Lin 2023); Halecki and Bedla (Halecki and Bedla 2022); Irtyshcheva et al. (Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022); Kappel (Kappel 2022); Nchasi et al. (Nchasi et al. 2022); Nóia Júnior et al. (Nóia Júnior et al. 2022); Shams Esfandabadi et al. (Shams Esfandabadi, Ranjbari, and Scagnelli 2022); Travnikar and Bele (Travnikar and Bele 2022)
	Changes in land use and land degradation (9, 14.51%)	Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Chumachenko et al. (Chumachenko et al. 2022); Lagodiienko et al. (Lagodiienko et al. 2022); Ma et al. (Ma et al. 2022); Martinho (Martinho 2022); Nóia Júnior et al. (Nóia Júnior et al. 2022); Pereira et al. (Pereira et al. 2022a); Rawtani et al. (Rawtani et al. 2022); Sargentis et al. (Sargentis et al. 2022)
	Labour shortage in rural areas (3, 4.83%)	Irtyshcheva et al. (Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022); Lagodiienko et al. (Lagodiienko et al. 2022); Nchasi et al. (Nchasi et al. 2022)
Food access (46, 74.19%)	Increase in food prices and inflation (28, 45.16%)	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022); Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Astrov et al. (Astrov et al. 2022); Carriquiry et al. (Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022); Fang and Shao (Fang and Shao 2022); Feng et al. (Feng, Jia, and Lin 2023); García Bernado (García Bernado 2022); Gole et al. (Gole et al. 2022); Ihle et al. (Ihle et al. 2022); Irtyshcheva et al. (Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022); Jagtap et al. (Jagtap et al. 2022); Just and Echaust (Just and Echaust 2022); Lagodiienko et al. (Lagodiienko et al. 2022); Legrand (Legrand 2022); Liadze et al. (Liadze et al. 2022); Martin and Minot (Martin and Minot 2022); Martine (Martine 2022); Min (Min 2022); Mottaleb et al. (Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022); Nasir et al. (Nasir, Nugroho, and Lakner 2022); Nchasi et al. (Nchasi et al. 2022); Saâdaoui et al. (Saâdaoui, Ben Jabeur, and Goodell 2022); Sargentis et al. (Sargentis et al. 2022); Shams Esfandabadi et al. (Shams Esfandabadi, Ranjbari, and Scagnelli 2022); Sohag et al. (Sohag et al. 2022); Travnikar and Bele (Travnikar and Bele 2022); von Cramon-Taubadel (von Cramon-Taubadel 2022); Yazbeck et al. (Yazbeck et al. 2022)
	Disruption of agri-food trade, markets and supply chains (43, 69.35%)	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022); Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Ali et al. (Ali, Manikas, and Sundarakani 2022); Astrov et al. (Astrov et al. 2022); Babar et al. (Babar, Ahmad, and Yousaf 2023); Carriquiry et al. (Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022); Costello (Costello 2022); Cui and Maghyereh (Cui and Maghyereh 2023); Estrada and Koutronas (Estrada and Koutronas 2022); Fang and Shao (Fang and Shao 2022); Feng et al. (Feng, Jia, and Lin 2023); García Bernado (García Bernado 2022); Gole et al. (Gole et al. 2022); Halecki and Bedla (Halecki and Bedla 2022); Hellegers (Hellegers 2022); Ihle et al. (Ihle et al. 2022); Irtyshcheva et al. (Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022); Ishchenko et al. (Ishchenko et al. 2022); Jagtap et al. (Jagtap et al. 2022); Jambor and Nagy (Jambor and Nagy 2022); Just and Echaust (Just and Echaust 2022); Kappel (Kappel 2022); Karabag and Imre (Karabag and Imre 2022); Korneyev et al. (Korneyev et al. 2022); Kyriazis (Kyriazis 2022); Li and Song (Li and Song 2022); Liadze et al. (Liadze et al. 2022); Malysh et al. (Malysh et al. 2022); Martin and Minot (Martin and Minot 2022); Min (Min 2022); Mottaleb et al. (Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022); Nasir et al. (Nasir, Nugroho, and Lakner 2022); Nchasi et al. (Nchasi et al. 2022); Nóia Júnior et al. (Nóia Júnior et al. 2022); Pavlova (Pavlova 2022); Saâdaoui et al. (Saâdaoui, Ben Jabeur, and Goodell 2022); Sargentis et al. (Sargentis et al. 2022); Shams Esfandabadi et al. (Shams Esfandabadi, Ranjbari, and Scagnelli 2022); Sohag et al. (Sohag et al. 2022); Travnikar and Bele (Travnikar and Bele 2022); von Cramon-Taubadel (von Cramon-Taubadel 2022); Yazbeck et al. (Yazbeck et al. 2022); Zhou et al. (Zhou et al. 2023)
Food utilization/use (3, 4.83%)	Decrease in diet quality and dietary diversity (3, 4.83%)	Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Mottaleb et al. (Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022); Yazbeck et al. (Yazbeck et al. 2022)
Stability (28, 25.16%)	Food prices volatility (19, 30.64%)	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022); Babar et al. (Babar, Ahmad, and Yousaf 2023); Carriquiry et al. (Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022); Cui and Maghyereh (Cui and Maghyereh 2023); Fang and Shao (Fang and Shao 2022); García Bernado (García Bernado 2022); Gole et al. (Gole et al. 2022); Ihle et al. (Ihle et al. 2022); Irtyshcheva et al. (Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022); Just and Echaust (Just and Echaust 2022); Kyriazis (Kyriazis 2022); Legrand (Legrand 2022); Liadze et al. (Liadze et al. 2022); Mahran (Mahran 2023); Malysh et al. (Malysh et al. 2022); Martin and Minot (Martin and Minot 2022); Min (Min 2022); Saâdaoui et al. (Saâdaoui, Ben Jabeur, and Goodell 2022); Sohag et al. (Sohag et al. 2022)
	Uncertainty of future food supply (12, 19.35%)	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022); Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Carriquiry et al. (Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022); Halecki and Bedla (Halecki and Bedla 2022); Hellegers (Hellegers 2022); Ionescu et al. (Ionescu, Zlati, and Antohi 2022); Jambor and Nagy (Jambor and Nagy 2022); Just and Echaust (Just and Echaust 2022); Li and Song (Li and Song 2022); Nóia Júnior et al. (Nóia Júnior et al. 2022); Shams Esfandabadi et al. (Shams Esfandabadi, Ranjbari, and Scagnelli 2022); Travnikar and Bele (Travnikar and Bele 2022)

*Several articles address different food security dimensions.

**Out of 62 articles.

Food availability and food supply have been affected in different ways. The war determined an increase in the prices of production inputs (e.g. fertilizers) and energy, which, in turn, led to a rise in production costs. Alexander et al. (2022) suggest that the limitations on exports from Russia or Ukraine have led to increased food prices, which have been further exacerbated by the rise in energy prices. As a result, the costs of agricultural inputs, such as fertilizers, have increased (Alexander et al. 2022). The increase in production costs led to an extensification of production (with a reduction in fertilizer use), which determined a decrease in production yield or the abandonment of agricultural production (cf. fallowed cropland) when it is considered no more economically viable. In both cases, extensification or production abandonment, there was a decrease in agricultural production and, consequently, food supply. Furthermore, in war-affected areas, especially in Eastern Ukraine, agricultural production and food supply have been restrained by damage to production assets, food production, and food stocks; changes in land use and land degradation combined with the difficulty in accessing properties as well as labour shortage caused by migration from rural areas.

Many articles deal with the war’s impacts on food economic/financial and physical accessibility in Ukraine and beyond. The adverse effects of the war on food financial accessibility and affordability are mainly due to the increase in food prices and inflation. This increase is, at least partly, due to the rise in production costs as well as disruptions in supply chains. As Ihle et al. (2022) stated, the direction and magnitude of grain, energy, and fertilizer prices have become more synchronized globally because of the war. Meanwhile, Alexander et al. (2022) found that in 2023, food costs are projected to rise by 60-100% compared to the levels in 2021. This increase may be caused by a combination of rising agricultural input costs and restrictions on food exports. If people continue to maintain their current dietary patterns, it is predicted that between 61 and 107 million people could suffer from undernourishment in 2023. Additionally, it is estimated that this could result in an annual increase in deaths of between 416,000 and 1.01 million people (Alexander et al. 2022). According to Martin and Minot (2022), there are generally consistent, enduring connections between worldwide wheat prices and most domestic prices for wheat and its byproducts. However, the degree to which prices are transmitted can vary significantly between different countries. Martin and Minot (2022) point out that during the pandemic and Ukraine crises, local wheat price insulation approximately doubled the global wheat price and exacerbated its volatility. Physical access to food has been affected by disruptions of global supply chains (especially of staple foods such as grains/cereals) caused, among others, by sanctions imposed on Russia as well as damage to the infrastructure for transport, logistics, and export from Ukraine. The armed conflict in the Black Sea region is causing significant disruptions to shipping routes, which is not only creating obstacles for Ukraine’s grain exports to other countries but is also affecting grain storage capacity. Indeed, due to the inability to export grains, silos are remaining full, which is preventing the storage of new harvests (Costello 2022).

Only a few articles deal with the war’s impacts on food utilization. For instance, Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp (2022) found that if Russia and Ukraine decrease their wheat exports by 50%, it could lead to a 15% increase in the price of wheat for producers. This price increase may cause a reduction in wheat consumption and dietary energy intake by a minimum of 8%, which, in turn, can affect the food and nutrition security status of millions of people (Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022). Yazbeck et al. (2022) highlight that the war had deteriorated food security, resulting in poor dietary patterns and a lack of dietary diversity in Lebanon.

Furthermore, only some articles address the effects of the war on the stability dimension by analyzing its impacts on food supply and/or food security over time. The duration and evolution of the conflict will determine the levels of food price volatility and uncertainty of future food supply. Fang and Shao (2022) argue that the conflict increases the volatility risks of commodities markets, including agricultural ones. They suggest that the conflict affects commodity markets through financial and economic channels. In terms of economic channels, in the event of an escalation of the conflict, commodities that Russia exports with a higher global market share are at a higher risk of volatility. As for financial channels, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has a more significant impact due to investor panic and the monetary policies of major central banks (Fang and Shao 2022). Achieving the stability of food supply means acting on agricultural production (cf. availability), stock management, and agri-food trade (cf. accessibility). For instance, referring to the case of wheat, Nóia Júnior et al. (2022) argue that ensuring stable wheat supplies by managing stocks wisely and improving yields continuously is crucial to safeguarding food and national security in numerous countries worldwide.

3.3. Impacts on the sustainability of food systems

The literature analysis suggests that the war affected all dimensions of food system sustainability. However, most selected articles deal with socioeconomics to the detriment of the environmental and political dimensions (Table 7).

Table 7. Sustainability of agri-food systems in the context of the war in Ukraine.

Sustainability dimension* (articles number, percentage**)	Themes (articles number, percentage**)	Documents
Environmental (11, 17.74%)	Climate change (7, 11.29%)	Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Carriquiry et al. (Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022); Halecki and Bedla (Halecki and Bedla 2022); Pereira et al. (Pereira et al. 2022a); Rawtani et al. (Rawtani et al. 2022); Sun et al. (Sun et al. 2022); von Cramon-Taubadel (von Cramon-Taubadel 2022)
	Management of natural resources (water, soil/land) (9, 14.51%)	Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Carriquiry et al. (Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022); Chumachenko et al. (Chumachenko et al. 2022); Ma et al. (Ma et al. 2022); Martinho (Martinho 2022); Pereira et al. (Pereira et al. 2022a); Rawtani et al. (Rawtani et al. 2022); Sargentis et al. (Sargentis et al. 2022); Sun et al. (Ma et al. 2022)
	Biodiversity loss (4, 6.45%)	Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Pereira et al. (Pereira et al. 2022a); Rawtani et al. (Rawtani et al. 2022); von Cramon-Taubadel (von Cramon-Taubadel 2022)
Social and economic (58, 93.54%)	Food (in)security and (mal)nutrition (53, 85.48%)	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022); Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Ali et al. (Ali, Manikas, and Sundarakani 2022); Astrov et al. (Astrov et al. 2022); Babar et al. (Babar, Ahmad, and Yousaf 2023); Carriquiry et al. (Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022); Chumachenko et al. (Chumachenko et al. 2022); Costello (Costello 2022); Cui and Maghyereh (Cui and Maghyereh 2023); Estrada and Koutronas (Estrada and Koutronas 2022); Fang and Shao (Fang and Shao 2022); Feng et al. (Feng, Jia, and Lin 2023); García Bernado (García Bernado 2022); Gole et al. (Gole et al. 2022); Halecki and Bedla (Halecki and Bedla 2022); Hellegers (Hellegers 2022); Ihle et al. (Ihle et al. 2022); Ionescu et al. (Ionescu, Zlati, and Antohi 2022); Ishchenko et al. (Ishchenko et al. 2022); Jagtap et al. (Jagtap et al. 2022); Jambor and Nagy (Jambor and Nagy 2022); Just and Echaust (Just and Echaust 2022); Kappel (Kappel 2022); Karabag and Imre (Karabag and Imre 2022); Korneyev et al. (Korneyev et al. 2022); Kyriazis (Kyriazis 2022); Lagodiienko et al. (Lagodiienko et al. 2022); Legrand (Legrand 2022); Li and Song (Li and Song 2022); Liadze et al. (Liadze et al. 2022); Ma et al. (Ma et al. 2022); Mahran (Mahran 2023); Malysh et al. (Malysh et al. 2022); Mamonova (Mamonova 2023); Martin and Minot (Martin and Minot 2022); Martine (Martine 2022); Martinho (Martinho 2022); Min (Min 2022); Mottaleb et al. (Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022); Nasir et al. (Nasir, Nugroho, and Lakner 2022); Nchasi et al. (Nchasi et al. 2022); Nóia Júnior et al. (Nóia Júnior et al. 2022); Pavlova (Pavlova 2022); Pereira et al. (Pereira et al. 2022a); Rawtani et al. (Rawtani et al. 2022); Saâdaoui et al. (Saâdaoui, Ben Jabeur, and Goodell 2022); Sargentis et al. (Sargentis et al. 2022); Shams Esfandabadi et al. (Shams Esfandabadi, Ranjbari, and Scagnelli 2022); Sohag et al. (Sohag et al. 2022); Travnikar and Bele (Travnikar and Bele 2022); von Cramon-Taubadel (von Cramon-Taubadel 2022); Yazbeck et al. (Yazbeck et al. 2022); Zhou et al. (Zhou et al. 2023)
	Poverty and vulnerability (20, 32.25%)	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022); Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022); Astrov et al. (Astrov et al. 2022); Bin-Nashwan et al. (Bin-Nashwan, Hassan, and Muneeza 2024); Costello (Costello 2022); Hellegers (Hellegers 2022); Irtyshcheva et al. (Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022); Jain et al. (Jain et al. 2022); Kappel (Kappel 2022); Lagodiienko et al. (Lagodiienko et al. 2022); Liadze et al. (Liadze et al. 2022); Mamonova (Mamonova 2023); Mottaleb et al. (Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022); Nchasi et al. (Nchasi et al. 2022); Rawtani et al. (Rawtani et al. 2022); Roitblat et al. (Roitblat et al. 2022); Sargentis et al. (Sargentis et al. 2022); Vallova et al. (Vallova et al. 2022); von Cramon-Taubadel (von Cramon-Taubadel 2022); Yazbeck et al. (Yazbeck et al. 2022)
	Migration and displacement (7, 11.29%)	Astrov et al. (Astrov et al. 2022); Costello (Costello 2022); Jain et al. (Jain et al. 2022); Lagodiienko et al. (Lagodiienko et al. 2022); Nchasi et al. (Nchasi et al. 2022); Roitblat et al. (Roitblat et al. 2022); Vallova et al. (Vallova et al. 2022)
Political (18, 29.03%)	Governance of global food supply chains and food system (11, 17.74%)	Astrov et al. (Astrov et al. 2022); Costello (Costello 2022); Estrada and Koutronas (Estrada and Koutronas 2022); Feng et al. (Feng, Jia, and Lin 2023); Hellegers (Hellegers 2022); Jambor and Nagy (Jambor and Nagy 2022); Kappel (Kappel 2022); Karabag and Imre (Karabag and Imre 2022); Li and Song (Li and Song 2022); Martine (Martine 2022); Saâdaoui et al. (Saâdaoui, Ben Jabeur, and Goodell 2022)
	Political instability (9, 14.51%)	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022); Hellegers (Hellegers 2022); Kappel (Kappel 2022); Karabag and Imre (Karabag and Imre 2022); Kopytko et al. (Kopytko et al. 2022); Martine (Martine 2022); von Cramon-Taubadel (von Cramon-Taubadel 2022); Yazbeck et al. (Yazbeck et al. 2022); Zhou et al. (Zhou et al. 2023)

*Several articles address different sustainability dimensions.

**Out of 62 articles.

The war has affected different themes relating to environmental sustainability, such as climate change (cf. greenhouse gas emissions), the management of natural resources (water, soil/land), and biodiversity loss, and impacts seem rather mixed. On the one hand, the difficulty in accessing inputs (e.g. fertilizers) can induce a reduction of their use with positive impacts on the environment and ecosystems. However, on the other hand, extensification of production might imply changes in land uses with the expansion of cropland (Alexander et al. 2022; Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022), which, in turn, might be at the detriment of forests, thus increasing the rate of deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions (Alexander et al. 2022; Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022). In this regard, Alexander et al. (2022) warn that higher input costs could result in decreased land use intensity, which could lead to the expansion of agricultural land, resulting in carbon and biodiversity loss. Likewise, expanding production in different areas can act as a partial substitute for the decrease in exports from Ukraine and Russia. However, it may increase carbon emissions and worsen the existing global food security issues (Carriquiry, Dumortier, and Elobeid 2022). In Ukraine, the war has severely damaged the natural environment and ecosystems (Chumachenko et al. 2022; Rawtani et al. 2022). The shelling and explosions have harmed the physical, chemical, and biological features of the soil, leading to a significant reduction in agricultural productivity. The military operations have caused widespread deforestation and wildfires, further aggravating the situation (Rawtani et al. 2022). Similarly, intense deforestation and habitat destruction drastically affect biodiversity and potentially harm wildlife. Soil degradation and landscape morphology may be negatively impacted by bombing, trenching, and tunnel excavations (Pereira et al. 2022a).

The evidence collected from the scholarly literature suggests that the war has particularly affected the social and economic dimensions of food systems. Indeed, as shown in the previous section, the war had far-reaching and multifaceted impacts on all dimensions of food security. Those impacts have been particularly severe in Ukraine (Lagodiienko et al. 2022; Nchasi et al. 2022; Roitblat et al. 2022) and other developing countries that depend on food imports from Ukraine and/or Russia, such as in Africa (Abu Hatab 2022; Kappel 2022; Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022; Zhou et al. 2023) and the Middle East (Yazbeck et al. 2022). In Ukraine, the war generated an unprecedented humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people in Ukraine and refugees in other countries (Astrov et al. 2022; Jain et al. 2022; Nchasi et al. 2022; Roitblat et al. 2022; Vallova et al. 2022), especially neighboring European ones. As the tension escalates, there could be a surge in property damages, casualties, increased spread of contagious illnesses, a gradual hike in energy tariffs, and fuel consumption in Ukraine (Nchasi et al. 2022). In general, the war increased the poverty and vulnerability of the population in Ukraine and beyond. Indeed, the war has slowed down economic growth (Gole et al. 2022; Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022; Liadze et al. 2022), thus postponing the economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic, and combined with inflation (Liadze et al. 2022; Sohag et al. 2022), has reduced and, even, eroded the purchasing power of the population. The cost of the war in 2022 is enormous, amounting to about $1.5 trillion valued at purchasing power parity exchange rates (PPP), equivalent to 1% of the global GDP (Liadze et al. 2022).

The war has also had some political impacts with implications regarding the governance of the global food system. Indeed, the war reshuffled international relations and created the conditions for a new, second “cold war” (Karabag and Imre 2022), which will affect the agency of the global food system, with changes in power and influence of the different players and actors (Estrada and Koutronas 2022; Karabag and Imre 2022). The Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to a significant rise in food prices, which will disproportionately affect the world’s poorer populations. Furthermore, the invasion has caused a realignment of geopolitical alliances, which in turn has further destabilized multilateralism across several fronts (Martine 2022). In this context, Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022) suggests that Africa needs to participate actively in policy and diplomacy on the global stage due to the current geopolitical and strategic confrontation and the resulting changes. In general, the war laid bare the tensions in international trade and the strong interconnectedness of food security and geopolitics (Halecki and Bedla 2022; Hellegers 2022; Kyriazis 2022; Saâdaoui, Ben Jabeur, and Goodell 2022; Sohag et al. 2022). Indeed, tense geopolitical affairs, such as military aggression and economic embargoes, can lead to wheat supply crises (Halecki and Bedla 2022). Furthermore, the war and economic hardship it generated might increase or exacerbate political instability in different countries, such as Lebanon (Yazbeck et al. 2022). The disruption to food chains and spikes in food prices entail and might trigger the risk of social and political unrest (Abu Hatab 2022). Furthermore, the war and the new emphasis on increasing food production to achieve food security and/or food self-sufficiency and sovereignty might hold back and/or slow down the greening of agriculture policies, such as that promoted by the Green Deal in the European Union (Ciot 2023).

Numerous documents show that the impacts of the war are multidimensional and multifaceted, affecting simultaneously different dimensions of sustainability (Alexander et al. 2022; Irtyshcheva, Kramarenko, and Sirenko 2022; Kopytko et al. 2022; Pereira et al. 2022a). Kopytko et al. (2022) underline that the negative impacts of the war relate to economic, regional, legal, and environmental aspects. Meanwhile, Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022) suggest that the war affected food prices (cf. economic sustainability), health (cf. social sustainability), and the environment (cf. biodiversity loss, deforestation, climate change). Considering all the impacts mentioned above, it comes as no surprise that different scholars warn that the war may jeopardize the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Bin-Nashwan, Hassan, and Muneeza 2024; Ihle et al. 2022). This result is in line with the conclusions of Ben Hassen and El Bilali (2022), who argue that the implementation of SDGs, particularly SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG 2 (Zero hunger), and DG 12 (Responsible consumption and production), might be endangered by the war.

3.4. Recommendations to mitigate the impacts of the war on global agriculture and food systems

Scholars made several recommendations to mitigate the impacts of the war (Table 8). In this context, the urgent need to foster the transition toward sustainable and resilient food systems has been voiced by many scholars. For instance, Pörtner et al. (2022) argue that it is vital to foster the transition to a food system that is healthy, equitable, and sustainable, even amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict. For that, comprehensive measures that provide immediate relief and prevent the food system’s existential threat to human and environmental health are required (Pörtner et al. 2022). Some scholars advocate for changes in diets and food consumption patterns to mitigate the effects of the war. For example, in the European context, Sun et al. (2022) found that if the European Union and the United Kingdom adopt the EAT-Lancet’s planetary health diet, it would almost make up for all production deficits from Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, this transition alone could significantly impact food and nutrition security while yielding further environmental benefits and improvements inlue water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon sequestration (cf. climate change mitigation) (Sun et al. 2022). Recommendations also include boosting local production through smart technologies and practices that close the yield gap and increase productivity, reducing reliance on food imports. At the same time, mechanisms should be implemented to avoid or mitigate the disruption of agri-food markets and supply chains, especially agri-food exports from Ukraine and Russia. The selected studies also highlight the need to strengthen the social safety nets and programs to ensure the food and nutrition security of poor and vulnerable groups (e.g. refugees) during the crises caused by the war in Ukraine and alike.

Table 8. Some recommendations relating to agriculture and food in the context of the war in Ukraine.

Examples of recommendations	Source(s)	Agriculture subsector	Food chain stage	Food security dimension	Sustainability dimension
Adopting a holistic approach to water, energy, and food security (cf. WEF nexus)	Hellegers (Hellegers 2022)	NA	All stages	All dimensions	All dimensions
Implementing new international norms to preserve and protect the environment during times of conflict	Rawtani et al. (Rawtani et al. 2022)	NA	NA	Stability	Environmental
Transitioning towards plant-based diets in Europe	Sun et al. (Sun et al. 2022)	Crop production Animal production	Consumption	Food utilization/use	All dimensions
Avoiding export-restricting and trade-distorting policies by food-exporting nations	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022)	NA	Marketing and distribution/retail (including trade)	Food availability Food access Stability	Social and economic Political
Enhancing domestic wheat production by advocating for better agronomic practices to close the yield gap	Mottaleb et al. (Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022)	Crop production	Production	Food availability	Environmental Social and economic
Improving the access of small-scale food producers (including women in developing countries) to agri-food markets and their inclusion in value chains	Bin-Nashwan et al. (Bin-Nashwan, Hassan, and Muneeza 2024)	Crop production Animal production	Marketing and distribution/retail (including trade)	Food access	Social and economic Political
Increasing domestic production to reduce reliance on and vulnerability to global food supply chains	Halecki and Bedla (Halecki and Bedla 2022)	Crop production Animal production	Production Marketing and distribution/retail (including trade)	Food availability Food access Stability	Social and economic Political
Promoting smart agriculture technologies and practices	Ionescu et al. (Ionescu, Zlati, and Antohi 2022)	Crop production Animal production	Production	Food availability	Environmental
Restoring agri-food trade (especially grains/cereals) from Ukraine and Russia	Alexander et al. (Alexander et al. 2022)	Crop production Animal production	Marketing and distribution/retail (including trade)	Food access Stability	Social and economic Political
Stabilizing wheat supplies by implementing effective stock management practices and improving yields	Nóia Júnior et al. (Nóia Júnior et al. 2022)	Crop production	Production Marketing and distribution/retail (including trade)	Food availability Food access Stability	Social and economic Political
Strengthening safety nets and social protection systems for nutrition and food assistance (e.g. in-kind, cash, vouchers)	Abu Hatab (Abu Hatab 2022)	NA	NA	Food access	Social and economic Political
Using fallow and uncultivated lands to increase crop/grain production and reduce external dependence	Mottaleb et al. (Mottaleb, Kruseman, and Snapp 2022) Sohag et al. (Sohag et al. 2022)	Crop production	Production Marketing and distribution/retail (including trade)	Food availability Food access Stability	Social and economic Political

NA: Not Applicable.

4. Conclusions and policy implications

To the best of our knowledge, this article is the first to review in a comprehensive, systematic way research on the impacts of the war in Ukraine on global agriculture and food systems. Given the magnitude and scale of the conflict, it is no surprise that a large share of the selected articles deals with the impacts of the conflict on agri-food systems and food security at the global level. Only some articles deal with the war’s effects at national and regional levels. Nevertheless, many of the selected documents deal with Ukraine. Surprisingly, only a few articles address the war’s effects on agri-food systems in developing countries, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

The review suggests that the war has affected all food security dimensions (availability, access, utilization, and stability). However, most of the selected articles deal with food access. Impact channels vary not only from one food security dimension to another but also among countries and world regions. The negative impacts of the war on food affordability are mainly due to the increase in food prices and inflation. Physical access to food has been affected by disruptions of global supply chains caused, inter alia, by sanctions imposed on Russia as well as damage to the infrastructure for transport, logistics, and export from Ukraine. Furthermore, the duration and evolution of the conflict will determine the levels of food price volatility and uncertainty of future food supply.

The war affected all sustainability dimensions. However, most selected articles deal with socioeconomics to the detriment of the environmental and political dimensions. The war has affected different themes relating to environmental sustainability, such as climate change, natural resources management, and biodiversity loss, but the impacts seem rather mixed. The evidence collected suggests that the war has particularly affected the social and economic dimensions of food systems. Indeed, the war had far-reaching and multifaceted impacts on all dimensions of food security, particularly in Ukraine and other developing countries that depend on food imports from Ukraine and/or Russia, such as in Africa and the Middle East. It has slowed down economic growth, thus postponing the economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic, and combined with inflation, has eroded the population’s purchasing power. The war has also had some political impacts with implications regarding the governance of the global food system. Indeed, the war reshuffled international relations and the agency of the global food system. In general, the war laid bare the tensions in international trade and the vital interconnectedness of food security and geopolitics.

Furthermore, the war and economic hardship it generated might increase or exacerbate political instability in several countries. The multidimensional and multifaceted impacts of the war suggest that it may pose a threat to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs, especially SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG 2 (Zero hunger), and SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production). As a result, numerous scholars have emphasized the immediate need to facilitate the transition toward sustainable and resilient food systems. This transition is essential to achieve the SDGs, particularly in the face of crises and shocks such as conflicts and climate change. Sustainable and resilient food systems can help ensure access to healthy and nutritious food for all, promote economic development, and protect the environment.

The ongoing research on the impacts of the war in Ukraine on global agriculture and food systems provides valuable lessons that can inform not only present-day strategies, but also future policies aimed at improving the preparedness and resilience of the global food system to crises and shocks. It is important to use evidence-based strategies and policies that are efficient, effective, and sustainable. Therefore, further research is paramount, particularly in developing countries that have been largely overlooked in previous studies. Future studies should concentrate on the war’s influence on food security and nutrition and the global food system’s sustainability and resilience. Moreover, more attention should be paid to the impacts of the war on the animal production subsector, the consumption stage of the food chain, food utilization and stability pillars of food security, and environmental and political dimensions of sustainability in agriculture and food systems. This will help identify the most significant challenges that must be addressed, as well as inform the creation of evidence-based policies and programs to lessen the effect of conflicts on food systems. Furthermore, considering that the Russian-Ukrainian war is ongoing and its duration will play a crucial role in determining its medium-term and long-term impacts on global food security and food systems, systematic reviews considering recently published articles are highly needed to grasp the dynamics of its impacts and their evolution over time.

The results of this article have significant policy implications for numerous global agriculture and food systems stakeholders. Firstly, policymakers must recognize the substantial repercussions of the Ukrainian conflict on the agri-food industry and prioritize mitigation in their policy choices. This involves investing in research and development to identify novel opportunities for farmers and traders, supporting sustainable and resilient food production and distribution methods, and ensuring that all population sectors have access to food. Secondly, the conflict in Ukraine has also emphasized the interconnection of food chains and food systems, as well as the necessity for more international scientific collaboration and knowledge-sharing to address the complex and interdependent challenges facing the agri-food sector. With this collaboration, countries can learn from one another’s experiences, exchange best practices, and build joint solutions to global food security and environmental concerns. In addition, policymakers need to consider the differences in impact levels and channels across countries and regions. They must use context-specific methods adapted to the specific challenges and opportunities encountered by every region while simultaneously acknowledging the global food system’s interdependence. Moreover, the insights gained from this article should inform the development of long-term policies to build the resilience and preparedness of the agri-food sector for future crises and shocks. This might include diversifying agricultural inputs and food products, investing in technological innovation and infrastructure, and enhancing collaboration and coordination among various stakeholders.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Open Access funding provided by Qatar National Library.

Notes on contributors

Hamid El Bilali

Dr. Hamid El Bilali graduated in agronomy from the Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine (IAV Hassan-II) in Rabat, Morocco. He holds an MSc in organic agriculture (CIHEAM-Bari, 2004) and a Ph.D. in agricultural sciences (University of Bari, Italy; 2008). He is currently a research scientist at the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM-Bari). He is the author of several scientific publications relating to sustainable food systems, food security, and sustainable food consumption and production (e.g. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems; Advances in Nutrition and Food Sciences; Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development; Journal of Food Security; American Journal of Rural Development), and member of the editorial boards of numerous journals.

Tarek Ben Hassen

Dr. Tarek Ben Hassen is an Associate Professor of Policy, Planning, and Development at the Department of International Affairs at Qatar University. He holds an MSc. in Management of Innovation (University of Quebec in Chicoutimi, Canada; 2006) and a Ph.D. in Urban Studies (specialized in economic geography) (University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada; 2012). His research falls into the subfield of economic geography, with an emphasis on the study of the dynamics of sustainability and innovation within the food systems. He has several publications in reputed international journals (e.g. Appetite, Foods, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, British Food Journal, Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, Waste Management & Research, and Sustainability).