Food Security Strategy for Mercosur Countries in Response to Climate and Socio-Economic Challenges

Abstract

In the face of growing climate, economic, and social challenges, an integrated strategy is required to ensure the resilience of food systems in vulnerable regions is strengthened. This study aims to formulate strategies for increasing food security in Mercosur countries amid extreme climate events and socio-economic and environmental crises. These strategies are based on an analysis of the following: (i) changes in food security levels (Global Food Security Index); (ii) self-sufficiency in major agricultural products; (iii) key economic and environmental drivers between 2012 and 2022; and (iv) an assessment of the effectiveness of public policies aimed at alleviating the effects of poverty and drought between 2022 and 2023. A SWOT analysis was conducted to identify the strengths and weaknesses of food systems, as well as the opportunities and threats facing Mercosur countries. Significant differences in food systems’ availability and resilience have been revealed by the results, and the need for integrated regional policies in the countries studied has been highlighted. Recommendations for the region include developing infrastructure and logistics; investing in research and innovation; combatting poverty and inequalities; adapting to the effects of climate change; promoting the local production of fertilisers and biofuels; and implementing coherent monitoring mechanisms (GFSI).

1. Introduction

Food security is an increasingly critical issue in global development, particularly in regions vulnerable to climate variability, socio-economic inequality, and institutional fragility. Among these regions, the Global South—especially Latin America and the Caribbean—faces pronounced challenges due to its dual role as both a major producer and exporter of agricultural commodities and a region with persistent food insecurity among its population. According to the 2024 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), approximately 22% of the Latin American population lacks access to a healthy diet, compared to only 2% in North America and Europe [1,2]. Despite high levels of agricultural output and export capacity, Mercosur countries—Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay—struggle to ensure equitable and sustainable food access, particularly for vulnerable and rural populations.

The structural paradox of Mercosur lies in the coexistence of food abundance and food poverty. Brazil and Argentina rank among the world’s top exporters of soybeans, beef, and cereals, yet domestic food insecurity persists due to unequal income distribution, rising poverty, and the limited resilience of local food systems to external shocks [3]. For example, Argentina experienced a significant deterioration in food security between 2018 and 2023, driven by economic crises, inflation exceeding 100%, and prolonged droughts. In contrast, Brazil’s food insecurity peaked in 2018 but later improved through targeted public policy interventions [3,4]. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, approximately 31.5% of the regional population remains at high risk of poverty in the event of an external economic or environmental shock [1].

The impact of climate change further exacerbates vulnerabilities in food systems across the Mercosur bloc. The 2022–2023 drought, intensified by El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, severely affected agricultural yields and disrupted water access in Uruguay and Paraguay. Recent UN climate assessments indicate that 74% of Latin American and Caribbean countries are highly exposed to extreme weather events—particularly droughts and floods—which threaten agricultural productivity and increase price volatility. These conditions have contributed to a 1.5 percentage point rise in the prevalence of undernourishment in the region between 2019 and 2023 [2].

At the same time, efforts to address food security through regional and international cooperation are increasing. Since 2019, Mercosur’s collaboration with the European Union has expanded beyond trade liberalisation to include non-commercial areas such as sustainable agriculture, food safety, and inclusive rural development [5,6,7]. However, despite these initiatives, Mercosur countries still lack a cohesive and integrated regional food policy that effectively addresses shared vulnerabilities and fosters systemic resilience. In contrast, frameworks like the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and ASEAN’s Food Security Reserve provide examples of how regional coordination can buffer against global shocks and promote food system sustainability [7,8].

The existing literature emphasises the need for integrated, multidimensional strategies that address both macroeconomic drivers and climate adaptation mechanisms [9,10]. National efforts alone are insufficient to tackle transboundary food security risks. Enhancing regional resilience requires coordinated infrastructure development, innovation, social safety nets, and climate-smart policies.

These multidimensional and interconnected challenges underscore the urgent need for comprehensive, cross-sectoral responses that extend beyond national efforts. A regionally coordinated strategy—integrating infrastructure development, local input production, social protection, and innovation—is essential to enhance food security and resilience across Mercosur.

Therefore, the objective of this study is clearly defined as developing a strategic framework to enhance food security in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay—the founding members of Mercosur—amid intensifying climate-related, socio-economic, and environmental crises. This framework is constructed through an integrated analysis of four key dimensions: (i) long-term trends in food security based on the Global Food Security Index (GFSI); (ii) national food self-sufficiency in core product groups (cereals, fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and seafood, milk, and eggs); (iii) the primary economic and environmental drivers influencing food systems during 2012–2022; and (iv) the effectiveness of regional responses to poverty- and climate-induced shocks, particularly the extreme droughts of 2022–2023.

By identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) within Mercosur’s food security landscape, this study aims to inform evidence-based policy recommendations focused on long-term sustainability. The findings are especially relevant given the growing complexity of global food systems and the need to balance production efficiency with social equity and environmental integrity.

The issue of food security has been addressed for decades, with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) playing a particularly prominent role [11]. While individual scholars have also contributed to the development of the concept, institutional definitions provided by the FAO, OECD, and World Bank generally converge, whereas academic perspectives tend to be more diverse.

In the literature, food security is variously defined as the sustained availability of food; guaranteed access to high-quality food; protection of the food chain from bioterrorism; and the ability to ensure equitable distribution and access across social groups. Some definitions also emphasise food supply chains—including production, processing, and distribution—nutritional security, deviations from consumption patterns, per capita grain consumption, or the gap between production and consumption [12].

Food security may also be conceptualised as a causal chain linking production, distribution, processing, and consumption [13]. In contrast, food insecurity refers to situations where individuals or households lack sustainable physical, economic, and social access to adequate, safe, and nutritious food [14,15]. To assess food insecurity, tools such as the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) have been developed. The FIES relies on respondents’ direct experiences and is increasingly being used to gauge the scale of the problem [16]. Studies have shown a strong correlation between the FIES and the Global Food Security Index (GFSI), with income levels identified as the main determinant of improvements in food security [17].

Countries with higher levels of food security also tend to generate more food waste, suggesting a link between economic prosperity and inefficiencies in resource use. Improving storage and transport infrastructure, along with consumer education in developing countries, is crucial for reducing post-harvest losses and enhancing food availability [18]. It is estimated that recovering just 25% of globally wasted food could meet the nutritional needs of approximately 870 million people [19].

Logistical constraints are a major barrier to achieving food security objectives in both developed and developing economies. Disruptions in supply chains reduce food quality, increase post-harvest losses, and limit the availability of essential goods. Effective risk management in logistics must consider both internal and external factors and be grounded in frameworks of resilience and flexibility [20].

In crisis contexts, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, localised food supply chains have proven more resilient due to their proximity, flexibility, and engagement of local producers. Workforce planning, supply diversification, and social integration are key elements of effective crisis logistics [21]. Alongside infrastructure development, spatial access to food is an increasing concern. In developed countries, the phenomenon of “food deserts” exacerbates social and health inequalities, making urban policies that expand food infrastructure in marginalised areas essential [22].

Contemporary approaches to food security increasingly incorporate sustainability. A sustainable diet is defined as one that protects biodiversity and ecosystems, is culturally acceptable, affordable, nutritionally adequate, and resource-efficient [23]. The concept of sustainable food systems complements this by aiming to ensure food security without compromising the social, economic, or environmental foundations for future generations [24]. Incorporating environmental, health, and social metrics—such as dietary diversity, sanitation, and access to health services—into policy design enhances the effectiveness of interventions [25].

One key innovation in combating “hidden hunger” is the HarvestPlus programme, which promotes the biofortification of staple crops. While it has shown promise in addressing micronutrient deficiencies, its effectiveness depends on scale, policy support, and consumer awareness to achieve the target of reaching 1 billion people by 2030 [26]. Similarly, the IFAD-supported “Pro-Semiarid” project in Bahia, Brazil—launched in 2024—has strengthened the resilience of smallholders through climate-smart agriculture, water harvesting, and agroecological practices. These efforts have improved food and nutrition security, as well as the capacity of rural communities to adapt to climate change [27]. A growing body of research highlights agroecology as a transformative approach in Latin America. Recent evaluations show that agroecological practices—such as crop diversification, integrated pest management, and community-led knowledge co-production—enhance climate resilience, biodiversity, and equitable food access across farm, landscape, and food-system scales [28].

There is growing consensus that climate change is one of the most serious threats to global food security. Food systems are estimated to contribute 20–30% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions [29]. Climate change adversely impacts all four dimensions of food security—availability, access, stability, and utilisation—especially in developing regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Rising temperatures, rainfall variability, and environmental degradation reduce agricultural productivity, increase import dependency, and exacerbate malnutrition [30,31]. Research shows a strong correlation between rainfall patterns, CO₂ emissions, temperature increases, and food security [32]. The growing prevalence of food insecurity is well-documented and is expected to significantly increase global hunger [33].

In summary, food security is a multidimensional concept encompassing quantitative, qualitative, social, and environmental aspects. Food insecurity serves as a key indicator of social vulnerability and is closely linked to income levels and access to infrastructure. Climate change, logistical inefficiencies, and food loss represent some of the most urgent global threats. Long-term solutions involve building sustainable food systems and expanding biofortification programs. The integration of policy, education, and technological innovation is essential to ensuring the resilience of global food systems.

2. Materials and Methods

This study utilises secondary data from the Global Food Security Index (GFSI) database, published by Economist Impact for the period 2012–2022 [4]. The data were normalised and organised specifically for the four Mercosur countries: Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay.

The empirical analysis aimed to achieve the following: (i) identify the main determinants and structural disparities in food security indicators; (ii) track the dynamics of food security over time; (iii) assess food self-sufficiency across key food categories (cereals, fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and seafood, milk, and eggs); and (iv) evaluate the effectiveness of regional policies targeting poverty reduction and responses to extreme drought conditions in 2022–2023.

To assess the food self-sufficiency of Mercosur countries, the Food and Agriculture Organization’s [34] Self-Sufficiency Ratio (SSR) was used, which takes into account domestic production and foreign trade:

SSR = Production/(Domestic supply quantity) × 100%,

where Domestic supply quantity = Production + Import − Export.

According to the FAOSTAT methodology for food balance sheets, production-related data refers to total domestic output, including both the agricultural sector and non-agricultural sources, such as non-commercial production and household gardens. When it comes to domestic supply, there are different categories of crops: those that are exported, used for livestock feed, seed, food, and non-food processing; those that are lost during storage and transport; and those that are kept as food stocks [35].

The seven major product groups that are critical to both production and consumption structures are considered in this study, following the FAOSTAT classification: cereals, fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and seafood, milk, and eggs. All products are analysed in their unprocessed form, and the data include self-consumption, direct consumption, and quantities allocated for further processing [36].

To make sure the methods are the same for both crops and animals, the SSR values are calculated separately for each product group. This is based on annual FAOSTAT data on domestic production, imports, and exports, expressed in tonnes. Comparative assessments across countries and time are still enabled by this approach, while it also allows for differentiation between food categories that are plant- and animal-based. The FAO’s food balance classifications are used to match trade data (imports and exports) to the respective groupings of crop-based products (e.g., cereals, fruits, and vegetables) and livestock-based commodities (e.g., milk, meat, and eggs) [37].

A more nuanced understanding of national dependence on external markets for key food categories is enabled by the analysis, which incorporates both the volume and share of imported versus domestically produced goods in total supply. The analysis covers the period from 2012 through 2022.

The SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) is a well-established strategic planning tool that is widely used in public policy, economic development, and organisational management. Its strength lies in its comprehensive approach, which takes into account both internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) and external factors (opportunities and threats) that influence the functioning of a particular system or sector [38].

Empirical studies have confirmed that SWOT analysis can serve as an effective foundation for developing sustainable strategies in the agricultural and food sectors [39]. The selection of indicators for the SWOT analysis of food security in Mercosur countries was based on a comprehensive analytical approach combining quantitative and qualitative criteria. The selection methodology considered both the availability of comparative data and their relevance to the four key dimensions of food security, as classified by the FAO: availability, affordability, quality and safety, and sustainability and adaptation.

The indicator identification and selection process was based on the following: (i) international indices and databases, such as the Global Food Security Index (GFSI) for 2012 and 2022, FAOSTAT (2012, 2022), World Bank Indicators (2024), and reports from FAO, IFAD, PAHO, UNICEF, and WFP (2024); (ii) the principles of data triangulation, combining quantitative measurements (e.g., GFSI scores) with a qualitative analysis of the institutional and political contexts; and (iii) the criterion of regional representativeness, ensuring international comparisons among Mercosur member countries.

The selection of indicators was carried out in several stages:

(a)

Identification of Critical Areas of Food System Functioning. Based on the literature and Mercosur countries’ food policies, four key areas for ensuring food security were identified: physical and logistical availability of food (e.g., supply chain efficiency and self-sufficiency); economic accessibility (e.g., income, poverty, and inequality); food quality and safety (e.g., nutritional standards and dietary diversity); and food system resilience to external factors (e.g., climate change, political risk, and natural resource degradation).

(b)

Indicator Selection Criteria. The following methodological criteria were applied: Measurability and Comparability—only indicators available for all analysed countries were included, with a consistent temporal and methodological framework; Public Policy Relevance—selected indicators had to be linked to existing policy programmes or strategic initiatives (e.g., poverty reduction programmes and climate adaptation); Sensitivity to Macroeconomic and Climate Variables—indicators chosen demonstrated the ability to reflect changes in the food system resulting from external shocks; Structural Representativeness—the selection encompassed indicators reflecting both systemic resources (e.g., infrastructure and self-sufficiency) and social factors (e.g., inequality and access to a healthy diet).

(c)

Assessment and Classification of Point Values Indicators Based Primarily on the GFSI Score (0–100). This was then classified according to the following scale: 85 points—a strong point; 50–85 points—moderate strength or weakness (depending on the dynamics and context); below 50 points—a weak point.

The quantitative assessment was supplemented by qualitative analyses, including the review of national policies, government documents, and the academic literature, allowing for consideration of the institutional context and the complexity of systemic challenges.

3. Results: Food Security in Mercosur Countries

3.1. Assessment of Food Security in Mercosur Countries Compared with Global, North American, and European Contexts

Testing food security can be approached through two basic concepts: analytical and synthetic. Analytical studies examine individual dimensions of food security, such as affordability, physical availability, dietary adequacy, food safety, and more recently, sustainability and adaptation [4]. Scores for each dimension range from 0 to 100 points, which are then used to rank each country (see Figure 1).

The average Global Food Security Index (GFSI) score for Mercosur countries in 2022 was 65.1, slightly above the global average of 62.2 points (Figure 1); however, compared to North American and European countries, the score for Mercosur countries is lower by 13.5 and 9.7 points, respectively.

In 2022, the ranking of Mercosur countries by individual food security dimensions, as well as their overall Global Food Security Index (GFSI) scores, was as follows: Uruguay ranked 33rd, Brazil 51st, Argentina 54th, and Paraguay 70th (Figure 2).

Uruguay outperformed the other Mercosur countries thanks to higher scores in economic access (45th), physical availability (29th), and sustainability and adaptation (21st); however, it ranked lower in the food quality and safety dimension (40th) compared to its regional peers.

Brazil and Argentina ranked closely in the overall GFSI, placing 51st and 54th, respectively. Their scores across the individual dimensions of food security were also largely comparable. Notably, both countries performed particularly well in food quality and safety, ranking 14th (Brazil) and 10th (Argentina). Paraguay, ranked 70th overall, lagged behind the other Mercosur countries primarily due to a very low score in sustainability and adaptation (113th) and a weak performance in physical availability (95th).

According to FAO data, the proportion of the Argentine population experiencing moderate-to-severe food insecurity increased from 35.8% during 2018–2020 to 36.9% in 2020–2022. Particularly concerning is the rise in severe food insecurity, which reached 13.1% between 2019 and 2022—an increase of 7.3 percentage points compared to the previous four-year period [40,41].

As of 2023, although inflation in Argentina has begun to slow, it has remained in triple digits year-on-year. According to data from the first half of 2024, the proportion of households living below the poverty line rose to 42.5%, while the percentage of the overall population below the poverty line increased to 52.9%—the highest level in two decades. Approximately 15% of the Argentine population now lives in extreme poverty, lacking the means to meet basic nutritional needs [42].

By contrast, a 2024 United Nations report shows significant progress in Brazil, where severe food insecurity fell from 8% of the population in 2022 to just 1.2% in 2023, representing a reduction of 85%. In absolute terms, the number of individuals experiencing severe food insecurity declined from 17.2 million to 2.5 million [43,44].

In Uruguay, the proportion of the population experiencing moderate-to-severe food insecurity rose slightly from 15.2% (2018–2020) to 15.7% (2021–2023). During the latter period, 2.9% of the population experienced severe food insecurity [45].

In Paraguay, FAO data indicate that moderate-to-severe food insecurity affected approximately 17.9% of the population between 2018 and 2020. This figure increased by 17.9 percentage points, reaching 35.8% in the period 2021–2023, reflecting a significant deterioration in the country’s food security situation [46].

3.2. Synthetic Analysis of Food Security in Mercosur Countries

Synthetic analysis of GFSI indicators showed that Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil experience high food-cost volatility, leading to a weak score on the inequality-adjusted income index for Brazil and Paraguay and a moderate score for Argentina (

Table 1. Food security in Mercosur countries, 2012–2022.

GFSI	Global	Argentina		Brazil		Uruguay		Paraguay
		2022	Score Changes 2022 vs. 2012	2022	Score Changes 2022 vs. 2012	2022	Score Changes 2022 vs. 2012	2022	Score Changes 2022 vs. 2012
Affordability:	69.0	62.0	−0.4	63.0	−3.4	80.0	+8.3	74.3	−9.5
- Change in average food costs	70.7	0.0	−66.0	38.0	−16.5	66.0	+35.0	54.0	−40.0
- Proportion of population below global poverty line	76.6	94.1	−1.0	95.6	+5.2	99.3	−0.2	95.2	−0.2
- Inequality-adjusted income index	55.5	60.6	0	44.2	0	61.4	0	45.2	0
- Agricultural trade	67.6	66.9	−1.1	66.8	−2.5	72.6	−0.3	76.2	+0.4
- Food safety net programmes	72.4	100	0	73.2	0	100	0	100	0
Availability:	57.8	63.4	+2.2	58.6	−0.4	65.6	+1.7	47.0	−6.6
- Access to agricultural inputs	57.6	75.3	0	83.6	0	83.6	0	50.3	0
- Agricultural research and development	47.1	65.2	+20.9	55.4	−2.4	68.1	+24.4	26.8	−13.2
- Farm infrastructure	55.7	57.7	−1.2	52.4	+0.2	27.0	0	20.9	+0.1
- Volatility in agricultural production	68.7	71.4	0	95.2	0	3.8	0	85.0	+3.4
- Food loss	75.5	87.9	−1.3	51.9	−1.6	47.5	−8.2	62.8	+1.6
- Supply chain infrastructure	47.8	49.1	0	35.8	0	55.9	−2.4	37.2	0
- Sufficiency of supply	61.9	40.4	0	38.7	0	86.0	+0.8	24.7	−48.1
- Political and barriers to access	58.7	70.1	0	64.4	0	84.6	−1.3	57.5	0
- Food security and access policy commitments	47.1	52.5	0	47.5	0	100.0	0	52.5	0
Quality and Safety:	65.9	85.5	0	83.9	+0.1	73.8	−1.1	76.3	−0.3
- Dietary diversity	52.5	56.3	0	60.5	0	49.8	0	54.3	0
- Nutritional standards	63.7	100	0	100	0	61.3	0	88.7	0
- Micronutrient availability	67.8	75.1	0	63.4	0	86.3	0	81.8	0
- Protein quality	68.5	100	0	94.0	+0.3	76.5	−5.5	61.6	−1.2
- Food safety	76.4	94.4	0	99.7	+0.2	94.6	0	94.6	0
Sustainability and Adaptation:	54.1	49.4	−1.3	56.3	0	65.8	0	32.8	−6.3
- Exposure	67.9	75.8	0	67.1	0	76.4	0	76.8	0
- Water	41.2	61.2	0	63.8	0	63.8	0	38.8	0
- Land	61.3	40.4	+0.1	54.4	+0.4	59.7	−0.1	36.1	+0.2
- Oceans, rivers, and lakes	41.5	24.5	0	38.1	0	35.9	0	32.9	0
- Political commitment to adaptation	55.8	40.8	−6.8	59.7	−0.3	59.7	0	12.1	−33.4
- Disaster risk management	55.7	52.9	0	52.9	0	100	0	0.0	0
TOTAL	62.2	64.8	+0.1	65.1	−1.1	71.8	+2.6	58.6	+6.0

Source: own calculations using Economist Impact data.

).

Uruguay demonstrated relatively high stability in food price fluctuations, contributing to a 35.0 point improvement in the “change in average food costs” index. All Mercosur countries scored highly on the percentage of the population living above the global poverty threshold, with values ranging from 94.1 to 99.3 points. Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay exhibited strong performance in the creation of food safety net programmes, each achieving a perfect score of 100 points. In contrast, Brazil showed no positive progress and scored relatively low in food quality standards (73.2 points).

The agricultural R&D investment index increased significantly in Uruguay (by 24.4 points) and Argentina (by 20.9 points), indicating an acceleration of technological transformation in the agricultural sectors of these countries. Conversely, reduced spending on agricultural research and development led to a decline in scores for Brazil (−2.4 points) and Paraguay (−13.2 points). Notably, Paraguay’s score in this category remains 20.3 points below the average. Regarding supply chain infrastructure and supply adequacy, Brazil and Paraguay continue to perform below average, as does Argentina in the dimension of supply adequacy. In contrast, Uruguay outperforms in both areas, scoring 8.1 points and 24.1 points above average, respectively.

Argentina and Brazil displayed high stability in nutritional standards, protein quality, and food safety, with scores ranging between 94.0 and 100.0 points. Meanwhile, Uruguay and Paraguay demonstrated relatively high stability in micronutrient availability and food safety, with scores between 81.8 and 94.6 points.

The resilience of sustainable food systems remains below average across all Mercosur countries due to several shared challenges: high levels of land degradation (36.1–59.7 points); pollution of ocean and river waters (24.5–38.1 points); limited government engagement in implementing sustainability standards (12.1–59.7 points); and weak risk-management systems (0–52.9 points). Uruguay is the only exception, achieving a perfect score (100 points) in risk management.

Between 2022 and 2023, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay experienced one of the most severe droughts in recorded history, driven by the La Niña phenomenon and exacerbated by climate change. In Argentina, the drought led to a dramatic decline in domestic production of maize, wheat, and soybeans, affecting both exports and domestic food availability [47].

In Uruguay, over 60% of the national territory was affected by extreme or severe drought, resulting in agricultural losses exceeding USD 1 billion. In May 2023, due to serious water shortages—particularly in Montevideo—authorities began supplying saltier water through the public system ([48], pp. 10–12). In Paraguay, extreme droughts caused record-low water levels in the Paraguay River, severely impacting fisheries and agriculture, especially in the Ñeembucú region. These conditions triggered conflicts between farmers and fishers over water use, further escalating social tensions [49].

A synthetic assessment of food security in Mercosur countries revealed that key strengths of the food system include robust food safety net programmes, established nutritional standards, and high levels of food safety. However, critical weaknesses remain, particularly the low resilience of sustainable systems and moderate vulnerability to price shocks and supply chain disruptions. Further analysis is necessary to identify the causal relationships and determinants that will inform the development of a comprehensive food security strategy for the Mercosur region.

3.3. An Assessment of Food Self-Sufficiency in Mercosur Countries

One of the most important factors determining food security is the level of food self-sufficiency, which is defined as the ability of a nation to produce the food it needs to feed its population. This refers to a country’s capacity to meet domestic food demand through production based on its own resources. The assessment is usually performed by looking at the ratio of domestic production to internal consumption. This can be broken down to analyse the agri-food sector as a whole or individual product categories. If production falls short of domestic consumption, food self-sufficiency is not achieved and the resulting supply gap must be filled through imports. Conversely, when production exceeds domestic demand, a surplus is generated that can be allocated for export.

In this study, the food self-sufficiency of Mercosur countries was assessed by analysing the relationship between the production and domestic (balance) consumption of selected agri-food products over the period 2012–2022 (Figure 3).

The Mercosur countries possess significant agri-food production potential, underpinned by an extensive area of agricultural land (381.5 million hectares) and generally favourable climatic conditions [36]. Among the member states, Argentina recorded the highest levels of food self-sufficiency across all agri-food categories in 2022, with self-sufficiency rates ranging from 100.6% to 278.4%. Although Argentina’s performance has slightly declined compared to 2012, it remains strong. The largest production surpluses and export specialisation are observed in the markets for cereals (278.4%), vegetable oils (226.5%), and fish and seafood (263.6%).

In Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay, cereal production significantly exceeds domestic consumption, with self-sufficiency rates of 137.1%, 192.4%, and 228.9%, respectively. A similar trend is seen in meat production, with rates of 144.0%, 331.8%, and 306.0%, respectively. Between 2012 and 2022, fluctuations in self-sufficiency rates were observed in both the cereal and meat markets: in Brazil, the rates increased by +27.2% (cereals) and +9.2% (meat); in Uruguay, they declined by −33.7% (cereals) and increased by +44.1% (meat); in Paraguay, the changes were −29.0% (cereals) and +46.8% (meat).

A notable trend was observed in Paraguay, where self-sufficiency in vegetable oil production rose sharply by +301.1%, reaching 496.8% in 2022. Conversely, Uruguay experienced a significant decline in fish and seafood self-sufficiency, which dropped by −189.6% to 152.8%.

Despite favourable natural conditions, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay exhibit low levels of self-sufficiency in key sectors such as milk, vegetables, fruit, fish, and eggs.

In Brazil, the low self-sufficiency in vegetables (95.8%) is largely due to the agri-food sector’s strong focus on export-oriented crops such as soybeans, maize, and coffee. Vegetables, which are generally less profitable in large-scale industrial agriculture, are often marginalised—reducing their availability in domestic markets. The problem is compounded by land and capital concentration, which poses challenges for the development of smallholder farming [50]. Moreover, substantial post-harvest losses in the vegetable supply chain are attributed to inadequate refrigeration infrastructure, poor transport conditions, and high investment costs [51].

The relatively low self-sufficiency in milk (92.8%) stems from the absence of specialised dairy cattle genetics and a production model oriented towards beef cattle [52]. Similar limitations exist in the fisheries sector, where self-sufficiency in fish and seafood remains low at 81.0%, largely due to global changes in marine biodiversity.

Although Uruguay benefits from fertile agricultural soils, approximately 90% of agricultural land is devoted to livestock production, limiting the development of crop cultivation ([53], p. 6). Self-sufficiency in vegetable production remains particularly low at 46.0%, leading to insufficient vegetable consumption. Key barriers to consumption include unfavourable dietary habits, high prices, and perceived complexity in food preparation [54]. Substantial losses in the vegetable supply chain are linked to inadequate logistics infrastructure, obsolete storage technologies, and high retail quality requirements [53]. In addition, egg self-sufficiency (95.1%) is hindered by the lack of advanced genetics in layer hen breeding ([53], p. 7).

Paraguay shows particularly low self-sufficiency in vegetables (58.3%), and moderately low levels in fruit (94.6%), eggs (98.4%), and fish and seafood (85.3%). The country is heavily dependent on imports of basic food items such as potatoes and tomatoes. Currently, domestic production meets only 5% of national demand for potatoes and 45% for tomatoes. The absence of targeted support programmes for small-scale producers and national policies for horticultural development exacerbates the situation. Seasonal price volatility frequently leads to ad hoc government interventions [55].

3.4. Evaluating the Resilience of Food Systems: Economic Drivers and Public Policies in Mercosur Countries

Assessing the resilience of Mercosur’s food systems requires consideration of both economic conditions and the effectiveness of public policies. This section presents an analysis of the key factors influencing food security between 2012 and 2022, with particular emphasis on the vulnerability to price shocks and the role of agriculture in economic development and environmental degradation (

Table 2. Key determinants of food security levels in Mercosur countries (2012–2022).

Item	Argentina		Brazil		Uruguay		Paraguay
	2022	Score Changes 2022 vs. 2012	2022	Score Changes 2022 vs. 2012	2022	Score Changes 2022 vs. 2012	2022	Score Changes 2022 vs. 2012
Gross Domestic Product per capita, USD thousand	13.9	-	8.9	−3.4	20.8	+5.2	6.2	+0.6
Share of agricultural value added in GDP, %	6.6	+0.8	6.8	+2.6	6.5	−2.0	11.0	+1.0
Value added of agriculture per employed person, USD thousand	20.9	+2.6	10.5	+2.9	28.4	+3.3	6.6	+3.3
Share of the rural population in the total population, %	473.5	−918.9	1005.9	+38.3	1884.7	+50.4	1203.9	+185.9
Share of agri-food systems in emissions (CO2), %	7.8	−1.1	12.8	−2.6	4.5	−0.9	39.8	−3.6
Gross Domestic Product per capita, USD thousand	44.7	−3.9	89.6	−0.3	30.8	−11.5	91.5	+1.5
Pesticides (total), kg/ha of cropland	5.9	+0.6	12.6	+5.2	5.4	−0.5	7.6	−3.1
Food Price Anomaly Index (IFPA) by Food CPI *	0.2	−1.5	0.4	+0.4	0.5	-	0.8	+1.3
Occurrence of Lack of Financial Capacity (PUA), %	NDA	NDA	25.3	−2.1	36.1	+5.0	24.1	+0.1
Number of people who cannot afford a healthy diet (NUA), million	NDA	NDA	53.1	−3.1	1.2	+0.1	1.6	+0.1
Number of malnourished people, million	1.4	-	8.4	+2.7	0.1	-	0.3	+0.1
Prevalence of malnutrition, %	3.2	−0.2	3.9	+1.1	<2.5	-	4.5	+2.1
Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the population as a whole, % *	13.1	+0.5	6.6	+3.5	2.9	+0.8	6.6	+1.4

* Note: a comparative analysis of data from 2022 and 2019; source: own calculations based on the FAOSTAT data. NDA—no data available.

).

Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita reveals significant disparities in levels of economic development across the Mercosur countries. In 2022, Uruguay reported the highest level at USD 20,800 per capita, while Paraguay recorded the lowest at USD 6200 per capita. Brazil experienced a decline of USD 3400 in GDP per capita over the decade, suggesting economic regression, whereas Uruguay and Paraguay recorded positive growth. In Argentina, GDP per capita remained unchanged between 2012 and 2022.

The share of agriculture in GDP remains relatively high in Paraguay (11.0%) and Brazil (6.8%), underscoring the sector’s continued importance in national economic structures. In Uruguay, this share decreased by 2.0 percentage points between 2012 and 2022, potentially indicating a process of relative de-agrarianisation of the economy.

The value added per employed person is highest in Uruguay (USD 28,400) and Argentina (USD 20,900), possibly reflecting a greater degree of mechanisation in agriculture. In contrast, Paraguay reports the lowest value (USD 6600), despite having the highest share of rural population (39.8%). The gross value of food production per capita is also highest in Uruguay (USD 1884.7), representing an increase of USD 50.4 per capita in 2022 compared to 2012. Brazil and Paraguay also recorded growth during this period, while Argentina experienced a significant decline (to USD 918.9 per capita), which may indicate a reduction in domestic supply or a shift in production structure.

The decline in the rural population share across most countries reflects ongoing urbanisation trends. Paraguay remains an exception, with nearly 40% of its population residing in rural areas, which has significant implications for food security and rural development policies. Brazil and Paraguay exhibit very high shares of greenhouse gas emissions from the agri-food sector (89.6% and 91.5%, respectively), underlining the urgent need for sustainability-oriented transformation. Uruguay, despite some improvements, still has a relatively high share of emissions (30.8%).

Pesticide use has increased in Argentina and risen sharply in Brazil, while declining in Uruguay and significantly decreasing in Paraguay. Argentina and Brazil have long been recognised among the top three global consumers of pesticides [56]. The intensity of pesticide use remains high, especially compared to the EU average of 1.59 kg/ha [57,58].

The Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), based on the Food Consumer Price Index, measures the frequency of abnormal food price movements [59]. Between 2019 and 2020, the IFPA indicated high price volatility in Argentina (1.5) and Brazil (1.8). In Uruguay, the increase was moderate (0.5 ≤ IFPA < 1), while in Paraguay, it remained within normal levels (–0.5 ≤ IFPA < 0.5). By 2022, prices stabilised in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay but increased by 1.3 percentage points in Paraguay.

The Prevalence of Undernourishment and Access (PUA) index indicates that between 24.1% and 36.1% of the populations in Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay faced difficulties accessing healthy food. In 2022, malnutrition rates were highest in Paraguay (4.5%) and Brazil (3.9%), both showing an upward trend. Argentina’s rate stood at 3.2%, while Uruguay remained below 2.5%. Of particular concern is the rise in severe food insecurity, with all countries exceeding 6%, posing a significant threat to the stability of their food systems.

Between 2019 and 2024, Mercosur governments implemented a range of measures to address economic and social challenges, with varying degrees of scope and effectiveness. In 2019, the Argentine government launched the “Argentina contra el Hambre” (Argentina Against Hunger) programme to combat malnutrition [60]; however, amid a worsening economic crisis and rising inflation, the programme failed to meet expectations and was eventually discontinued. In 2023, President Javier Milei introduced radical reforms, including cutting public spending, cutting wages, laying off tens of thousands of government workers, and suspending energy and transport subsidies, which were widely criticised by humanitarian organisations [61].

In Brazil, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva launched a global campaign to end hunger in 2019 [62], redesigned the Bolsa Família social transfer programme, and introduced a new social assistance package [63]. These efforts, combined with an increase in the minimum wage and a decline in unemployment, contributed to an improvement in household food security.

Uruguay declared an agricultural state of emergency (2022–2023) and established a Water Emergency Fund [64]. In Paraguay, the time required to register food products was reduced from 135 to 25 days, resulting in annual savings of USD 2 million [65]. However, the lack of support for the horticultural sector continues to limit local food production [56].

An analysis of economic and environmental indicators in the Mercosur region (2012–2022) reveals significant structural disparities influencing national levels of food security. The substantial contribution of agriculture to GDP, uneven rural development, rising emissions and pesticide use, and deteriorating indicators of food access and malnutrition highlight the urgent need to transform agri-food systems towards greater resilience, sustainability, and social equity.

Special attention should be given to rising price volatility and limited food availability among vulnerable populations. The actions undertaken by Mercosur governments between 2019 and 2024 varied considerably in both nature and impact, reflecting the specific political and economic contexts of each country. Despite notable progress in Brazil and Uruguay, efforts to ensure sustainable food access remain hindered by budgetary constraints, policy fragmentation, and persistent social inequalities. Coordinated, long-term strategies are essential to reinforce social safety nets and promote local food production throughout the region.

3.5. Strategic Analysis of Food System Resilience in Mercosur Countries

Faced with increasing climate, economic, and social challenges affecting food security in the South American region, a strategic approach to assessing the resilience of national food systems is essential. Mercosur, as a major agricultural and trade bloc, requires integrated policy action and infrastructure investment. To systematise the key phenomena and processes influencing food security levels in Mercosur countries, a SWOT analysis was conducted with reference to its main dimensions (

Table 3. Strengths and weaknesses of food security in Mercosur countries.

Parameters	Strong Points	Weak Points
Affordability	Low share of the population living below the poverty line (Argentina 94.1 points; Brazil 95.6 points; Uruguay 99.3 points; Paraguay 95.2 points); Developed food security programmes (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay 100 points each; Brazil 73.2 points); Export capacity and agricultural trade base: a high agricultural trade index (66.8–76.2 points) indicates the region’s competitiveness in international markets.	Low and moderately low value of the inequality-adjusted income index (Argentina 60.6 points; Brazil 44.2 points; Uruguay 61.4 points; Paraguay 45.2 points); High dynamics of changes in the population at risk of poverty in recent years; High volatility in food costs and increasing poverty, resulting in high vulnerability to price shocks; Significant food losses (excluding Argentina 87.9 points); High proportion of the population without access to a healthy diet (PUA: 24.1–36.1%).
Availability	Proper access to agricultural inputs (excluding Paraguay 50.3 points); Increasing investment in research in agricultural development and agricultural technologies; High food self-sufficiency in the markets of cereals, meat, vegetable oils; Development of national food security policies.	Low efficiency of supply chains (especially in Brazil 35.8 points); Limited access to logistics and manufacturing infrastructure (especially in Paraguay 20.9 points) and low supply chain infrastructure ratios (excluding Uruguay 86.0 points); High variability in agricultural production (climatic and market conditions); Persistent shortages in self-sufficiency in the markets of fruit, vegetables, fish, milk (Brazil), vegetable oils (Uruguay).
Quality and Safety	High level of food safety and quality; High nutritional standards (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay); High diet diversity and good availability of micronutrients.	Low level of nutritional standardisation in Uruguay; Low standards in Uruguay and Paraguay in terms of dietary diversity and protein quality.
Sustainability and Adaptation	High resistance of food product to adulteration, contamination, and other food safety problems; Proper risk management in Uruguay (100 points); Increased awareness of the need for climate adaptation.	Low political commitment to climate adaptation and lack of integrated regional strategies; Limited protection of natural resources (soil, water, biodiversity); Low resilience of systems to climate crises: especially in Paraguay and Argentina, there is a visible decline in adaptation indicators (e.g., political commitment to adaptation—Paraguay 12.1 points, Argentina 40.8 points).

Source: own elaboration based on Table 1 and Table 2 and Figure 3.

).

Mercosur countries possess high production capacity, with strengths including stable food security nets, self-sufficiency in cereals and meat, and high food quality. Significant disparities exist between countries; notably, Uruguay stands out for its systemic stability and efficiency, while Paraguay struggles with deficits in infrastructure and adaptation. Brazil and Argentina benefit from favourable production conditions and substantial food security potential, yet both economies face challenges related to social inequality, political instability, and adaptation to climate change.

The region’s food security remains vulnerable to climate and economic shocks, which exacerbate the low level of political commitment to climate change adaptation and sustainable development. A potential solution is the implementation of a community food policy within Mercosur (following the example of the EU), integrated with climate, social, and development objectives (e.g., common funds for sustainable agriculture).

The development of relationships between the strengths and weaknesses of food security in Mercosur countries enabled the formulation of the main opportunities and threats for individual dimensions of food security (

Table 4. Opportunities and threats for improving food security in Mercosur.

Parameters	Opportunities	Threats
Affordability	Strengthening food availability and safety policies—there is room for improvement through better management and implementation of public programs. Reducing food loss at the producer level will improve affordability.	High income inequality may limit access to food despite high physical and production availability. Volatility in agricultural production prices—high volatility can lead to supply and price disruptions. Increased poverty and limited access to a healthy diet.
Availability	Investments in agricultural research and development: Uruguay and Argentina are experiencing rapid growth in agricultural R&D (Argentina: +20.9 points, Uruguay: +24.4 points), creating potential for innovation. There is opportunity to improve innovation and resilience in food systems with relatively low input rates. Development of supply chain infrastructure—current weaknesses indicate the potential for increased efficiency of logistics and distribution. Diversification of production sources and logistics: the opportunity to strengthen regional supply chains, reducing dependence on global fluctuations in energy and transport prices.	Increasing extreme weather events and their impact on agricultural production yields. Political barriers to access and weak engagement in food security policies may result in a lack of effective interventions in crisis situations. Dependence on external markets: fluctuations in global demand, fertiliser, and fuel prices can negatively affect production costs and food availability.
Quality and Safety	Development of technology for the production of high-quality food products for internal markets—thanks to high standards of food safety and dietary diversity. Harmonisation of food quality standards in the region.	Vulnerability to natural disasters and limited risk management—although countries have risk-management structures in place, their level of effectiveness is moderate to low. Non-compliance with SPS standards—risk of isolation from global markets. Incompatibility of nutritional norms (standards).
Sustainability and Adaptation	Development of climate-resilient agriculture and strengthening of farmland and groundwater resource management systems—favourable water and soil conditions can be conducive to adaptation to environmental changes. Development of sustainable agriculture (smart-agriculture, agroecology).	Political instability and lack of a common policy framework for food safety: with relatively low political commitment to adaptation measures, production conditions may deteriorate in the future. Excessive exploitation of the environment and high CO2 emissions from the agri-food sector result in the degradation of natural resources and environmental pollution. Increasing climate crises and extreme weather events: high exposure to droughts, instability of rainfall, and extreme phenomena are causing a decline in agricultural production.

Source: own research and elaboration.

).

Utilising the identified opportunities while managing key risks can contribute to the sustainability of Mercosur’s food systems. Priority should be given to enhancing the resilience of infrastructure, diversifying production, and implementing measures to protect vulnerable groups (e.g., children and rural communities). Based on the SWOT analysis, a number of strategies were developed to address the strengths and weaknesses of Mercosur’s food security systems (

Table 5. Strategic matrix of food security for Mercosur countries.

	Opportunities (O)	Threats (T)
Strong points (S)	SO Strategies 1. Expand Mercosur’s export position as a reliable, certified food supplier to Global South and Asian markets. 2. Promote high food quality and safety (e.g., GI, ESG, traceability) as tools for market access. 3. Utilise modern technologies (precision agriculture, digitalisation, biotechnology) to enhance efficiency. 4. Strengthen regional cooperation in storage, crisis management, and early warning systems. 5. Expand R&D programs and develop joint innovation centres. 6. Strengthen social and environmental aspects in food security strategies.	ST Strategies 1. Develop adaptation policies (e.g., agricultural insurance, energy transition) based on existing systems. 2. Promote ecological and diversified agricultural production to mitigate climate and economic volatility. 3. Employ local energy and fertiliser sources to reduce dependence on strategic imports. 4. Harmonise policies and standards to strengthen regional resilience. 5. Support local markets and short food supply chains for food self-sufficiency.
Weak points (W)	WO Strategies 1. Create an R&D fund to bridge the technological gap. 2. Invest in logistics and processing infrastructure in peripheral regions. 3. Implement nutrition education and regional standards for food quality and safety. 4. Introduce institutional reforms for effective food policy governance. 5. Include intervention programs in regions with low food self-sufficiency and high food poverty. 6. Integrate data and analytical tools (e.g., GIS, GFSI) as a foundation for policy-making.	WT Strategies 1. Develop climate adaptation strategies with focus on resource protection. 2. Reform social policies to integrate food security dimensions. 3. Reduce inequalities by linking social support with agricultural policies. 4. Strengthen regional institutions for crisis management and food security. 5. Modernise value chains as a component of systemic resilience. 6. Utilise structural reforms to support stability and social cohesion.

Source: own research and elaboration.

).

For example, economic stabilisation, increased consumer incomes, and the development of common funds for research and innovation to bridge the technology gap (WO strategies) can help counteract rising food prices—an identified weakness in Mercosur’s food systems. Conversely, political barriers to access and weak engagement in food security policies may exacerbate this issue, leading to further increases in agri-food product prices and persistent inflation (WT strategies).

On the basis of current investigations, it can be assumed that the food security strategy of the Mercosur countries should be based on the following:

• Integrated Regional Policy: A common food security strategy must be developed, taking into account climate change, infrastructure barriers, and market integration;
• Strengthening Research and Innovation: Long-term investment in precision agriculture, biotechnology, and local research centres is essential, particularly in Paraguay and Brazil;
• Reducing Access Inequality: Improving food distribution systems and reducing costs for vulnerable groups are essential to enhance affordability;
• Building Climate Resilience: Implementation of irrigation technologies, drought risk management, and the development of local early warning systems are essential;
• Infrastructure and Logistics Development: Expanding transport and storage networks to reduce food losses and enhance supply chains;
• Diversification of Energy Sources and Fertilisers: Implementing policies to support local production of biofuels and green fertilisers to reduce import dependency;
• Monitoring and Evaluation: Regularly utilise indices such as the GFSI to measure progress and assess the effectiveness of policies.

4. Discussion

4.1. Climate Vulnerability and Adaptation

The South American (SA) region is particularly vulnerable to climate change and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), both of which pose significant threats to its economy and sustainable development. Consequently, adaptation to climate change has become a regional priority [9,66]. Brazil and Paraguay are especially exposed to environmental and carbon-related risks associated with the food sector, placing them at the forefront of the agricultural decarbonisation agenda. The 2022–2023 drought exacerbated challenges in access to food and water, prompting the governments of Uruguay and Paraguay to declare states of emergency and implement crisis mitigation measures. Research confirms that climate-smart agriculture (CSA) strategies have proven effective in promoting sustainable intensification in Uruguay, addressing the economic, sociocultural, environmental, and organisational dimensions of development [10,67,68].

By comparison, the European Union integrates climate-resilient objectives through mechanisms such as the European Green Deal, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with climate modules, and firm commitments under the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile, the ASEAN region (Southeast Asia) emphasises rural infrastructure, inclusive policies, and legal frameworks to build resilience against climate-induced shocks within its food security strategy [8,69].

4.2. Social Inequality and Food Access

Despite being among the world’s largest food exporters, Mercosur countries face persistent challenges in ensuring food access for the poorest segments of society, with 2.4–4.5% of the population suffering from malnutrition. Rising food prices and growing social inequality further exacerbate food insecurity. The varying levels of economic development and agricultural productivity across Mercosur countries necessitate flexible, context-specific policies to strengthen local agri-food systems [70].

Between 2012 and 2023, Argentina experienced a significant deterioration in food security, primarily due to recurrent economic crises, high inflation, climate-related impacts, and ineffective government interventions. Although programmes such as “Argentina contra el Hambre” were launched to improve the situation, their implementation was hampered by persistent political and economic instability. The country now faces the urgent challenge of ensuring access to adequate and safe food for its population, particularly among vulnerable groups. Without decisive government action to address this crisis, Argentina risks long-term economic decline [71].

Brazil’s food security trajectory over the period 2012–2023 was marked by both deterioration and recovery. After peaking in 2013, food security conditions worsened, reaching a low point in 2017–2018. However, through coordinated governmental efforts and improved economic indicators, the situation markedly improved in 2023, returning close to pre-crisis levels.

Key drivers of increased food insecurity (FI) in both Brazil and Argentina include a decline in purchasing power, land concentration, export-oriented agri-food models, and the scaling back of public policies aimed at poverty reduction. While the region possesses strong potential to generate wealth, inequitable income distribution and rising poverty—especially in rural areas—remain significant constraints [72]. Sustained efforts to reduce inequalities, protect vulnerable groups, and invest in social safety nets will be critical for further enhancing food security in Brazil and Argentina [73].

Paraguay witnessed a deterioration in food security between 2012 and 2023, as evidenced by a rise in malnutrition and food insecurity rates. The main contributing factors include recurrent droughts, dependence on food imports, price volatility, and insufficient support mechanisms for local producers [74]. Although progress has been made in digitising food registration processes, further actions are necessary to improve national food self-sufficiency and support small-scale agriculture.

The growing levels of food insecurity and malnutrition—despite the region’s considerable production potential—point to widening inequalities and weaknesses in distribution systems and social policy frameworks. The decline in per capita food production in Argentina is particularly alarming and may indicate structural changes in the agricultural sector that require political intervention.

EU Member States’ policies, which combine robust social safety nets with income support mechanisms under the CAP, can serve as a model, significantly mitigating the impact of price shocks on vulnerable groups. ASEAN countries, while diverse in terms of development, often implement targeted social protection and support programmes for smallholder farmers to protect them from food insecurity caused by inequality—although with varying effectiveness across Member States [75].

4.3. Institutional Capacity and Policy Coordination

The heterogeneity in institutional capacity, governance, and agricultural productivity across Mercosur countries demands flexible and context-specific policy responses. Argentina’s intermittent political stability has curtailed the impact of initiatives such as Argentina contra el Hambre, while Brazil and Paraguay lack strong inclusive frameworks, particularly in rural areas. Uruguay has experienced some success with climate-smart agriculture (CSA) initiatives, especially in drought-prone zones during 2022–2023 [72,73,74].

By comparison, the EU’s Common Food Policy concept, combined with CAP reform and CAP’s conditionality on environmental standards, offers a template for coordinated regional policy integration. Similarly, ASEAN’s regional approaches, including the ASEAN Food Security Reserve and coordinated ASEAN-wide frameworks, demonstrate the value of regional institutional coordination in enhancing resilience [8].

The transformation of food systems towards sustainability, while ensuring both physical and economic access to food, should be a key regional priority. This effort should be underpinned by more detailed national strategies, reporting mechanisms, and policy instruments—such as the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, and national reports submitted to the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations ([76], pp. 13–14).

The SWOT analysis highlights the heterogeneity of Mercosur food systems in terms of resilience and adaptive capacity. Despite the region’s high export potential and product quality, there is an urgent need to implement policies that reinforce infrastructure, promote innovation, and mitigate the impacts of economic instability. The recommendations presented in the strategic matrix remain valid but require stronger regional coordination and institutional commitment.

5. Conclusions

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the global food security landscape has been increasingly shaped by adverse phenomena. These include extreme weather events (e.g., droughts and hurricanes), which often lead to widespread crop failures and the collapse of agricultural production systems, triggering food crises and raising global malnutrition rates [77]. Recent developments—such as the COVID-19 pandemic and, more recently, the war in Ukraine—have further exacerbated this fragile situation.

This study provides an original contribution by integrating climate, socio-economic, and institutional dimensions into a regional strategy for strengthening food security in Mercosur countries. By combining multi-year data from the Global Food Security Index (GFSI), food self-sufficiency indicators, and a SWOT-based approach, it identifies key internal and external factors affecting the resilience of agri-food systems within a comparative, regional framework. This integrated analytical perspective remains limited in the Latin American context and offers new insights into policy coordination needs and gaps across Mercosur member states.

The analysis indicates that, despite their strong production and export capacities, Mercosur countries face critical food security challenges driven by structural weaknesses in social and agricultural policies, rising inequality, and intensifying climate threats. Particularly severe conditions are observed in Argentina and Paraguay, where nutritional indicators have deteriorated considerably over the past decade.

However, several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. The analysis is confined to available secondary data for the 2012–2022 period, which may omit more recent micro-level developments or informal responses to food insecurity. Future research could examine the long-term effects of recent policy reforms, directly measure household resilience, and incorporate spatial analyses of climate exposure and institutional capacity at the subnational level.

Divergences in resilience and adaptive capacity across Mercosur countries underscore the need for a flexible yet coordinated approach to food policy. Uruguay, and to a lesser extent Brazil, have demonstrated promising progress through the implementation of innovative models such as climate-smart agriculture (CSA). However, the effectiveness of these strategies remains constrained by infrastructural deficiencies and a lack of robust monitoring and evaluation systems.

The SWOT analysis confirms the necessity of adopting an integrated food security strategy at the Mercosur level. Priority areas include the development of logistics and infrastructure, investment in research and innovation, poverty alleviation, climate adaptation, the promotion of local fertiliser and biofuel production, and the implementation of coherent monitoring frameworks (e.g., the use of the Global Food Security Index—GFSI).

To support resilience and reduce disparities in the region, the following recommendations are proposed for regional institutions and decision-makers:

• Establish a regional monitoring and coordination mechanism under Mercosur to track food security indicators (e.g., via the GFSI) and support the harmonisation of emergency-response and poverty-alleviation policies;
• Invest in inclusive rural infrastructure and logistics, particularly in drought-prone and remote areas, to improve food availability and reduce distributional gaps;
• Support the scaling up of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) and sustainable input production (e.g., biofertilisers and renewable energy) through public–private partnerships and targeted funding programmes.

Ultimately, only coordinated action grounded in multi-level governance and regional solidarity can effectively address the dynamic challenges posed by climate change, geopolitical tensions, and economic instability. The Mercosur–EU agreement presents a significant opportunity for development, provided it is embedded within long-term strategies focused on sustainable development and social equity.