A report from the Economist Intelligence Unit
Global food
security index
2013
An annual measure
of the state of global
food security
Sponsored by
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Contents
1
Preface
2
Acknowledgements
3
Executive summary
4
Key findings
8
New additions to the 2013 GFSI
10
2013 focus: nutrition and natural disasters
13
Overall GFSI rankings table
16
Rankings by income classification
17
Affordability
18
Availability
22
Quality and safety
25
Appendix: Methodology
28
Scoring criteria and definitions
28
Country selection
30
Weighting
31
Data modelling
31
Food price adjustment factor
31
Sources and definitions
32
Scattergraphs: Correlation between overall rankings and dependent variables
38
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Preface
The Global Food Security Index 2013: An annual
measure of the state of global food security, is the
second edition of an Economist Intelligence Unit
study, commissioned by DuPont. This findings and
methodology paper discusses the major results of
the research and the accompanying global
benchmarking model. Lucy Hurst, associate
director of custom research for the Americas, was
the research director for this project. Jamie
Morgan, analyst, was the project manager. Josh
Grundleger, research associate, Atefa Shah,
analyst, and Martin Vierio, analyst, provided
research and analytical support. Leo Abruzzese,
global forecasting director and executive editor for
the Americas, served as senior adviser. William
Shallcross constructed the Excel benchmarking
tool, and Mike Kenny was responsible for layout
and design. We would like to thank the many
researchers who lent their expertise to this project.
A full list of acknowledgments follows.
The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this
study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the sponsor.
The sponsor does not guarantee the accuracy of the data
included in this work. The boundaries, colours, denominations
and other information shown on any map in this work or related
materials do not imply any judgment on the part of the sponsor
concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or
acceptance of such boundaries.
2
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Acknowledgments
The following economists, researchers, food
specialists and country analysts contributed to the
report. We thank them for their participation.
Economist Intelligence Unit specialists and
contributors
Diane Alarcon, Tom Felix Joehnk and
Brendan Koch
Peer panel members
The following experts on food security and
agricultural policy contributed significantly to
shaping the index methodology and vetting the
indicators. Their diverse backgrounds and
extensive experience ensured that a wide variety of
views were considered. The panel met as a group in
February 2012 in Washington DC to review an initial
indicator list. The panel has also provided ongoing
support, as needed, throughout the first and
second editions of the index. They also advised on
the selection of weights.
3
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Ademola Braimoh (World Bank); Margaret Enis
(US Agency for International Development);
Craig Gundersen (National Soybean Research
Laboratory, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign); Eileen Kennedy (Friedman School of
Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University);
Samarendu Mohanty (International Rice Research
Institute); Prabhu Pingali (Gates Foundation);
Pedro Sanchez (Earth Institute, Columbia
University); David Spielman (International Food
Policy Research Institute); Robert Thompson
(Chicago Council on Global Affairs);
Patrick Westhoff (Food and Agricultural Policy
Research Institute, University of MissouriColumbia).
We would also like to acknowledge the
contributions of the following: Kostas Stamoulis
and Carlo Cafiero among others at the Food and
Agriculture Organization.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Executive
summary
More than 870m people globally do not have a
secure source of food. In 1996 leaders at the World
Food Summit in Rome set a goal of reducing the
number of food-insecure people to 400m by 2015.
With an average of just 2.5m people a year
emerging from food insecurity during the last two
decades, this target clearly will be missed.1 But
although the scope of the problem, particularly in
the developing world, remains vast, gains have
been made, largely through poverty alleviation and
innovations that improve market access, increase a
household’s ability to purchase food and boost the
availability of more nutritious crops. Indeed, the
global commitment to providing adequate,
affordable and nutritious food remains high. In
2009 the G8 group of the world’s leading industrial
powers responded to the global food crisis of the
previous year with unprecedented financial
commitments to global food security. Countries
committed US$22bn in aid—a significant
advancement for food security globally. Yet by mid2012 these countries collectively had disbursed
less than half of the funds they had pledged for the
year.2 Several countries have extended the period
in which they will provide funding to show their
2
1
State of Food Insecurity in the World, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),
2012.
“Agriculture Accountability: Holding Donors to their L’Aquila Pledges”, ONE
Campaign, 2012; “Tracking the L’Acquila Food Security Initiative Pledge and
Related Funding”, US Department of State, 2012; interviews.
Food aid and undernourishment over time
% of population; Metric tons
Prevalence of undernourishment (left scale)
Total food aid deliveries* (right scale)
30
15,000,000
12,000,000
25
9,000,000
6,000,000
20
3,000,000
15
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
0
*Note: Includes programmatic and project aid, not emergency aid
Sources: World Food Programme; Food and Agriculture Organisation
4
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
ongoing commitment to the cause.
The 2013 update of the Global Food Security
Index (GFSI) reflects these limited gains, measured
against an overall challenge that eludes rapid
improvement. Globally, food security over the past
year has remained relatively unchanged: the
largest number of malnourished people lives in
Asia and the Pacific, while the population of SubSaharan Africa remains the largest concentrated
block of hungry people globally. However, small
pockets of progress have also emerged. Globally,
food prices are slightly lower than they were a year
ago, and low-income countries have slightly more
food per person than they did last year.3 Of the top
ten countries whose GFSI scores have improved the
most since 2012, seven are middle- or low-income
countries.4 Changes in food security are,
admittedly, incremental. But in a year in which the
world continued to recover from a global economic
downturn and a series of droughts in several of the
largest crop-exporting countries, small gains are
nonetheless welcome.
Food security is complex and its drivers are
interdependent, such that sufficiency of food
alone, in any given country, does not guarantee an
end to hunger. Internal and external factors can
alter the availability, affordability and quality and
safety of food in varying degrees. This year’s GFSI
builds on the insights from the 2012 study and
looks further into causes of food insecurity through
new indicators and new countries. We have also
added a new “focus” section, where we discuss two
global food security issues that have received
particular attention over the past year. This year’s
issues are nutrition and natural disasters.
New additions to the 2013 GFSI
The 2013 GFSI incorporates two new countries—
Ireland and Singapore. We have expanded the
analysis to include these two countries, based on
significant demand for insights into food security
there and their importance as global economies.
This year’s index also incorporates two new
5
3
Food prices, as measured by the FAO Food Price Index, are two points lower than
they were at the same time last year.
4
“Middle income” refers to lower middle income, as defined by the World Bank.
“Low income” refers to the same classification used by the World Bank.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
indicators: the corruption indicator, which
measures the impact of bribery on food security,
and the urban absorption capacity indicator,
which evaluates the ability of a country to absorb
urbanising populations and support their food
needs. We have included corruption to capture the
corrosive impact it can have on food security.
Corruption creates distortions and inefficiencies in
relevant markets, thus reducing available supply
and raising costs.
The urban absorption capacity indicator
captures the complex relationship between
urbanisation and food security. While a higher level
of urbanisation is often correlated with greater
food security, the process of urbanising can have
negative implications for food security, particularly
if resource development does not keep pace with
urban growth rates. The new indicator assesses the
capacity of countries to support the food needs of
urbanising populations.
2013 focus: nutrition and natural
disasters
Geographically, food insecurity is a chronic
problem in Sub-Saharan Africa, and malnutrition,
hunger and severe food insecurity remain a danger
in parts of South and South-east Asia. Meanwhile,
at the opposite end of the spectrum, obesity is also
a problem. While many die of hunger every year,
diets in the developed world, and even in some
developing countries, are increasingly
overabundant in the quantity of food consumed
and of poor nutritional value.5
Governments, development organisations and
the private sector focus increasingly on nutrition as
part of their food security agenda. This year the G8
will hold a special conference on nutrition, and the
United Nations is expected to include nutrition as a
stand-alone goal in the development agenda that
will follow the Millennium Development Goals.
Public-private-sector partnerships on food security
that came out of the 2012 G8 meetings also include
nutrition as a core goal. More than 3m children
under the age of five are dying from malnutrition
5
“Global Burden of Disease 2010”, The Lancet, December 2012.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
every year, and there are 165m children with
stunted growth.6
Natural disasters have long-lasting effects on
food security, and immediate emergency relief
does not help underlying problems. There has been
an increase in the amount of short-term climatic
disasters, and their devastating impact is a trend.7
Developing countries face the most obstacles in
recovering from such disasters, owing to a lack of
mechanisms to rebuild lives and assets.8
The origins of the index
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) created the
Global Food Security Index in 2012 to deepen the
dialogue on food insecurity and measure the risks
in a consistent, rigorous framework. Sponsored by
DuPont, the index assesses food security across
three internationally designated dimensions:9
affordability, availability and utilisation—the last
modified to assess food quality and safety. The
index builds on existing food security research and
frameworks, including the annual State of Food
Insecurity in the World report of the Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the Global Hunger
Index of the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), and the Maplecroft Food Security
Risk Index, among others. Our GFSI complements
these tools by analysing the inputs, or the drivers,
of food security as a way of fostering dialogue
about practical solutions and policy reform.
Importantly, the index considers the nutritional
quality and safety of food—elements missing from
similar indices—alongside traditional supply and
availability issues. Finally, the index features a
unique monthly adjustment for changes in global
food prices and other macroeconomic factors,
allowing it to serve as an early warning of potential
price shocks that might compromise a country’s
food security, or worsen already poor conditions.
6
6
“Maternal and Child Nutrition”, The Lancet, June 2013.
7
Interview with Kostas Stamoulis of the FAO. Mr Stamoulis is the director of the
Agricultural Economic Development Divison, and secretary of the Committee on
World Food Security.
8
Interview with Mr Stamoulis.
9
Rome Declaration on World Food Security, FAO Corporate Document Repository,
Rome, November 1996; Food security, World Health Organisation (WHO).
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Building the index
The GFSI uses the following definition of food
security: “When people at all times have physical,
social and economic access to sufficient and
nutritious food that meets their dietary needs for a
healthy and active life”. This definition was
developed by our research team, but is adapted
from a formulation established at the World Food
Summit in 1996. Each of the three categories in the
GFSI—affordability and financial access,
availability, and food quality and safety—is further
divided into a series of indicators which evaluate
programmes, policies or practices that influence
food security.
This year the EIU engaged again with a panel of
experts to discuss updates to the study, which led
to addition of the two new indicators and
countries. The 2013 index is comprised of 27
indicators and 107 countries and uses data from a
wide range of trusted international organisations,
including the UN, the IMF, the FAO, the World
Health Organisation (WHO), the World Bank and
many others. In critical areas of assessment where
there are limited or no data—for example, the
presence of food safety nets, access to financing
for farmers, public expenditure on agricultural
research and development (R&D), and protein
quality in the average diet—we called on our global
team of economists and country experts to
construct qualitative measures. The end product is
a comprehensive assessment of food security
across 107 countries.
Topline results: Western nations
remain the most food secure
Wealthy nations again occupy the top spots in the
index this year: the US retains the top ranking,
while Norway has overtaken Denmark for second
place. France remains in third place, followed by
several north European countries. While relatively
high incomes and low spending on food relative to
other outlays have kept these countries at the top
of the index, income losses in some of their south
and east European neighbours—particularly Greece
and Ukraine—have hurt food security in some
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
developed economies. Sub-Saharan Africa remains
at the bottom of the index, although it is also home
to the countries with the most significant gains in
overall rank. Ethiopia and Botswana have risen the
most in the ranks, followed by the Dominican
Republic and Niger. Increases in per-head incomes
and larger average food supplies were the primary
drivers of these gains.
How this index can be used
The Global Food Security Index is an interactive,
Excel-based benchmarking model with a range of
analytical tools intended to facilitate crossregional comparisons and provide more detailed
information about a specific country’s score. Users
can, for example, restrict their analysis to include
only low-income or middle-income countries (see
the tables that follow) or just those in a particular
region. Any two countries may be compared
directly, and individual indicators can be examined
in detail. The index also allows final scores and
category scores to be correlated with external
factors that may influence food security. For
example, food security, as expressed in the index,
correlates strongly with countries that have a high
degree of economic opportunity for women. The
correlation function was also used to validate the
degree to which the index is aligned with the
negative consequences of food security. The overall
scores were correlated with four output variables:
the prevalence of undernourishment, stunted
children, underweight children, and intensity of
food deprivation. Each variable showed a negative
correlation with the overall scores of 0.7 or greater.
The index can be used to analyse food security
challenges in a variety of ways. The rankings
function gives a quick snapshot of global food
security and of those countries most at risk. The
7
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
regional filter allows comparisons within
geographies or among economically similar
countries, often a useful approach in encouraging
reform. Country profiles use a “traffic light”
approach to display findings, showing clearly
where countries do well and where they struggle,
and suggesting where interventions are most
needed. At a basic level, the index and the tool are
a repository of more than 3,500 data points that
bear on food security. Finally, the food price
adjustment factor, applied to the index on a
quarterly basis, allows the food security scores to
be modified following changes in global food
prices. This adjustment permits an assessment of
the shocks to food security introduced by sharp
changes in food prices, but also provides insight
into the role of gradual changes in causing food
prices to slowly improve, or erode, food security
over time.
An index, even a carefully constructed one, is
only a tool. By analysing conditions at the national
level, it necessarily misses much local context. It
cannot fully capture important cultural and
political dimensions and risks simplifying complex
issues. That said, by reducing major food security
themes to their core elements, it allows a bottomup approach to understanding the risks to food
security. By centralising existing data and filling
data gaps, it aims to further research on food
security. Most importantly, the index is meant to
spur dialogue about the drivers of food insecurity
and to suggest where countries and other
stakeholders should focus their efforts to have the
greatest impact.
See the index website for more information on
how to use the data and findings to inform your
work: http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Key findings
l Developing countries made the greatest food
security gains in the past year, with the
biggest increases in Ethiopia, Botswana and
the Dominican Republic. Rising incomes and
larger average food supplies improved food
security in many developing countries. The three
most improved countries rose eight places in the
index on average, with greater food availability
and income growth particularly important
drivers.
l Overall food security was little changed from
last year. The average score for all countries in
the latest index was 53.5, virtually unchanged
from 53.6 in the 2012 model. No region’s score
improved dramatically, but Sub-Saharan Africa
showed the biggest gain, climbing by just under
one point. Last year’s drought in some key
growing regions will have reduced food security
for a period of time as prices for grains rose,
although that trend eased later in the year.
l Political conflict reduced food security in Mali,
Yemen and Syria during the past year. These
three countries recorded some of the biggest
declines in the index, dropping 14, seven and
seven places, respectively. Violent conflict not
only reduced political stability but also hurt GDP
growth, road infrastructure and access to
potable water, and curbed the ability of formal
grocery sectors to provide food.
8
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
l Falling national incomes hurt food security in
some developed countries over the past year.
Greece recorded the steepest fall among
developed nations, dropping six places. Greece’s
GDP has plummeted by more than 20% since the
2008-09 global recession. Income per person
dropped in most advanced economies in the
past year, the result of weak economies.
Although this reduced food security in these
countries, they remain, for the most part, in the
top 20% of the index and thus are not in serious
danger of food insecurity.
l Some emerging markets appear well
positioned to respond to urbanisation and the
implications for food security. Sierra Leone
ranked at the top of this year’s new urbanisation
indicator, which measures the capacity of
governments to support the food needs of
growing cities. In Sierra Leone, real GDP grew
nearly four times faster than urbanisation in the
last three years, suggesting the government
may have the resources to support newly urban
populations. Urban farming has been
particularly crucial in supporting the nutritional
needs of migrants in the capital, Freetown,
where some 90% of vegetables consumed in the
city are the products of urban farming.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
l Political stability and democratic reform are
strongly tied to food security. Countries that
experienced significant improvements in
political stability and democratic rights in the
past year, such as Myanmar and Sri Lanka, also
improved their food security ranking. Myanmar
rose five places overall, while Sri Lanka climbed
by four. Likewise, some countries with the
biggest declines in political stability risk scores
experienced large overall reductions in food
security. For example, political turmoil in Mali,
where separatist groups have been battling the
government, has created an environment where
food security may suffer. Democratic reforms, as
captured by the EIU’s Democracy Index, also
correlate well with food security. Countries with
high levels of corruption are also likely to be less
food secure.
9
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
l Dietary protein consumption increased in
62% of countries in the index. On average,
protein consumption per capita is 1.7 grams
higher among countries in this year’s index than
in the 2012 model. Protein consumption
improved the most in Myanmar, where the
average person is consuming 31% more grams
of protein per day than previously.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
New additions to the 2013 GFSI
The underlying structure of the Global Food
Security Index (GFSI) does not change significantly
from year to year. This is by design. Minimal
changes from year to year—particularly in data
series and sources—allow for consistent
comparison and analysis. However, this year’s GFSI
does contain a few new features. Specifically, two
new countries and two indicators have been added
to the model. These additions are discussed below.
Two new countries: Singapore
and Ireland
This year’s update to the GFSI adds two new
countries to last year’s set of 105. The Economist
Intelligence Unit has expanded this year’s analysis
to include Ireland and Singapore, given significant
interest in examining food security challenges and
successes in both countries, as well as the global
importance of each country’s economy.
Food security has long played an important role
in Irish history and continues to be highly relevant
for the country. The agri-food and fisheries
industry is the largest industry in Ireland and
contributes substantially to GDP, employment and
exports. The importance of this sector in the Irish
economy and the challenges faced in light of the
economic woes currently gripping Europe make
Ireland a natural addition to the GFSI.
In contrast, Singapore presents a very different
set of food security-related issues. The island
nation is unique in that it is a developed country
10
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
with an insignificant agricultural sector. Singapore
is highly dependent on foreign sources of food,
importing over 90% of foodstuffs. Despite its
relative wealth, such a high level of foreign
dependence makes Singapore a unique food
security case study.
Both countries scored well in the index, with
Ireland and Singapore ranked 11th and 16th,
respectively. Ireland scored exceedingly well in
terms and quality and safety (6th) and affordability
(8th), but saw its rank fall owing to availability
challenges (13th). This was largely caused by its
very low performance in terms of volatility of
agricultural production (where Ireland ranked
82nd) and urban absorption capacity (94th).
Singapore claimed the top position in
affordability from the US and performed
moderately in terms of availability (21st), but saw
its overall rank hindered owing to quality and
safety, where it was ranked 32nd between Mexico
and Brazil. The quality and safety score was
diminished by mediocre ranks in protein quality
(30th) and diet diversification (49th). Although
Singapore scored moderately well in terms of
availability, its rank was largely driven by its
limited agricultural sector, which has left the
country with highly volatile agricultural production
and low sufficiency of supply. Additionally, the city
state’s moderate GDP growth and above-average
rate of urbanisation contributed to limitations in
availability.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Two new indicators: corruption and
urban absorption capacity
This year two new indicators—corruption and urban
absorption capacity—have been added to the GFSI,
both under the availability measure. The corruption
indicator aims to provide additional insight into
the capacity of the governance system to facilitate
availability of the food supply. The urban
absorption capacity indicator aims to measure the
capacity of a food system to absorb the stresses of
urban growth.
Unsurprisingly, corruption has a pernicious
effect on food security. Higher levels of corruption,
as measured by the EIU’s Risk Briefing, can lead to
higher levels of food insecurity. Institutional
instability, which is often both a cause and a
product of corruption, can hinder a government’s
ability to develop and employ effective agricultural
policies.1 This can lead to the misuse of land and
other resources.
Corruption creates distortions and inefficiencies
in relevant markets, thus reducing available supply
and raising costs. It creates bottlenecks and
inefficiencies in the distribution of food
commodities. Corrupt officials, for example, have
been known to let food rot in the holds of ships,
even while shortages exist throughout the
country.2 Corruption also makes it difficult for
farmers to utilise and improve their land and for
consumers to have access to well-stocked markets.3
Additionally, corruption often stymies the
efforts of non-governmental organisations (NGOs),
aid groups and other organisations to improve food
security in low-performing countries by diverting
both cash and food aid away from the intended
recipients and into the hands of corrupt officials
and their cronies.4
The addition of a corruption indicator
complements the political stability risk indicator
that was already in the model. Both indicators
11
1
Tunku Abdul Aziz, “The Impact of Corruption on Food Security”, Sustainable Food
Security for All by 2020, IFPRI Conference, September 2001, Bonn, Germany.
2
“Venezuelan socialism: Food fight: How to destroy an industry,” The Economist,
June 10th 2010.
3
“Corruption in the Land Sector,” Transparency International and FAO, TI Working
Paper No 04/2011.
4
“Corruption’s role in Kenyan food crisis,” BBC, October 26th 2011.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
measure how deficiencies in governance can
adversely impact food security by inhibiting
availability. However, they approach the issue from
different angles. The addition of the corruption
indicator allows the model not only to account for
potential upheaval in or collapse of the
government, but also to capture more robustly the
effects of structural deficiencies in relatively stable
governments. For instance, a country such as
India, which scores fairly well in terms of political
stability risk (72.2 out of 100), performs
comparatively worse in terms of corruption (25 out
of 100).
The top-performing countries—nine countries
were tied for first—are developed economies and,
with the exception of Singapore, democratic
members of the OECD. By contrast, the most
corrupt countries consist of a mixture of small
developing economies, such as Cambodia and
Ecuador; poor African states, such as Sudan and
Chad; and some larger more developed economies,
such as Russia, Venezuela, China and Indonesia.
While corruption has a straightforward, if
multifaceted, impact on food security, urbanisation
has a complex relationship with food security.
Today, the world is urbanising at a rapid pace. As
people migrate to urban environments, their
impact is felt on all aspects of life, including food
security. This year a new indicator—urban
absorption capacity—has been added to the index
to account for these changes.
This indicator measures the capacity of a country
to absorb the stresses of urban growth. While a
higher level of urbanisation is often correlated with
greater food security, the process of urbanising can
have negative implications for food security,
particularly if the development of resources is
unable to maintain pace with urban growth rates. A
rapidly urbanising population needs to quickly
develop a number of key aspects of its
infrastructure, including markets, transport
infrastructure, a regulatory framework and storage
and retail facilities, to accommodate changing
demographics. Likewise, a growing urban
population generally implies a need for greater
productivity in the agricultural sector or increased
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
12
imports to feed non-farm workers.
Consequently, as urban growth accelerates, the
growth of available resources in the economy that
can be utilised to address these structural changes
must keep pace. Accordingly, to best capture how
urbanisation interacts with a country’s capacity to
adapt to these changes, this new indicator
evaluates a country’s resources (real GDP growth)
in light of the stresses caused by rapid urbanisation
(urban growth rate).
The results provide some interesting and
surprising insights. Sierra Leone, which otherwise
ranks poorly in the index, received the top spot in
this new indicator. Freetown, the capital and
largest city, has a thriving urban agriculture
economy. Years of civil war and rapid urbanisation
rates—above 15% in recent years—forced a vast
influx of people into Freetown. New urban dwellers
had to develop mechanisms for gaining access to
fresh food, and a thriving urban farming culture
developed. Today, research organisations in the
country estimate that over 90% of vegetables
consumed in the city are products of urban
farming.5 According to the Resource Centres on
Urban Agriculture and Food Security, the practice
is dominated by women, which is an additional
boon for food security. “Female farmers …
constitute approximately 80% of the urban
farmers. Women tend to have considerable
autonomy in decision-making and appear to have
sole control over the income generated. This is a
positive implication for household food security as
women are traditionally responsible for household
welfare, especially of children and the elderly.”6
The best-performing countries tend to have a
combination of very high GDP growth rates and
urban growth rates that generally fall in the middle
range. This provides these countries with sufficient
resources to adapt, at a reasonable tempo, to their
growing urban populations.
In contrast, the worst performers consist of a
combination of low-income countries and
struggling European states. Syria ranks last in the
indicator, as it continues to suffer through civil
war. Greece, which is one of the hardest-hit
European economies, claims the second to last
position. Yemen, Mali and Portugal round out the
bottom five. The European nations at the bottom of
the list tend to have low or contracting GDP growth
rates coupled with relatively low, but positive,
urban growth rates. The low-income countries have
low to moderate GDP growth rates that make it
difficult to cope with their considerably higher
rates of urbanisation. For both groups of low
performers, general macroeconomic conditions
inhibit each country’s ability to cope with
urbanisation, thus putting a strain on food
security.
5
6
“The Role of Urban Agriculture in Conflict Situations: The Sierra Leone
Experience”, RAUF Foundation.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
“Urban Agriculture in Freetown: Status, Opportunities and Constrains”, RAUF
Foundation, May 2007.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
2013 focus: nutrition and
natural disasters
Global food issues: nutrition
and food security
Advances in medicine and technology, along with
expanded access to food, have led to significant
declines in global malnutrition rates over the past
few decades. At the same time, changes in diet,
lifestyle habits and the nutritional content of
available and affordable food have also contributed
to the rapid rise in global obesity, which is
increasinlgy being understood as a form of
malnutrition. Policymakers and global health
leaders are now facing the dual task of combating
malnutrition, while also curbing obesity and other
obesity-related non-communicable diseases,
sometimes within the same household.1 Once
considered an issue restricted to developed
economies, obesity rates are quickly rising in
developing countries, as a “nutrition transition”
occurs when nutrition, eating habits and physical
activity change.2
While still affecting approximately 870m people
worldwide, malnutrition rates are declining.3
Globally, the number of children who are stunted
has fallen from approximately 40% in 1990 to an
estimated 26% in 2010, and the prevalence of
underweight children has declined from 25% to
13
16% over the same time period.4 Yet obesity—
resulting from overconsumption, an imbalanced
diet and lifestyle habits—is on the rise in children.
In 2011 an estimated 43m children under five years
of age globally were considered overweight—a 54%
increase from 1990.5
Nutrition education is paramount for fighting
malnutrition and obesity.6 Proper awareness,
training and education on how to grow, purchase
and prepare nutritious foods are vital for a healthy
lifestyle. Nutrition education and dietary
guidelines can come from a number of sources,
from global and regional initiatives to country- and
local-level programmes.
Best practices in nutrition guidelines vary from
region to region, depending on many cultural and
societal preferences, local nutrition needs and the
availability of resources. “Country-owned”
nutrition strategies and programmes are important
and allow for a nation to build strategies and
guidelines around the specific goals, needs and
capabilities of its population.
Research has shown nutrition education
programmes to be a particularly effective
mechanisms for increasing nutritional outcomes,
primarily for children in elementary and secondary
4
Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates – Levels and Trends, WHO, World Bank, UNICEF,
2011.
1
Marya Khan, The Dual Burden of Overweight and Underweight in Developing
Countries, Population Reference Bureau, 2006.
5
Global Database on Child Growth and Malnutrition: Key Facts and Figures, WHO,
2013.
2
FOCUS: The Nutrition Transition and Obesity, FAO, 2013.
6
3
Globally Almost 870 million Chronically Undernourished – New Hunger Report, FAO,
Media Centre, 2012.
Corinna Hawkes, Promoting Healthy Diets Through Nutrition Education and Changes
in the Food Environment: An International Review of Actions and their Effectiveness,
FAO, 2013.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
education.7 The FAO considers schoolchildren to be
a priority group for nutrition education and found
that only 53% of Latin American countries had
official government policies regarding nutrition in
effect in primary schools.8
School-based nutrition education programmes
are also very effective. A 1999 nutrition education
intervention programme in China showed gains in
nutrition-related knowledge, attitudes and
practices at secondary schools after 18 months of
increased nutrition education, support and
enhanced school facilities.9 These results were
passed on to the communities, as students
returned home and shared their knowledge and
skills with their parents.
With millions affected by malnutrition and
obesity worldwide, nutrition education in
individual countries should be seen as crucial to
promoting healthy populations.10 From reducing
rates of undernourishment to curbing obesity
trends, dietary guidelines and nutrition education
can raise awareness and provide the information,
skills and motivation for healthy diets. Proper
nutrition education is especially important for
children as they develop habits and skills for later
in life.11 Building on international standards,
regional and national programmes can be adjusted
to best fit the needs and culture of the intended
audience in order to maximise their effectiveness.
However, it is clear that the prevalence and efficacy
of such programmes can be greatly improved.
Increased government involvement in nutrition
education programmes, school-based initiatives
and adherence to international standards provide
the basis on which to build for a healthier future.
Global food security issues: natural
disasters and food security
Natural disasters pose an enormous threat to food
security, in terms of both short-term and long-term
impacts. A country’s ability to respond depends on
several factors measured in the GFSI, including
diversity of diet, strength of food storage and
transport infrastructure.
Not all countries are affected by disasters
equally. Research shows that low-income countries
are more vulnerable and experience larger losses
from natural disasters than high-income countries,
since many low-income countries have a higher
concentration of people living in areas with weak
infrastructure and depend more on weatherrelated industries, such as agriculture and tourism.
High-income countries generally have strong
infrastructures that are able to withstand disasters,
more resources to deploy to affected areas, and
more diverse economies to mitigate post-crisis
economic declines.12
Comparing the impact of similar natural
disasters—in type and magnitude—on three
different countries with different income levels
illustrates some of the short- and long-term
implications for food security. Major earthquakes
hit Haiti and Chile in 2010. Although it was the
12 “Natural Disasters: Mitigating Impact, Managing Risks”, IMF Working Paper, 2012.
Table 1: Cross-country comparison of natural
disaster impacts
Haiti
Chile
9,860,000
16,950,000
1,700
15,200
8
30
230,000
480
105
35
60
1
Population
2009
GDP per head, 2009
(US$)
Disaster damage,
(US$ bn)
7
Ibid, 2011.
8
Promoting Healthy Diets Through Nutrition Education and Changes in the Food
Environment: An International Review of Actions and their Effectiveness, FAO.
9
Nutrition as an Entry Point for Health-Promoting Schools: Lessons from China, FAO,
2003.
10 Tanaka, Noriko and Kinoshita, Yukiko, “The Importance of Nutritional Education in
Preventing Obesity and Malnutrition”, Forum on Public Policy, 2009.
11 Starting Early: Food and Nutrition Education of Young Children, Food Standards
Agency, 2004.
14
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Casualties
Infrastructure ranking
Food aid ranking
Sources: Population: World Bank. GDP per capita: The Economist Intelligence Unit.
Damage: IMF; Congressional Research Service; American Red Cross. Casualties:
American Red Cross; Congressional Research Service.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
smallest in terms of seismic magnitude, the Haitian
earthquake resulted in a significantly larger
number of casualties. And while it caused a much
smaller “dollar damage”, economic recovery has
taken the longest.
2010 Haitian earthquake
In 2010 a 7.0-magnitude earthquake struck the
Haitian town of Léogâne, approximately 25 km (16
miles) west of the capital, Port-au-Prince. The
earthquake was devastating, killing an estimated
230,000 people and destroying hundreds of
thousands of homes and businesses. Haiti was the
poorest country in the western hemisphere even
before the earthquake disrupted its economy and
infrastructure. Annual GDP per head was US$1,700
in 2009; more than 70% of Haitians lived on less
than US$2 per day, making the vast majority of the
population food insecure.13
The 2010 earthquake compounded these
problems. In the short term, the earthquake
affected the ability of millions to afford and gain
access to food. The disaster also had many longerterm impacts on food security, as intense
deforestation and soil erosion had devastated the
agricultural sector. The damage to Port-au-Prince,
where approximately 65-85% of Haiti’s GDP
originates, seriously constrained the country’s
ability to recover economically.14 The centralisation
of economic activity in the capital, the lack of
infrastructure to mitigate physical damage and the
ongoing assault of natural disasters since 2010
have kept an estimated 1.5m people food insecure
in 2013.15
2010 Chilean earthquake
A little over a month after the Haitian earthquake
an 8.8-magnitude earthquake struck the western
coast of Chile, triggering a tsunami that swept up
and down the Chilean coast and beyond.16
Numerous older buildings and roads collapsed and
over 81,000 homes were destroyed.17 The
estimated death toll ranged from 450 to 700
people. Approximately 1.5m people were affected
by the earthquake in total.18
Chile is one of South America’s wealthiest
nations, with GDP per head at US$15,200 and only
3% of the population living on less than US$2 per
day.19 Unlike Haiti, the 2010 earthquake was not
Chile’s first, and reports suggest that the
government and people were better prepared to
deal with the aftermath because of this.20 The
government reached an agreement with
supermarkets to provide food to people in disasteraffected zones. In the long-term, Chile’s resilience
factors—wealth, disaster preparedness and strong
infrastructure—prevented widespread devastation
and food insecurity.
Natural disasters and food security
Chile and Haiti’s experiences demonstrate the
dangers natural disasters pose for long-term food
security, while also illustrating the role of
preparedness and infrastructure development as
critical investment areas.
16 Chile Earthquake 2010: One-Year Progress Report, American Red Cross, 2011.
17 Report on the 2010 Chilean Earthquake and Tsunami Response, United States
Geological Survey, 2011.
15
13 Haiti Earthquake Relief One-Year Report, American Red Cross, 2011.
18 Chile Earthquake 2010: One-Year Progress Report, American Red Cross, 2011.
14 Haiti after the Earthquake: Ensuring the Link between Reconstruction and
Sustainable Development, World Bank, 2011.
19 World Development Indicators, World Bank, 2013; Economist Intelligence Unit
estimates.
15 Haiti: UN warns 1.5 million people could remain at risk of food insecurity in 2013,
UN News Centre, 2012.
20 “Why The Haiti Earthquake Wasn’t As Strong, But Far More Devastating”,
Huffington Post, 2010.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Overall 2013 GFSI rankings table
Weighted total of all category scores (0-100 where 100=most favourable)
Rank
Score /100
1
United States
2
3
4
Rank
Score /100
Rank
Score /100
86.8
37
Slovakia
63.2
73
Uzbekistan
40.9
Norway
86.5
38
Turkey
62.9
74
Myanmar
40.1
France
83.7
39
South Africa
61.0
75
Pakistan
39.7
Austria
83.4
40
Russia
60.9
76
Cote d’Ivoire
39.5
=5
Switzerland
83.2
41
Venezuela
60.8
77
Uganda
38.3
=5
Netherlands
83.2
42
China
60.2
78
Cameroon
36.9
7
Belgium
82.4
43
Botswana
60.0
79
Syria
36.7
8
Canada
82.1
44
Panama
59.7
80
Kenya
36.4
9
New Zealand
82.0
45
Thailand
58.9
81
Bangladesh
35.3
Denmark
81.8
46
Belarus
58.8
82
Senegal
34.5
=11
Ireland
81.7
=47
Ukraine
58.0
83
Tajikistan
34.2
=11
Germany
81.7
=47
Tunisia
58.0
84
Nepal
33.8
13
Finland
81.4
49
Serbia
56.8
85
Benin
33.7
14
Sweden
80.8
50
Peru
56.0
86
Nigeria
33.0
15
Australia
80.1
51
Bulgaria
55.9
87
Guinea
32.0
16
Singapore
79.9
52
Colombia
54.5
88
Angola
31.8
17
Israel
78.4
53
Paraguay
52.9
89
Cambodia
31.3
18
Japan
77.8
54
Jordan
52.3
90
Ethiopia
31.2
19
Spain
77.5
55
Dominican Republic
51.9
91
Niger
30.1
20
United Kingdom
77.3
56
Egypt
51.7
92
Burkina Faso
29.9
21
Portugal
76.1
57
Ecuador
51.6
=93
Yemen
29.6
22
Italy
74.6
58
Kazakhstan
51.4
=93
Mozambique
29.6
23
Czech Republic
72.2
59
Morocco
49.4
95
Tanzania
29.4
24
South Korea
71.1
=60
Sri Lanka
48.6
=96
Madagascar
29.3
25
Greece
70.7
=60
Vietnam
48.6
=96
Rwanda
29.3
26
Chile
70.3
62
Honduras
48.4
98
Sierra Leone
29.0
27
Poland
69.9
63
El Salvador
47.5
99
Malawi
28.3
28
Hungary
69.0
64
Philippines
46.9
100
Zambia
28.1
29
Brazil
67.0
65
Bolivia
46.2
101
Haiti
27.6
30
Mexico
66.2
66
Indonesia
45.6
102
Mali
26.8
31
Saudi Arabia
65.7
67
Ghana
45.4
103
Burundi
26.3
32
Uruguay
65.3
=68
Algeria
45.2
104
Sudan
25.2
33
Romania
65.0
=68
Guatemala
45.2
105
Togo
22.7
34
Malaysia
64.5
70
India
44.4
106
Chad
22.1
35
Argentina
63.8
71
Azerbaijan
43.1
107
Congo (Dem. Rep.)
20.8
36
Costa Rica
63.7
72
Nicaragua
41.6
10
16
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Rankings by income classification
(Income groups are World Bank classifications, 2012 data)
Rank
Score /100
High income
(US$12,476 per capita or more)
Rank
Score /100
Upper middle income
(US$4,036-12,475 per capita)
Rank
Score /100
Lower middle income
(US$1,026-4,035 per capita)
Rank
Score /100
Low income
(US$1,025 per capita or less)
1
United States
86.8
1
Chile
70.3
1
Ukraine
58.0
1
Myanmar
40.1
2
Norway
86.5
2
Brazil
67.0
2
Paraguay
52.9
2
Uganda
38.3
3
France
83.7
3
Mexico
66.2
3
Egypt
51.7
3
Kenya
36.4
4
Austria
83.4
4
Uruguay
65.3
4
Morocco
49.4
4
Bangladesh
35.3
=5
Switzerland
83.2
5
Romania
65.0
=5
Sri Lanka
48.6
5
Tajikistan
34.2
=5
Netherlands
83.2
6
Malaysia
64.5
=5
Vietnam
48.6
6
Nepal
33.8
7
Belgium
82.4
7
Argentina
63.8
7
Honduras
48.4
7
Benin
33.7
8
Canada
82.1
8
Costa Rica
63.7
8
El Salvador
47.5
8
Guinea
32.0
9
New Zealand
82.0
9
Turkey
62.9
9
Philippines
46.9
9
Cambodia
31.3
Denmark
81.8
10
South Africa
61.0
10
Bolivia
46.2
10
Ethiopia
31.2
=11
Ireland
81.7
11
Russia
60.9
11
Indonesia
45.6
11
Niger
30.1
=11
Germany
81.7
12
Venezuela
60.8
12
Ghana
45.4
12
Burkina Faso
29.9
13
Finland
81.4
13
China
60.2
13
Guatemala
45.2
13
Mozambique
29.6
14
Sweden
80.8
14
Botswana
60.0
14
India
44.4
14
Tanzania
29.4
15
Australia
80.1
15
Panama
59.7
15
Nicaragua
41.6
=15
Madagascar
29.3
16
Singapore
79.9
16
Thailand
58.9
16
Uzbekistan
40.9
=15
Rwanda
29.3
17
Israel
78.4
17
Belarus
58.8
17
Pakistan
39.7
17
Sierra Leone
29.0
18
Japan
77.8
18
Tunisia
58.0
18
Cote d’Ivoire
39.5
18
Malawi
28.3
19
Spain
77.5
19
Serbia
56.8
19
Cameroon
36.9
19
Haiti
27.6
20
United Kingdom
77.3
20
Peru
56.0
20
Syria
36.7
20
Mali
26.8
21
Portugal
76.1
21
Bulgaria
55.9
21
Senegal
34.5
21
Burundi
26.3
22
Italy
74.6
22
Colombia
54.5
22
Nigeria
33.0
22
Togo
22.7
23
Czech Republic
72.2
23
Jordan
52.3
23
Angola
31.8
23
Chad
22.1
24
South Korea
71.1
24
24
Yemen
29.6
24
70.7
25
Zambia
28.1
Congo (Dem.
Rep.)
20.8
Greece
Dominican
Republic
51.9
25
26
Poland
69.9
25
Ecuador
51.6
26
Sudan
25.2
Kazakhstan
51.4
10
27
Hungary
69.0
26
28
Saudi Arabia
65.7
27
Algeria
45.2
29
Slovakia
63.2
28
Azerbaijan
43.1
17
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Affordability
This category measures the ability of consumers to
purchase food, their vulnerability to price shocks,
and the presence of programmes and policies to
support them when shocks occur.
Affordability is measured across six indicators:
l Food consumption as a proportion of total
household expenditure
l Proportion of population living under or close to
the global poverty line
l GDP per capita (at purchasing power parity, or
PPP, exchange rates)
l Agricultural import tariffs
l Presence of food safety net programmes
l Access to financing for farmers
High food prices are an important cause of food
insecurity—but so, too, are low prices, and wide
swings in prices may be most damaging of all.
Each, in its own way, disrupts markets and price
signals, making consumption and production less
secure. During the 1980s and 1990s global food
prices reached record lows.1 Some experts even
said food prices were set for long-term decline.2
Since then a combination of factors—including an
expanding global population, more expensive food
preferences in emerging markets, higher costs of
agricultural inputs and lower returns on
agricultural productivity—have all pushed prices
up. Food economists expect prices to remain
18
1
The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011, FAO, Rome.
2
The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2004, FAO, Rome; “Agriculture
commodity prices continue long-term decline”, FAO, Rome/Geneva, February 15th
2005; interview with Mr Cafiero.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
high—and volatile—for the foreseeable future.3
“We will experience higher prices in the next 15 to
20 years—there is no doubt about it,” says Kostas
Stamoulis, director of the agriculture and
economics division at the FAO and secretary of the
Committee on World Food Security. “The question
is, what will governments do about it? There is no
such thing as the perfect price of food.”
High prices make food less affordable for
consumers, particularly in developing countries.
Those closest to the global poverty line and those
for whom food consumption makes up a
significant portion of household expenditure are
the most vulnerable to higher prices; often they are
already eating the cheapest foods, and they have
little disposable income. In Cambodia, rice prices
doubled between May 2007 and May 2008,
plunging many into poverty, particularly the rural
poor. Although Cambodia is a net exporter of rice,
as in many countries with a sizable population near
the global poverty line, many consumers are net
buyers, even if they farm for a living.4 According to
the 2013 GFSI, populations in Sub-Saharan Africa
and South Asia again remain the most vulnerable
to high prices. Of the 28 Sub-Saharan African
countries covered in the index, food consumption
accounts for 50% or more of household spending
in 20 of them. In South Asia, food costs exceed
45% of spending in four of the five countries
covered. Consumers in the Democratic Republic of
Congo (DRC), Cambodia and Nepal devote the
3
The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011, FAO, Rome.
4
“Rising Food Prices Discussion Paper”, UNICEF, 2008.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Income growth v food affordability
Correlation between GDP per capita growth rate and GFSI Affordability rank change, 2012-2013
10
8
Peru
Burundi
6
Myanmar
4
2
-0.2
0
0
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-2
-4
-6
-8
Mali
-12
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
greatest share of household spending—about
70%—to food. In Switzerland, New Zealand and the
US, by comparison, only around 7-14% of spending
goes on food. Most citizens in these countries can
easily divert a share of non-food spending to food
if high prices force them to do so.
Low food prices can also cause food insecurity,
especially in low-income, agrarian economies.
Indeed, economists have been debating for some
time what is worse: high or low prices? Recent
studies have found that cheap food may put a
larger portion of rural poor at risk of food
insecurity than previously thought.5 Low prices
depress smallholder farmers’ incomes and disrupt
their ability to purchase food. Low prices are also a
disincentive to produce, which can hurt crop
output in subsequent years.6 A study conducted by
M Ataman Aksoy and Aylin Isik-Dikmelik found that
in rural areas net buyers—those who buy more food
than they sell—are often just as negatively affected
by low food prices as net sellers. In the nine
countries they examined, much of the economic
activity in rural areas was tied in some way to
farming. Low incomes for farmers meant low
incomes for all.7
Despite the risks posed by high and low food
prices, volatility—sharp swings in the price level—
is one of the most significant concerns for shortterm food security.8 According to the World Bank,
the 2008 price increase in many food commodities
sent 44m people into poverty who had not been
there previously.9 Says Mr Stamoulis: “We should
not forget that the food crisis of 2008 was a spike
in food prices—that is, everything went up very
quickly. People were caught by surprise, and there
was no time to adjust their production to take
advantage of the higher prices, or to adjust their
consumption away from expensive foods.”10
Sudden price changes can often cause poor
consumers or suppliers to sell important assets at
5
M Ravallion, “Do Price Increases for Staple Foods Help or Hurt the Rural Poor?”,
Policy, Planning and Research Working Paper WPS 167, World Bank, Washington
DC, 2011; D Byerlee, R Myers and T Jayne, “Managing Food Price Risks and
Instability in an Environment of Market Liberalization”, Agriculture and Rural
Development Department, World Bank, Washington DC 2005; M A Aksoy and A IsikDikmelik, “Are Low Food Prices Pro-Poor? Net Buyers and Sellers in Low-Income
Countries”, Policy Research Working Paper 4642, World Bank, June 2008.
7
M A Aksoy and A Isik-Dikmelik, “Are Low Food Prices Pro-Poor? Net Buyers and
Sellers in Low-Income Countries”, Policy Research Working Paper 4642, World
Bank, June 2008.
8
The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011, FAO, Rome.
9
“Food price hike drives 44 million people into poverty”, Press Release No.
2011/333/PREM, World Bank, Washington DC, February 15th 2011.
Interviews with Mr Stamoulis and Mr Cafiero.
10 Interview with Mr Stamoulis.
6
19
-10
X- axis: GDP per capita growth rate
Y- axis: Change in Afforability ranking
Line: OLS linear regression
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
low prices to maintain food security in the short
term. In the longer term, those actions keep
families in poverty and can also inhibit developing
countries from making gains in agricultural
productivity. Ongoing price volatility reduces
incentives for smallholders to invest in more
efficient agricultural tools, as they cannot count on
a return on their investment.11
Highly volatile food prices can also be
problematic for advanced economies. A study
conducted by Craig Gundersen and James P Ziliak
found that one in seven elderly people in the US is
food insecure—approximately 8.3m people.12
Policymakers in the US of both major political
parties have taken note of this challenge. Referring
to this research, in May 2013 the US
Representative, Jim McGovern, stated before the
Senate Agriculture Committee: “The reason for this
significant rise in senior hunger is the economy.
The recession has made hunger in America worse
for everyone, and it’s been particularly bad among
people between the ages of 50 and 59, a population
too young for Social Security and Medicare, but too
old for programmes that target families with
children. And it’s not just the very poor. In fact,
between 2007 and 2009, the most dramatic
increase in hunger was among those whose annual
incomes were twice the poverty line.”13 Between
2012 and 2013 the US fell from second to fourth
place in the index for food consumption as a share
of household spending, reflecting the strain the
recent economic downturn has placed on
households that were not previously at risk.
Policymakers can help farmers mitigate pricerelated risks by ensuring access to finance. In
particular, financing for smallholders can help
them invest in productivity-enhancing equipment,
so that they can quickly adjust to low food prices by
increasing production.14 In the index, this is
captured through access to financing for farmers.
11 The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011, FAO, Rome.
12 C Gunderson and J Ziliak, “Senior Hunger in America 2012: An Annual Report”,
University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research, May 2012; “Great Recession
Reflux Amounts to More Hunger Among Seniors”, University of Illinois,
Department of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Science, May 15th 2012.
13 US Representative Jim McGovern’s 11th “End Hunger Now” speech, May 14th
2013.
14 Interview with Mr Stamoulis.
20
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Countries in Sub-Sahara countries perform
particularly poorly in this area, although some
small improvements have been made in the past
year, through larger loans from the International
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in the
region.
Food safety nets are another important riskcoping mechanism. School feeding programmes
can keep children from leaving classrooms during a
food crisis, and cash transfers may support families
during a sudden price increase.15 Scholars at the
International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) and the World Bank also suggest that safety
nets can expand economic growth.16 A range of
programmes is in place globally, and academics
continue to debate the efficacy of each type and
when they are appropriate. The wide range of
models makes it difficult to compare food safety
net regimes across countries; nonetheless, most
experts agree that they are a critical component of
any food insecurity solution. As a result, the EIU
has constructed a series of standardised
benchmarks against which government
commitment and NGO presence can be compared
globally.17 Food safety net regimes were examined
for the breadth of services available, the
geographical reach of the programmes, and the
depth of financing. Comprehensive national
programmes are considered the most favourable.
An overly strong reliance on donor organisations is
considered a weakness, as it indicates that the
programmes are subject to external funding. Highincome countries scored best on this indicator, as
well as several middle-income countries that have
invested in national hunger alleviation
programmes, such as Brazil.
School feeding initiatives are one particularly
popular model for hunger alleviation. In Europe,
education and feeding programmes for the poor
15 The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011, FAO, Rome.
16 H Alderman and J Hoddinott, “Growth-Promoting Social Safety Nets, 2020 Focus
Brief on the World’s Poor and Hungry People”, IFPRI, Washington DC, October
2007.
17 “Action Plan on Food Price Volatility and Agriculture”, ministerial declaration,
meeting of G20 agriculture ministers, Paris, June 2011; S Fan, “Moving from
Rhetoric to Action: Priorities to Curtail Price Volatility & Protect the Poor”, IFPRI,
Paris, June 23rd 2011; interviews conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit
with food security experts.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
have existed since the 19th century.18 Norway,
ranked 4th in the affordability category, is one of
the European pioneers of school feeding
programmes. The well-known “Oslo breakfast”19 has
been provided informally at schools in Norway since
1897. It gained its formal name 30 years later.20
Countries in Latin America and East Asia
pioneered many of the modern models for safety
net programmes. Mexico’s government introduced
conditional cash transfers through its PROGRESA
programme in the late 1990s.21 Providing cash to
beneficiaries, rather than direct food handouts,
empowered the recipients and incentivised certain
behaviours, such as regular school attendance and
healthcare visits.22 Conditional cash transfer
programmes have since proliferated across Latin
America and in parts of Asia and Africa.23 Seven of
the top ten upper middle-income countries for the
food safety nets indicator are from Latin America.
Overall, the index shows that food is most
affordable in the US and several advanced
countries—Switzerland, the Netherlands and
Norway also share the top ranks. Food expenditure
in these countries comprises a low share of total
outlays, and strong government programmes
support households that are unable to meet their
daily food needs.
Costly food and large, vulnerable populations
put Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) and Chad at the bottom of the index for
affordability. The DRC and Chad also lack food
safety net programmes to support their at-risk
communities. In Chad the World Food Programme
runs several large-scale food programmes, yet
because a significant share of donor funding goes
to conflict-affected areas bordering Sudan,
programmes in the rest of the country are underresourced.24
18 “The National School Lunch Program: Background and Development”, United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), February 21st 2012.
19 The Oslo breakfast consists of so-called protective foods, such as milk, eggs, citrus
fruits and leafy or yellow vegetables, which contain sufficient amounts of vitamins,
high-quality proteins and minerals to defend against nutritional deficiency
diseases. See Report of the Conference of FAO–First Session, FAO Corporate
Document Repository, Quebec City, 1945.
20 “The National School Lunch Program: Background and Development”, USDA,
February 21st 2012.
21 The programme has since been superseded by the “Oportunidades” programme.
22 J Berman, “Policy-Oriented Research Impact Assessment (PORIA) Case Study on
the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the Mexican
PROGRESA Anti-Poverty and Human Resource Investment Conditional Cash
Transfer Programme”, IFPRI, Washington DC, 2007.
23 Interviews conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit with food security
experts.
21
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
24 2010 Annual Evaluation Report, World Food Programme (WFP), Rome, May 2011.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Availability
This category measures the sufficiency of the
national food supply, the risk of supply disruption,
national capacity to disseminate food, and
research efforts to expand agricultural output.
Availability is measured across seven indicators:
l Sufficiency of supply
l Public expenditure on agricultural research and
development (R&D)
l Agricultural infrastructure
l Volatility of agricultural production
l Political stability risk
l Corruption
l Urban absorption capacity
It is often said that the world produces enough
food to feed every mouth in it.1 The Green
Revolution of the 1970s ushered in the productivity
gains that made this possible. Technology, for
example, enabled seeds to absorb more water and
fertiliser, expanding crop yields. Those gains,
however, are slowing. For the first time since the
Green Revolution, global yield growth is increasing
at a slower rate than the population.2 In some
places fertiliser use has reached saturation point,
and water availability is now much lower than it
once was. The combination of slowing returns on
technology and the growing global population
have made sufficiency of future food supplies
uncertain. According to the UN, global food
22
1
See the following for just two examples: R Patel, “Can the World Feed 10 Billion
People?”, Foreign Policy, May 4th, 2011; “2012 World Hunger and Poverty Facts
and Statistics”, World Hunger Education Service.
2
“How much is enough?”, The Economist, February 24th 2011.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
production will need to rise by 50% by 2030 to
meet demand.3
At its most basic level, food availability is a
measure of the supply of food relative to the size of
the population. This is captured in the sufficiency
of supply indicator of the GFSI. Rather than
explore specific sources of supply—domestic
production versus imports, for example—the EIU
asked a more basic question: do people have
enough to eat? The FAO provides reliable estimates
of supply available for human consumption–that is,
all food available after production, exports and
imports–and this was the foundation for our
sufficiency of supply assessment. According to the
FAO, the average adult needs 2,300 calories per
day to lead a healthy and active life.4 In the US,
which ranks first overall in the index, the national
food supply is equivalent to 3,688 calories per
person per day. The US is outranked only by
Austria, where available food is equivalent to 3,800
calories per person per day. Overall, sufficiency of
supply increased globally, improving in 71
countries. In the 2012 GFSI, Sub-Saharan Africa
was the only region which, on average, did not
meet the UN standard. In a major positive
development, average caloric intake per person in
Sub-Saharan Africa has increased to 2,332, above
the UN standard.
3
”UN: 50 percent more food needed by 2030”, Associated Press, MSNBC, June 3rd
2008.
4
There are several different daily caloric benchmarks; the most widely used
internationally is the FAO benchmark. It is calculated based on an average of
normative calorie requirements the FAO calculates for individual countries. Until
recently the benchmark was 2,100 calories per day. 2,300 calories reflects the FAO
recommendation as of June 2012. Correspondence with Mr Cafiero.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Food availiability in coastal vs landlocked countries
2013 GFSI Availability score, 0-100 where 100=best
Landlocked countries
Countries with port access
47
All countries
55
67
High income
74
51
Upper middle income
58
43
44
Lower middle income
33
Low income
35
38
39
Sub-Saharan Africa
41
South Asia
45
45
Latin America & Caribbean
52
55
Europe & Central Asia
69
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
Food aid from international donors is another
source of supply, although the index makes a
distinction between emergency or humanitarian
aid—which is considered valuable and necessary—
and chronic food aid, which we treat as evidence
of fundamental weakness and policy failures.
Chronic dependence on food aid also makes a
country subject to donor budgets, and therefore
less food secure. According to the IMF,
programmatic aid flows are set to slow over the
2011-13 period,5 making reliance on food aid even
more problematic in the short term. The countries
most dependent on food aid are among the poorest
in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and South
Asia. Despite these efforts, chronic shortages
continue to plague Bangladesh. In 2011 the World
Food Programme provided critical food supplies to
over 150,000 people affected by heavy rains and
floods in Satkhira.6
Extreme weather in Russia, Pakistan and
Australia in recent years illustrates the threat that
natural phenomena can pose to food supplies. The
index measures these risks through volatility of
23
5
Disbursements of programmatic aid are expected to decline by 0.2% per year,
according to donor plans for the forecast period. Global Monitoring Report 2012,
IMF and World Bank, Washington DC, 2012.
6
2011 Annual Report Bangladesh, World Food Programme, Geneva, Switzerland.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
agricultural production. The standard deviation in
annual growth rates was calculated to measure the
stability of crop production year on year (that is,
the average difference between the growth rate in
a given year and the average growth rate over the
period analysed). China experienced the least
volatility of agricultural production during the last
20 years, and three North African countries—
Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia—among the greatest.
Low production volatility in China is in part a result
of its geographical size, and in part owing to the
fact that grain production is heavily incentivised.
The Chinese government, for example, sets a
minimum purchasing price that is higher than
market rates to encourage grain growth. Recently,
the government began moving away from this
practice by paying direct subsidies to farmers.
One mechanism for managing shocks, such as
extreme weather, is investment in agricultural
technology. Technology can also help farmers
increase crop yields, reduce vulnerability to climate
change, and improve nutritional outcomes.7 It is
difficult to generalise about yield gaps because
conditions are so country-specific, but research at
7
“Advancing Food and Nutrition Security at the 2012 G8 Summit,” expert panel
discussions, Chicago Council event, May 18th 2012.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Experts agree that women are a critical part of expanding agricultural
output, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed, the Global Food Security
Index (GFSI) shows a 0.93 correlation with the Economist Intelligence Unit’s
Women’s Economic Opportunity Index, a measure of the global environment
for female economic participation. The Food and Agriculture Organisation
(FAO) estimates that if women had access to the same productive resources
as men—better seeds, fertilisers and fungicides—they could increase their
yield by 20-30%. As women make up 43% of the world’s farmers, this would
increase total agricultural output in developing countries by 2.5% to 4%,
and reduce hunger globally by 12% to 17%, according to the FAO.
a field in the UK’s Rothamsted Research Station
illustrates the extent to which more productive
inputs can increase yields. The Broadbank field at
the research station is cultivated using three
different levels of technology. One section is tilled
using state-of-the-art inputs—high-quality seeds,
fertilisers, plant protection products and
husbandry. The second uses technology popular at
the start of the Green Revolution. The third is tilled
without any fertiliser, pesticides or other additive
technology. The yield difference between the
highest- and lowest-technology segment was
between 80% and 90%.8
In the GFSI, public-sector efforts to improve
agricultural technology are measured through
public expenditure on agricultural R&D as a
percentage of agricultural GDP.9 The indicator we
chose was the best available across 107 countries.
Carlo Cafiero, a senior statistician in the Statistics
Division at the FAO, explains the importance of
agricultural R&D, even in times of plenty: “Usually
the results from investment in research and
technology within agriculture come with a
considerable time delay. So now, we are facing
considerable problems because in the ‘80s and ‘90s
the investment in public agriculture was
particularly low; prices were low, so there was little
incentive for research. And now ... we cannot
24
8
J Parker, “The 9 billion people question”, The Economist, February 24th 2011.
9
Ideally, we would have measured private as well as public research and
development (R&D) spending, but private data were not available for the large
number of countries covered in the index.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
benefit from the increase in production that could
have occurred if there had been more investment
in the ‘80s and ‘90s.”10
Even with expanding productivity, farmers also
need access to markets to be able to sell their
crops. Food experts often note that smallholders
could contribute significantly to the global food
supply if they had access to larger markets.11 The
agricultural infrastructure indicator measures
access to markets through roads and ports, as well
as assessing crop storage.
Within the agricultural infrastructure indicator,
port infrastructure—or access to ports for
landlocked countries—is considered. This is
particularly relevant to food security, as recent
research has shown that small landlocked countries
are more vulnerable to food price shocks.12 Several
World Bank studies have also found that landlocked
countries can experience greater unpredictability
in transport time and be subject to significant rentseeking activities, both of which could make food
availability costlier and more challenging.13
Landlocked countries were therefore scored based
on their ability to access ports through rivers and
other means, taking into account delays and other
obstacles to transporting goods to those ports.
However, even considering such obstacles,
landlocked countries on the whole were not
significantly less food secure than those with ports.
The 22 landlocked countries evaluated in the index
scored, on average, just seven points lower than
countries with a coastline. Mr Stamoulis of the FAO
and the Committee on World Food Security
explains: “It is a matter of mobilisation of
resources and development. There is no reason why
landlocked countries should do significantly worse
than countries that are not landlocked.”14
10 Interview with Mr Cafiero.
11 “Advancing Food and Nutrition Security at the 2012 G8 Summit”, expert panel
discussions, Chicago Council event, May 18th 2012.
12 The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2011, FAO, Rome.
13 J F Arvis, G Raballand and J F Marteau, “The cost of being landlocked: logistics
costs and supply chain reliability”, Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank,
January 2007; N Christ and M Ferrantino, “Land Transport for Export: The Effects of
Cost, Time, and Uncertainty in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Office of Economics Working
Paper, US International Trade Commission, Washington DC, February 8th 2011;
“Landlocked Countries: Higher Transport Costs, Delays, Less Trade”, World Bank,
June 16th 2012.
14 Interview with Mr Stamoulis.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Quality and safety
This category measures what is sometimes called
“utilisation” in food security parlance. It assesses
the variety and nutritional quality of average diets,
as well as the safety of food.
Food quality and safety is measured across five
indicators:
l Diet diversification
l Government commitment to increasing
nutritional standards
l Micronutrient availability
l Protein quality
l Food safety
Poor nutrition is a concern for wealthy and poor
countries alike. Nutrition, not included in earlier
definitions of food security, is now widely
recognised as important, particularly in the 1,000
days between the start of a woman’s pregnancy and
her child’s second birthday.1 Bibi Giyose, a senior
adviser for food and nutrition security at the New
Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD),
explains: “The first two years are critical to
determining how a child will be able to function in
society. After two years the damage is done, and
you are putting out fires. It is very hard to reverse
the damage of malnutrition.” Research has shown
that poor nutrition at a young age, even
temporarily as a result of higher food prices, can
harm a child’s cognitive development.
Malnourished children are more likely to drop out
1
25
“Series on Maternal and Child Undernutrition”, The Lancet, January 16th 2008.
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
of school, and World Bank research shows that they
have a 10% lower lifetime earning potential.2
Indeed, malnutrition costs some poor countries
national income equivalent to 2-3% of GDP each
year.3
Poor nations are not the only ones suffering.
Malnutrition is a financial burden for healthcare
systems in many advanced economies. In the UK,
researchers estimate that malnutrition and
associated diseases raise domestic healthcare costs
by £7.3bn (US$11.7bn) annually.4 In the US,
hunger inflates healthcare costs by an estimated
US$130.5bn a year.5 Obesity is also becoming
recognised as a form of malnutrition.6 At the 2009
rate of obesity growth in the US, 103m people are
expected to be obese in 2018, with associated
healthcare costs of US$344bn.7
Vitamin A and iron deficiencies are among the
most common micronutrient gaps.8 Here their
availability in national food supplies is assessed
2
“Repositioning Nutrition As Central to Development”, International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), World Bank, Washington DC, 2006.
3
“Repositioning Nutrition As Central to Development”, IBRD; World Bank,
Washington DC, 2006.
4
M Elia, R Stratton, C Russell, C Green and F Pan, “The cost of disease-related
malnutrition in the UK and economic considerations for the use of oral nutritional
supplements (ONS) in adults”, British Association for Parenteral and Enteral
Nutrition (BAPEN), 2006; “Malnutrition costs the UK more than £7.3 billion of
actual expenditure each year - double the projected £3.5 billion cost of obesity”,
BAPEN, December 14th 2005.
5
D Shepard, E Setren and D Cooper, “Hunger in America: Suffering We All Pay For”,
Center for American Progress: Washington DC, October 2011.
6
2012 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics, World Hunger; “The nutrition
puzzle”, The Economist, February 18th 2012.
7
The Future Costs of Obesity: National and State Estimates of the Impact of Obesity on
Direct Health Care Expenses. A collaborative report from the United Health
Foundation, the American Public Health Association and the Partnership for
Prevention, based on research by Kenneth E Thorpe, Emory University, November
2009.
8
“Micronutrient deficiencies”, WHO; interviews conducted by The Economist
Intelligence Unit with nutrition experts.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Protein punch!
Year-on-Year change to protein quality score
Year-on-year change from 2012 to 2013 GFSI Quality and Safety (Δ in rank)
GFSI Protein quality score changes, 2012-2013
Top 5 gains
Top 5 losses
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Romania
Myanmar
Venezuela
Dominican
Republic
Serbia
Sudan
Congo
(Dem. Rep.)
Czech
Republic
Paraguay
Botswana
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
under micronutrient availability. While
micronutrient deficiencies are a significant
problem in poor countries, wealthier nations
struggle as well. None of the ten richest nations, as
measured by GDP per head, finish in the top ten for
micronutrient availability, with the exception of
Singapore and Ireland. Nearly all high-income
countries have ample levels of vitamin A in their
diets, but they are significantly lacking in iron from
vegetables and vegetable products. Developing
countries have higher iron availability from
vegetables, probably because they make up a
larger proportion of their diet. Policies that
address nutrition deficiencies are generally
effective. Analysis of individual cases consistently
shows at least a 1:2 cost-benefit ratio, including
breastfeeding promotion, vitamin A supplements
and salt iodisation.9 Vitamin A supplements are
particularly cheap, at 15 US cents per person, and
are widely used. Iron supplements cost US$10-50
per head per year.10
Protein quality, another indicator in this
category, correlates very highly with overall food
security. To provide a comprehensive assessment of
protein intake—one that includes protein absorbed
9
Global Monitoring Report 2012, IMF and World Bank, Washington DC, 2012.
10 Ibid.
26
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
from foods, such as legumes, whole grains, meat
and dairy—The EIU uses a unique quantitative
assessment of protein quality in diets. It is
calculated by assessing the presence of nine
essential amino acids in the average national diet.
This allows the index to account for protein gained
from non-animal sources, which is important in
many countries where meat-eating is not
widespread. Three Mediterranean countries—
Israel, Greece and Portugal—fare best on this
indicator. Latin American countries also do well,
particularly upper middle-income countries.
Diet diversification is often promoted as one
solution to micronutrient deficiencies and lack of
protein. Ms Giyose explains: “Supplements—such
as vitamin A—have been … shown to be the most
efficient way of preventing malnutrition. However,
food-based solutions and diet diversity are more
sustainable over the long term, as they enhance
the breadth of production in a society.”
Conversely, poor diet diversification often
indicates a lack of sufficient nutrients. The problem
remains most acute in South Asia, according to the
index rankings. In Bangladesh, for example, rice
makes up 60% of food consumption, and nearly
50% of children were moderately or severely
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
underweight in 2005.11 The World Food Programme
(WFP) has implemented a variety of programmes in
Bangladesh focusing on improving the social safety
net, conditional cash transfers to “ultra-poor”
women in disaster areas, improving school
feedings, and material and child nutrition.
According to the WFP, Bangladesh has increased
the proportion of homes with adequate diet
diversity to 90% in 2011, from 50% in 2011.12
While Bangladesh has updated its official statistics,
anecdotal evidence points to improvement since
2005. The GFSI outcome variables—which do not
factor into country rankings—for Bangladesh point
to significant progress. New data for the 2013
index shows that Bangladesh reduced its
prevalence of undernourishment from 27% to 16%.
Diet diversity presents a different set of issues in
emerging and advanced economies. Residents of
wealthy countries, and increasingly of emerging
ones, consume large quantities of processed foods
that do not fill most nutritional needs. That
economic development leads to a “nutrition
transition”—a shift in consumption patterns, work
and leisure habits that often results in high-fat and
sugar-rich diets and less exercise—has been known
for some time.13 In some regions, the problem is
accelerating. In many Arab countries the difference
in diets between the wealthy and the poor is
growing, and obesity is on the rise.14 Diets are still
the most diverse in North America and Western
Europe, with the Netherlands, Switzerland and the
US topping the 2013 index for this indicator.
11 G L Khor, “Food based approaches to combat the double burden among the poor:
Challenges in the Asian context”, Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 17,
2008.
12 2011 Annual Report Bangladesh, World Food Programme, Geneva, Switzerland.
13 A Drewnowski and BM Popkin, “The nutrition transition: new trends in the global
diet”, Nutrition Reviews, Vol. 55, No. 2, 1997; “Global and regional food
consumption patterns and trends”, in Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic
diseases: Report of the joint WHO/FAO expert consultation, WHO Technical Report
Series, No. 916.
14 Arab Human Development Report 2009, UN Development Programme, New York.
27
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Poor nutritional quality can be addressed
through better information and frequent
monitoring of nutritional standards and food
safety. We consulted with the World Health
Organisation to identify appropriate metrics for
nutritional standards, while the organisation is
independently in the process of developing a more
comprehensive measure of “nutritional
governance”. For food safety, we created a new
indicator which considers the presence of
regulated food markets, the existence of a
government entity to regulate such markets, and
accessibility of potable water. In Sub-Saharan
Africa, for example, the presence of aflatoxins—a
carcinogenic toxin produced by mould—in maize
and peanuts has made food safety a particular
issue. Despite improvements here, Sub-Saharan
Africa continues to score the poorest of any region
in food safety.
Overall, Israel remained at the top of the quality
and safety category, with high micronutrient
availability and good protein quality. France
finished second again, performing even better than
Israel in micronutrient availability, with a high
degree of iron availability through animal foods.
Two euro zone countries stand out: Portugal and
Greece. Despite considerable drops in their overall
scores, they improved their quality and safety
rankings by coming 4th and 5th, respectively.
Togo, Mozambique and the Democratic Republic of
Congo rank at the bottom; all three lack even basic
national nutritional guidelines.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Appendix: Methodology
The objective of the Global Food Security Index is
to measure which countries are most and least
vulnerable to food insecurity. To do so, The
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) constructed the
Global Food Security Index (GFSI) as a dynamic
quantitative and qualitative benchmarking model,
constructed from 27 unique indicators, which
measures drivers of food security across 107
countries. Please refer to the Appendix for
definitions of the indicators.
Scoring criteria and
categories
Categories and indicators were selected on the
basis of EIU expert analysis and consultation with a
panel of food security specialists. The EIU
convened this panel of food security specialists in
February 2012 to help select and prioritise food
security indicators through a transparent and
robust methodology. The goal of the meeting was
to review the framework, selection of indicators,
weighting, and overall construction of the index.
Three category scores are calculated from the
weighted mean of underlying indicators and scaled
from 0-100, where 100=most favourable. These
categories are: Affordability, Availability, and
Quality and Safety. The overall score for the GFSI
(from 0-100) is calculated from a simple weighted
average of the category and indicator scores.
Two new indicators—(2.6) Corruption and (2.7)
Urban absorption capacity—were added to the
2013 index.
The categories and indicators are:
1. Affordability
1.1 Food consumption as a share of household
expenditure
1.2 Proportion of population under the global
poverty line
1.3 Gross domestic product per head (PPP)
1.4 Agricultural import tariffs
1.5 Presence of food safety net programmes
1.6 Access to financing for farmers
28
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
2. Availability
2.1 Sufficiency of supply
2.1.1 Average food supply
2.1.2 Dependency on chronic food aid
2.2 Public expenditure on agricultural R&D
2.3 Agricultural infrastructure
2.3.1 Existence of adequate crop storage facilities
2.3.2 Road infrastructure
2.3.3 Port infrastructure
2.4 Volatility of agricultural production
2.5 Political stability risk
2.6 Corruption
2.7 Urban absorption capacity
3. Quality and Safety
3.1 Diet diversification
3.2 Nutritional standards
3.2.1 National dietary guidelines
3.2.2 National nutrition plan or strategy
3.2.3 Nutrition monitoring and surveillance
3.3 Micronutrient availability
3.3.1 Dietary availability of vitamin A
3.3.2 Dietary availability of animal iron
3.3.3 Dietary availability of vegetal iron
3.4 Protein quality
3.5 Food safety
3.5.1 Agency to ensure the safety and health of
food
3.5.2 Percentage of population with access to
potable water
3.5.3 Presence of formal grocery sector
29
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Data for the quantitative indicators are drawn
from national and international statistical sources.
Where quantitative or survey data were missing
values, the EIU has used estimates. Some
qualitative indicators have been created by the
EIU, based on information from development banks
and government websites; others have been drawn
from a range of surveys and data sources and
adjusted by the EIU.
The main sources used in the Global Food
Security Index are the EIU; the World Bank Group;
the International Monetary Fund; the Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
(FAO), the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the World Health Organisation
(WHO); the World Trade Organisation (WTO); the
World Food Programme (WFP); Agricultural Science
and Technology Indicators (ASTI); and national
statistical offices.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Country selection
The 107 countries in the index were selected by the
EIU based on regional diversity, economic
importance, and size of population. Two new
countries, Ireland and Singapore, were added to
the index this year. They countries in the 2013
index are:
East Asia & Pacific
Europe & Central
Asia
Latin America &
Caribbean
Middle East &
North Africa
North America
Sub-Saharan
Africa
South Asia
Australia
Belarus
Argentina
Algeria
Canada
Angola
Bangladesh
United States
Cambodia
Austria
Bolivia
Egypt
China
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Israel
Benin
India
Botswana
Nepal
Indonesia
Belgium
Chile
Jordan
Burkina Faso
Pakistan
Japan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Morocco
Burundi
Sri Lanka
Malaysia
Czech Republic
Costa Rica
Saudi Arabia
Cameroon
Myanmar
Denmark
Dominican
Republic
Syria
Chad
New Zealand
Finland
Ecuador
Tunisia
Cote d’Ivoire
Philippines
France
El Salvador
Yemen
Congo (Dem. Rep.)
Singapore
Germany
Guatemala
Ethiopia
South Korea
Greece
Haiti
Ghana
Thailand
Hungary
Honduras
Guinea
Vietnam
Italy
Mexico
Kenya
Ireland
Nicaragua
Madagascar
Kazakhstan
Panama
Malawi
Netherlands
Paraguay
Mali
Norway
Peru
Mozambique
Poland
Uruguay
Niger
Portugal
Venezuela
Rwanda
Russia
Senegal
Serbia
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
South Africa
Spain
Sudan
Sweden
Tanzania
Switzerland
Togo
Tajikistan
Uganda
Turkey
Zambia
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan
30
Nigeria
Romania
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Weighting
The weighting assigned to each category and
indicator can be changed to reflect different
assumptions about their relative importance. Two
sets of weights are provided in the index. The first
option, called neutral weights, assumes equal
importance of all indicators and evenly distributes
weights. The second option, called peer panel
recommendation, averages the suggested weights
from five members of an expert panel. The expert
weights are the default weights in the model.
Data modelling
Indicator scores are normalised and then
aggregated across categories to enable a
comparison of broader concepts across countries.
Normalisation rebases the raw indicator data to a
common unit so that it can be aggregated. The
indicators where a higher value indicates a more
favourable environment for food security—such as
GDP per head or average food supply—have been
normalised on the basis of:
x = (x - Min(x)) / (Max(x) - Min(x))
where Min(x) and Max(x) are, respectively, the
lowest and highest values in the 107 economies for
any given indicator. The normalised value is then
transformed from a 0-1 value to a 0-100 score to
make it directly comparable with other indicators.
This in effect means that the country with the
highest raw data value will score 100, while the
lowest will score 0.
For the indicators where a high value indicates
an unfavourable environment for food security—
such as volatility of agricultural production or
political stability risk—the normalisation function
takes the form of:
x = (x - Max(x)) / (Max(x) - Min(x))
where Min(x) and Max(x) are, respectively, the
lowest and highest values in the 107 economies for
any given indicator. The normalised value is then
31
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
transformed into a positive number on a scale of 0100 to make it directly comparable with other
indicators.
Food price adjustment
factor
Food prices play an integral role in food security by
affecting affordability. High food prices have the
greatest impact in developing countries, where the
poor typically spend a large share of their income
on food, and where a price spike can significantly
reduce food consumption. While food producers
may benefit from price increases, and thus higher
revenue, this is typically a medium- to long-run
phenomenon and is not considered for the purpose
of our index.
To measure the effect of food prices on
affordability, we will apply a food price adjustment
factor to each country’s affordability score in the
GFSI again this year as we did for the 2012 GFSI.
This factor will be based on quarterly changes in
global food prices, as measured by the FAO global
food price index. To capture other elements of
affordability, we will adjust the quarterly change in
the FAO index by each country’s quarterly change
in income per head—as forecast by the EIU.
After adjusting the FAO index for each country’s
change in income, we will multiply this price factor
by what we call the local “food price pass-through
rate”. We define this rate as the ratio of the change
in local food prices to the change in global food
prices between 2000 and 2012. If local food prices
for Country X rose by 20% of the FAO index change
during the historical period, we will assume, going
forward, a 20% pass-through of global prices. The
size of the pass-through factor will be capped at
100% of the FAO global change, so that in no case
would any country’s price factor be multiplied by
more than one.
It is our intention to adjust each country’s
starting score in the GFSI—as reflected in the 2013
GFSI—on a quarterly basis starting with Q3 if 2013.
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Sources and definitions
Where the quantitative or survey data have missing
values, The Economist Intelligence Unit has
estimated the scores.
Indicator
Source
Year
Indicator definitions and construction
1) Affordability
Food consumption as a
proportion of total household
expenditure
United States Department of
Latest available year in
Agriculture (USDA); Food and
2002-11
Agriculture Organisation (FAO);
Economist Intelligence Unit
(EIU) GDP per head estimates
This indicator measures the share of household
expenditure that is spent on food at a national
level.
Proportion of population living
below global poverty line
World Bank, World
Development Indicators; EIU
Latest available year in
2001-13
This indicator measures the percentage of the
population living on less than US$2/day in
purchasing power parity.
Gross domestic product per
head (PPP)
EIU
2012
This indicator measures the average individual
income and, hence, measures the ability to afford
food.
Agricultural import tariffs
World Trade Organisation
(WTO)
Latest available year in
2006-12
This indicator measures the average applied
most-favoured nation (MFN) tariffs on
agricultural imports.
Presence of food safety net
programmes
Qualitative scoring by EIU
analysts; multinational
development banks
Latest available year in
2009-13
A measure of public initiatives to protect the
poor from food-related shocks. This indicator
considers food safety net programmes, including
in-kind food transfers, conditional cash transfers
(i.e. food vouchers), and the existence of school
feeding programmes by the government, NGOs or
the multilateral sector.
Measured on a 0-4 scale based on the prevalence
and depth of food safety net programmes.
0=Minimal evidence of food safety net
programmes or programmes are run only by NGOs
or multilaterals; Emergency food aid programmes
funded by multilaterals or NGOs are not
considered;
1=Moderate presence of food safety net
programmes, but mainly run by NGOs or
multilaterals. Depth and/or prevalence is
inadequate;
2=Moderate prevalence and depth of food safety
net programmes run by governments, NGOs or
multilaterals;
3=National coverage, with very broad, but not
deep coverage of food safety net programmes;
4=National government-run provision of food
safety net programmes. Presence of NGOs or
multilaterals is not critical to national coverage).
32
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Indicator
Source
Year
Indicator definitions and construction
Access to financing for farmers
Qualitative scoring by EIU
analysts; national ministries of
agriculture
Latest available year in
2005-13
This indicator is scored on a 0-4 scale based on
the depth and range of farmer financing.
0=No access to government or multilateral farmer
financing programmes (typically, but not
necessarily a developing economy);
1=Limited multilateral or government farmer
financing programmes (typically, but not
necessarily a developing economy);
2= Some multilateral or government financing
(typically, but not necessarily an emergingmarket economy;
3= Broad, not deep farmer financing (typically,
but not necessarily a developed economy) OR
well developed multilateral farmer financing
programmes (typically, but not necessarily an
emerging market economy;
4=Access to deep farmer financing (typically, but
not necessarily an advanced economy)
Depth indicates the quantity of funds available.
Range covers credit and insurance.
2) Availability
Sufficiency of supply
FAO; World Food Programme
(WFP); Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD)
2006-10
A composite indicator that measures the food
availability. It is comprised of the following subindicators:
● Average food supply in kcal/head/day
● Dependency on chronic food aid
Average food supply
FAO
2009
This indicator measures the estimated per-head
amount of food available for human consumption
in kilocalories/head/day.
Dependency on chronic food
aid
WFP
2006-11
This indicator measures whether a country is a
recipient of chronic food aid. For the purpose of
this index, chronic aid recipients are defined as
those countries which have received nonemergency food aid over a five-year time span. It
is measured on a 0-2 scale:
0=Received chronic food aid on an increasing
basis over the last five years;
1=Received chronic food aid on a decreasing
basis over the last five years;
2=Receives little to no food aid or only on an
emergency basis
33
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Indicator
Source
Year
Indicator definitions and construction
Public expenditure on
agricultural R&D
EIU estimates based on OECD,
World Bank, Agricultural
Science and Technology
Indicators (ASTI); EIU data
Latest available year in
2001-13
This indicator is a proxy for agricultural
innovation and technology that increases market
efficiency and access. It is measured as a
percentage of agricultural GDP and is scored on a
nine-point scale:
1= 0-0.5%;
2= 0.51-1%;
3= 1.01-1.5%;
4= 1.51-2%;
5= 2.01-2.5%;
6= 2.51-3%;
7= 3.01-3.5%;
8= 3.51-4%;
9= 4.01-4.5%
Agricultural infrastructure
EIU Risk Briefing; World Bank;
national agricultural
ministries; EIU analyst scoring
2008-13
This is a composite indicator that measures the
ability to store and transport crops to market.
Sub-indicators include:
● Existence of adequate crop storage facilities
● Extent and quality of road infrastructure
● Quality of ports’ infrastructure
Existence of adequate crop
storage facilities
Qualitative scoring by EIU
analysts based on documents
from the World Bank and
national agricultural ministries
Latest available year in
2008-13
This binary indicator assesses the presence of
sufficient crop storage facilities based on size of
agricultural sector and population. It is measured
on a 0-1 scale:
0=No
1=Yes
Road infrastructure
EIU Risk Briefing
Latest available year in
2012-13
This qualitative indicator measures the extent
and quality of road infrastructure and is
measured on a 0-4 scale, where 4=best.
Port infrastructure
EIU Risk Briefing
Latest available year in
2012-13
This qualitative indicator measures the quality of
ports’ infrastructure and is measured on a 0-4
scale, where 4=best.
Volatility of agricultural
production
FAO; EIU calculations
1992-2011
This indicator measures the standard deviation of
the annual growth of agricultural production
over 20 years.
Political stability risk
EIU Risk Briefing
Latest available year in
2012-13
This indicator measures whether political
instability has affected access to food (i.e. cut off
food transport, reduction in food aid from other
countries, etc). Indicator comprised of social
unrest, orderly transfers, opposition stance,
excessive executive authority, and international
tensions. High political stability heightens risk
that access to food may be disrupted. This
indicator is measured on a 0-100 scale, where
100=highest risk.
Corruption
EIU Risk Briefing
2013
This indicator measures the pervasiveness of
corruption among public officials.
Urban absorption capacity
World Bank, World
Development Indicators; EIU
2011-13
This indicator measures the capacity of a country
to absorb the stresses placed on it by urban
growth and still ensure food security. It does so
by evaluating a country’s resources (income)
against the stress of urbanisation (urban growth
rate).
34
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Indicator
Source
Year
Indicator definitions and construction
Diet diversification
FAO
2005-07
This indicator measures the share of non-starchy
foods (all but cereals, roots and tubers) in total
dietary energy consumption. A larger share of
non-starchy foods signifies a greater diversity of
food groups in the diet.
Nutritional standards
Qualitative scoring by EIU
analysts based on WHO, FAO
and national health ministry
documents
1994-2013
This is a composite indicator that measures
nutrition governance. It is comprised of a set of
binary sub-indicators as follows:
● Existence of national dietary guidelines
● Existence of national nutrition plan or strategy
● Existence of regular nutrition monitoring and
surveillance
National dietary guidelines
Qualitative scoring by EIU
analysts based on WHO, FAO
and national health ministry
documents
1999-2013
This is a binary indicator that measures whether
the government has published guidelines for a
balanced and nutritious diet.
0=No
1=Yes
Nutrition plan or strategy
Qualitative scoring by EIU
analysts based on WHO, FAO
and national health ministry
documents
1994-2013
This is a binary indicator that measures whether
the government has published a national
strategy to improve nutrition
0=No
1=Yes
Nutrition monitoring and
surveillance
EIU analyst scoring based on
WHO, FAO and national health
ministry documents
1999-2013
This is a binary indicator that measures whether
the government monitors the nutritional status
of the general population. Examples of
monitoring and surveillance include the
collection of data on undernourishment,
nutrition-related deficiencies, etc.
0=No
1=Yes
Micronutrient availability
FAO
2005-07
This is a composite indicator that measures the
availability of micronutrients in the food supply.
Sub-indicators include:
● Dietary availability of vitamin A
● Dietary availability of animal iron
● Dietary availability of vegetal iron
Dietary availability of vitamin A
FAO
2005-07
According to the FAO, the dietary availability of
vitamin A is calculated by converting the amount
of food available for human consumption (as
estimated by the FAO Food Balance Sheets) into
the equivalent of vitamin A. This indicator is
expressed in micrograms of retinol activity
equivalent/head/day on a 0-2 scale.
0= less than 300 mcg RAE/person/day;
1= 300-600 mcg RAE/person/day;
2= more than 600 mcg RAE/person/day
3) Quality and Safety
35
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Indicator
Source
Year
Indicator definitions and construction
Dietary availability of animal
iron
FAO
2005-07
According to the FAO, the dietary availability of
iron is calculated by converting the amount of
food available for human consumption (as
estimated by the FAO Food Balance Sheets) in the
equivalent of iron. Animal iron is obtained from
products such as meat, milk, fish, animal fats,
eggs. This indicator is expressed in mg/head/
day.
Dietary availability of vegetal
iron
FAO
2005-07
According to the FAO, the dietary availability of
iron is calculated by converting the amount of
food available for human consumption (as
estimated by the FAO Food Balance Sheets) in the
equivalent of iron. Vegetable iron is obtained
from products such as cereals, pulses, roots and
tubers, vegetable oils, fruits, vegetables, etc.
This indicator is expressed in mg/head/day.
Protein quality
EIU calculation based on data
from FAO, WHO and USDA
Nutrient Database
2005-09
This indicator measures the grams of quality
protein through the Protein Digestibility
Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS). The
PDCAAS methodology assesses the presence of
nine essential amino acids in the average
national diet. The inputs of this calculation
include: the amino acid profile, protein
digestibility value, and the average grams
consumed of each food item which contributes a
minimum of 2% to protein consumption.
Food safety
Scoring by EIU analysts based
on government websites; WHO
data; UN Children’s Fund
(UNICEF); Millennium
Development Goals Database;
EIU Industry Briefing
Latest available in 2005-13
This is a composite indicator that measures the
enabling environment for food safety. Subindicators include:
● Existence of agency to ensure health/safety of
food
● Access to potable water
● Presence of formal grocery sector
Agency to ensure the safety
and health of food
Qualitative scoring by EIU
analysts based on government
websites
Latest available in 2005-13
This is a binary indicator that measures the
existence of a regulatory or administrative
agency to ensure the health and safety of food
0=No
1=Yes
Percentage of population with
access to potable water
WHO
2010
This indicator measures the percent of
population with access to an improved water
source, which is measured on a 0-4 scale:
0=Between 0-59%;
1=Between 60%-69%;
2=Between 70%-79%;
3=Between 80%-89%;
4=Between 90%-100%
Presence of formal grocery
sector
EIU Industry Briefing
Latest available in 2009-13
This indicator measures the presence of formal
grocery sector measured on a 0-2 scale:
0=Minimal presence;
1=Moderate presence;
2=Widespread presence
36
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Indicator
Source
Year
Indicator definitions and construction
Prevalence of
undernourishment
FAO
2010-12
This indicator measures the proportion of the
population who do not receive the minimum
number of required calories for an average
person, as defined by the FAO/WHO/UNU Expert
Consultation in 2001.
Percentage of children stunted
WHO
Latest available year in
1972-2011
The percentage of children under five years who
have a height-for-age below minus two standard
deviations of the National Centre for Health
Statistics (NCHS)/WHO reference median.
Percentage of children
underweight
WHO
Latest available year in
1972-2011
The percentage of children under five years who
have a weight-for-age below minus two standard
deviations of the NCHS/ WHO reference median.
Intensity of food deprivation
FAO
2010-12
Intensity of food deprivation is a measure of how
much people, on average, fall below the dietary
energy requirement. It is measured as the
difference between the minimum dietary energy
and the average dietary energy intake of the
undernourished population.
Human Development Index
United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP)
2012
The Human Development Index is a composite
index that measures development by combining
indicators on life expectancy, educational
attainment and income
EIU Women’s Economic
Opportunity Index
EIU
2012
The Women’s Economic Opportunity Index
measures specific attributes of the environment
for women employees and entrepreneurs in 128
economies. The index includes 29 indicators in
the following categories: labour policy and
practice, access to finance, education and
training, women’s legal and social status, and
the general business environment.
EIU Democracy Index
EIU
2012
The Democracy Index provides a snapshot of the
state of democracy in 165 states and 2
territories. The index includes indicators in the
following five categories: electoral process and
pluralism, functioning of government, political
participation, political culture, and civil liberties.
4) Output variables
37
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Scattergraphs
Correlation between overall rankings and dependent variables
Correlation between overall rankings and dependent variables
Prevalence of undernourishement
Overall score v Prevalence of undernourishement
Correlation (x,y) -0.69
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-10
Overall score
Overall score: Rating 0–100
Prevalence of undernourishment
38
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Correlation between overall rankings and dependent variables
Percentage of children stunted
Overall score v Percetage of children stunted
Correlation (x,y) -0.88
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Overall score
Overall score: Rating 0–100
Percetage of children stunted: %
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
Correlation between overall rankings and dependent variables
Prevalence of children underweight
Overall score v Percetage of children underweight
Correlation (x,y) -0.75
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-10
Overall score
Overall score: Rating 0–100
Prevalence of children underweight: %
39
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Correlation between overall rankings and dependent variables
Intensity of food deprivation
Overall score v Intensity of food deprivation
Correlation (x,y) -0.68
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Overall score
Overall score: Rating 0–100
Intensity of food deprivation: kcal/person/day
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
Correlation between overall rankings and dependent variables
Human development index
Overall score v Human development index
Correlation (x,y) 0.95
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Overall score
Overall score: Rating 0–100
Human development index: Rating 0-1
40
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Correlation between overall rankings and dependent variables
EIU women’s economic opportunity index
Overall score v EIU women’s economic opportunity index
Correlation (x,y) 0.93
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Overall score
Overall score: Rating 0–100
EIU women’s economic opportunity index: Rating 0-100; 100 = most favorable conditions for women
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
Correlation between overall rankings and dependent variables
Percentage of children stunted
Overall score v Percetage of children stunted
Correlation (x,y) -0.88
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Overall score
Overall score: Rating 0–100
Percetage of children stunted: %
41
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
Global food security index 2013 An annual measure of the state of global food security
Whilst every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy of this
information, neither The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd. nor the
sponsor of this report can accept any responsibility or liability
for reliance by any person on this white paper or any of the
Cover: Shutterstock
information, opinions or conclusions set out in the white paper.
42
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2013
London
20 Cabot Square
London
E14 4QW
United Kingdom
Tel: (44.20) 7576 8000
Fax: (44.20) 7576 8476
E-mail: london@eiu.com
New York
750 Third Avenue
5th Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States
Tel: (1.212) 554 0600
Fax: (1.212) 586 0248
E-mail: newyork@eiu.com
Hong Kong
6001, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
Wanchai
Hong Kong
Tel: (852) 2585 3888
Fax: (852) 2802 7638
E-mail: hongkong@eiu.com
Geneva
Boulevard des
Tranchées 16
1206 Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: (41) 22 566 2470
Fax: (41) 22 346 93 47
E-mail: geneva@eiu.com