EIU Proposal

Global Food Security Index 2013: An annual measure of the state of global food security Sponsored by 2 July 2013 Agenda . Overview . Methodology . Results Overview . In 2012 the Economist Intelligence Unit was commissioned by DuPont to produce the innovative Global Food Security Index designed to develop a common framework for understanding the root causes of food insecurity. This year’s first annual update of the index reveals food security challenges countries face over the course of a year. Two new countries—Ireland and Singapore—and two new indicators—corruption and urban absorption capacity were added to deepen the analysis. Defining food security Food security exists 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. The Global Food Security Index: . ranks 107 countries . according to their relative levels of food security . using 27 indicators divided into three categories: Affordability; Availability; Quality and Safety. Objectives . To provide a rigorous, structured framework for understanding the drivers of food security. To enhance the understanding of food security in a global context. Specifically, the index seeks to identify: . The factors affecting food security . The relationship between these factors . Leading and lagging countries . How countries can improve food systems to reduce food insecurity . Priority areas for each country (eg. trade policy, infrastructure, agricultural R&D) 4 What are we measuring? This index is the first to examine food security comprehensively across the three internationally established dimensions of food security: Availability, Affordability, and Utilisation – called “Quality and Safety” in the index . It looks beyond hunger to the underlying factors that influence the ability of consumers to access sufficient amounts of safe, high-quality and affordable food. It employs a quarterly adjustment factor for food price fluctuations to examine the risks countries face throughout the year. It includes several unique qualitative indicators, developed and scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts, to capture drivers of food security not currently measured in any international dataset. This year’s update includes two new indicators that aim to capture the effects on food security of corruption and an economy’s ability to cope with urbanisation. 5 Agenda . Overview . Methodology . Results 6 Geographic coverage: 107 countries Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, United States of America Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, UK Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Algeria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Thailand, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Uruguay, Venezuela Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Zambia Yemen 7 Index framework . Food consumption as a share of household . Sufficiency of supply expenditure . Public expenditure on agricultural R&D . Percent of population under global poverty line . Agricultural infrastructure . GDP per capita, $US, PPP . Volatility of agricultural . Agricultural import tariffs production Affordability Availability . Presence of food safety nets . Political stability risk . Access to finance for farmers . Corruption . Urban absorption capacity Index Food Price Adjustment Factor . Diet diversification . Nutritional standards Quality and External . FAO global food price index Safety Adjustment . Micronutrient availability adjusted for income growth and pass-through coefficient of . Protein quality global to national food prices . Food safety on a quarterly basis . Applied to Affordability score Next update in October 2013 8 * Composite indicators are bolded. Agenda . Overview . Methodology . Results 9 Overall results: 2013 GFSI Score 0-100, 100=best environment Score 69.5 to 86.8 Score 52.3 to 69.4 Score 35.9 to 52.2 Score 20.8 to 35.8 10 Results: Top and bottom performers BEST ENVIRONMENT . The most food-secure countries still share these 1 United States 86.8 characteristics: 2 Norway 86.5 . Ample food supply 3 France 83.7 4 Austria 83.4 . High incomes =5 Switzerland 83.2 . Low spending on food relative to other outlays =5 Netherlands 83.2 7 Belgium 82.4 8 Canada 82.1 . As was the case last year, high income countries 9 New Zealand 82.0 dominate the top of the rankings. They account for all of 10 Denmark 81.8 th the first 28 countries, except for the 26 position, which is WORST ENVIRONMENT held by Chile. =96 Madagascar 29.3 =96 Rwanda 29.3 98 Sierra Leone 29.0 . The bottom of the rankings consists of low income 99 Malawi 28.3 countries, particularly from Sub-Saharan Africa. 100 Zambia 28.1 Myanmar is the highest low income country in the index, 101 Haiti 27.6 th 102 Mali 26.8 at 74 overall, out of 107 countries. 103 Burundi 26.3 104 Sudan 25.2 105 Togo 22.7 106 Chad 22.1 107 Congo (Dem. Rep.) 20.8 11 Results: Year-on-year changes LARGEST RANK IMPROVEMENTS . Overall food security was little changed from last year. No Ethiopia 90 +11 region’s score improved dramatically, but Sub-Saharan Africa Botswana 43 +7 Dominican Republic 55 +7 showed the biggest gain, climbing by just under one point Niger 91 +7 Israel 17 +6 . Developing countries made the greatest food security gains in Madagascar 96 +6 the past year. Rising incomes and larger average food supplies Malaysia 34 +5 improved food security in many developing countries. Myanmar 74 +5 Senegal 82 +5 . Falling national incomes hurt food security in some Uruguay 32 +5 developed countries over the past year. Income per person dropped in most advanced economies in the past year, the LARGEST RANK DECLINES result of weak economies; although, they remain, for the most Mali 102 -14 Russia 40 -7 part, in the top 20% of the index. Sudan 104 -7 Syria 79 -7 . Political conflict reduced food security in Mali, Yemen and Yemen 93 -7 Syria during the past year. Violent conflict not only reduced El Salvador 63 -6 political stability but also hurt GDP growth, road infrastructure, Greece 25 -6 access to potable water, and curbed the ability of formal Guatemala 68 -6 grocery sectors to provide food. Ukraine 47 -5 Zambia 100 -5 12 Results: Affordability . The populations of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are AFFORDABILITY RANKINGS the most vulnerable to food price shocks. 1 Singapore 93.9 . Food consumption as a share of household expenditure 2 United States 91.7 averages 52% in both regions, versus 20% in high- 3 Switzerland 88.9 income countries. 4 Norway 88.1 . These regions have the highest and second highest 5 Australia 87.8 incidence of those living under the global poverty line. 6 Netherlands 87.3 . After North America, Latin America & Caribbean has the 7 Belgium 86.7 lowest agricultural import tariffs. 8 Ireland 86.6 . The top two Latin American countries, Peru and Chile, 9 Sweden 86.5 respectively rank fourth and seventh overall. 10 Denmark 86.3 . Sub-Saharan Africa lags all other regions in providing … … … adequate access to financing for farmers. 30 Chile 70.8 * Chile ranked higher in Affordability than any other country in the region, just ahead of Brazil (31st) and Argentina (33rd). Chile has particularly low agricultural import tariffs, which contributed to its strong performance in the category. Chile also improved considerably in GDP per capita, which jumped to US$2,330, a 14.4% increase, since last year’s index. Chile ranks the lowest in the category on proportion of people living under the global poverty line. 2.7% of the population lives on les than US$2/day (PPP). 13 Results: Availability . High income countries performed well in all indicators except volatility of agricultural production and urban AVAILABILITY RANKINGS absorption capacity. 1 Norway 86.6 2 France 82.9 . High political instability, low urban absorption capacity, 3 United States 82.4 and high volatility of agricultural production all contribute 4 New Zealand 81.5 to the moderate performance of the Middle East. 5 Austria 81.2 . While Asia and Latin America & Caribbean face challenges 6 Netherlands 79.1 in food availability, volatility of agricultural production is an 7 Switzerland 78.9 area of strength. 8 Germany 78.7 9 Belgium 78.4 . South Asia and Latin America & Caribbean perform the 10 Canada 78.1 best in the new urban absorption capacity index. Countries … … … in the top-third of the rankings tended to have relatively 22 Chile 69.2 high GDP growth rates and below-average urban growth rates, facilitating easier adaptation to urbanisation. * Chile also ranked the higher in Availability than any other country in Latin America and the Caribbean. Chile did particularly well on the two new indicators: corruption (10th) and urban absorption capacity (12th), which contributed to its overall rank improvement from last year. Although its overall score did not change, Chile experienced a slight decline in its average food supply, which fell 12 kcal/capita/day. 14 Results: Quality and Safety . Dietary protein consumption increased in 62% of the QUALITY AND SAFETY RANKINGS countries in the index. Average daily protein consumption 1 Israel 88.5 is 1.7 grams greater in this year’s index than it was the 2 France 87.5 prior year. 3 Portugal 87.0 . Low income countries, particularly those in Sub-Saharan 4 Greece 86.8 Africa and the Middle East & North Africa, actually rank 5 United States 86.4 the highest for dietary availability of vegetal iron, while =6 Ireland 85.6 high income countries perform considerably worse.

Load more