Governments should strengthen social protection systems before food shocks strike so they can deliver targeted help to vulnerable households without straining public finances, International Monetary Fund (IMF) officials said yesterday.
Speaking at a seminar titled “Food Security in the Age of Shocks”, held during the 2026 IMF-World Bank annual summit in Bangkok, the officials urged governments to prepare delivery systems, target assistance and set clear spending limits.
Rodrigo Valdes, director of the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department, said conflicts, trade and transport disruptions, volatile energy and fertiliser costs, and extreme weather were pressuring food prices worldwide.
Local weather shocks, compounded by high fuel and fertiliser costs, could deepen food insecurity, reduce economic output and weaken public finances, he said.
Poor households were particularly exposed because food accounts for a large share of their budgets, meaning local price increases could have an immediate impact.
Unlike oil, food prices vary considerably by product, supply chain and local conditions, requiring different policy responses.
However, Mr Valdes said effective social protection was central to managing both food and fuel shocks.
He said targeted cash transfers, school meals and other assistance could reach vulnerable households quickly while keeping fiscal costs in check.
Governments needed to establish beneficiary databases, payment systems and digital identification before a crisis struck.
Nigel Clarke, the IMF’s deputy managing director, said food insecurity had become a recurring risk to economies and public finances as well as a humanitarian concern.
Climate shocks were damaging agricultural production, while wars in the Middle East and Ukraine were disrupting markets and supply chains for food, energy and fertiliser.
The pressures were particularly severe for low-income and fragile states already facing high debt, rising interest costs and limited fiscal room to respond.
Mr Clarke outlined four priorities for governments seeking to protect vulnerable populations while preserving fiscal stability.
First, governments should favour targeted assistance over broad fuel and food subsidies or tax relief wherever possible. Broad measures can be introduced quickly but are expensive, hard to withdraw, and distribute benefits unevenly.
Second, governments should invest in delivery systems, including digital identification, social registries, and compatible payment channels, so they can adjust assistance as circumstances change.
Third, interventions should have clear budget limits, eligibility criteria and an end date to prevent temporary support from becoming a permanent commitment.
Finally, governments should communicate measures clearly, provide accessible complaints channels and ensure effective monitoring and auditing to prevent leakage and maintain public trust.