Prices of sorghum and millet at very high levels in April 2025, exacerbated by the ongoing conflict – Food and Agriculture Organization

Report on Cereal Price Volatility and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Recent Price Fluctuations: April 2025

Latest data from April 2025 indicates continued volatility in the retail prices of essential cereals, with significant consequences for food security and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

• The average retail price for locally sourced sorghum experienced a minor decrease of 3 percent.
• Conversely, the average retail price for millet increased by 4 percent.

Despite the slight reduction in sorghum costs, the overall price levels for these staple foods remain critically elevated, posing a direct threat to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).

Drivers of Long-Term Price Inflation

The current crisis of food affordability is the culmination of a series of compounding factors that have systematically driven up prices since late 2017. The inflationary trend can be attributed to the following chronological drivers:

1. Macroeconomic and Production Pressures (Post-2017): A difficult macroeconomic situation, combined with rising prices for fuel and agricultural inputs, initiated the upward trend by increasing production and transport costs. This directly impacts SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by undermining the viability of the agricultural sector.
2. Political Instability (Post-2019): An expansion of political instability from 2019 onwards introduced further market disruptions and uncertainty, adding to the inflationary pressures.
3. Armed Conflict (Post-April 2023): The outbreak of armed conflict in April 2023 acted as a major catalyst, severely accelerating price increases and disrupting supply chains. This highlights a critical failure in achieving SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

As of April 2025, the prices for both sorghum and millet were more than four times higher than their pre-conflict levels of March 2023.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The severe and sustained inflation of staple food prices represents a significant impediment to progress across multiple SDGs:

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The quadrupling of prices for staple grains like sorghum and millet directly undermines food access for the most vulnerable populations. This situation critically jeopardizes food security and pushes communities towards acute hunger and malnutrition.
• SDG 1 (No Poverty): Extreme food price inflation erodes the purchasing power of households, pushing millions deeper into poverty and making basic subsistence unattainable.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The report explicitly identifies political instability and armed conflict as primary drivers of the food crisis. This demonstrates a direct link between the absence of peace and the exacerbation of humanitarian crises, showing how the failure of SDG 16 directly undermines progress on SDG 1 and SDG 2.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• The article directly discusses the prices of staple foods like sorghum, millet, and other cereals. The significant increase in these prices directly threatens food security and the ability of the population to access sufficient food, which is the core focus of SDG 2.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article explicitly identifies “Расширение политической нестабильности с 2019 г. и вооруженный конфликт, разразившийся в апреле 2023 г.” (Expansion of political instability since 2019 and the armed conflict that broke out in April 2023) as a primary driver of the dramatic price increases. This highlights the direct link between the absence of peace (a key component of SDG 16) and the worsening of humanitarian conditions like food insecurity.

SDG 1: No Poverty

• While not explicitly mentioned, a more than fourfold increase in the price of staple foods has a severe impact on poverty. Such price shocks disproportionately affect the poorest households, reducing their purchasing power and pushing them further into poverty. The issue of food affordability is intrinsically linked to poverty reduction.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 2.1: End hunger and ensure access to food

   • Explanation: This target aims to ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round. The article’s central theme is the dramatic rise in the cost of staple grains (“сорго и просо были более чем в четыре раза дороже, чем до начала конфликта”), which directly impedes the population’s ability to access sufficient food, thus relating directly to this target.

2. Target 2.c: Limit extreme food price volatility

   • Explanation: This target calls for measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets to help limit extreme food price volatility. The article describes exactly this phenomenon, noting specific price fluctuations (“сорго снизились на 3 процента, а на просо выросли на 4 процента”) and the extreme overall increase (“более чем в четыре раза дороже”), linking it to market disruptions caused by conflict and economic instability.

3. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence

   • Explanation: This target focuses on reducing violence and related death rates. The article directly attributes the severe food price inflation to the “вооруженный конфликт, разразившийся в апреле 2023 г.” (armed conflict that broke out in April 2023). This demonstrates a direct negative consequence of the failure to achieve Target 16.1, as the conflict is fueling the food crisis.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator 2.c.1: Indicator of food price anomalies

   • Explanation: This indicator is directly addressed in the article. The text provides specific data points that constitute measures of food price anomalies: the monthly percentage change in prices for sorghum and millet (“снизились на 3 процента”, “выросли на 4 процента”) and the extreme price level compared to a baseline (“более чем в четыре раза дороже, чем до начала конфликта”). These figures are direct inputs for this indicator.

2. Indicator 2.1.2: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity

   • Explanation: The article strongly implies a drastic increase in food insecurity. While it does not provide a direct measurement using the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES), the fact that staple food prices have quadrupled is a powerful proxy indicator. Such a price shock would inevitably lead to a significant rise in the prevalence of food insecurity, as a larger portion of the population would be unable to afford a sufficient quantity of food.

3. Indicator 16.1.2: Conflict-related deaths per 100,000 population

   • Explanation: The article does not provide data for this indicator, but it explicitly confirms the existence of the event that this indicator measures by stating there is an “вооруженный конфликт” (armed conflict). The article’s analysis relies on the existence of this conflict as a primary cause for the food price crisis, thereby confirming the relevance of tracking this indicator to understand the root causes of the humanitarian situation.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: fao.org