Global Food Security Index
2015 Overview
During the past year, food security has improved in almost every region of the world, according to the 2015 Global Food Security Index (GFSI).
The 109-country average score rose 1.2 points, with two-thirds of countries making progress from a year earlier. Driving the gains were sustained economic expansion in most regions and rapid growth in developing countries (especially in Sub-Saharan Africa—SSA), combined with lower global food prices. Government investments in agriculture and infrastructure—begun in the wake of the food price shocks of 2007-08—have also been crucial to improving food security.
The most-improved countries made progress across a range of factors, but common elements include:
decreased dependence on food safety-net programmes, expanded crop storage capacity, lower levels of post-harvest/pre-consumer food loss, greater diet diversity and better access to high-quality protein sources. Political stability risk also decreased in a number of low-income and lower-middle-income countries, allowing them to focus on developing and sustaining structures that support food security.
High-income countries still dominate the top of the rankings, but lower-middle-income countries made the biggest gains.
Collectively, these countries raised their score by 2 points, while low-income countries were next, with a +1.6 point increase. The group of high-income countries rose just 0.1 point, with marginal increases in Availability and Quality & Safety but constraints in Affordability.
The Middle East & North Africa (MENA) made the largest strides in food security.
The 2.4-point increase in the region's average overall score was driven primarily by gains in Affordability, owing to a combination of lower household spending on food and higher GDP per capita in 83% of countries (10 of 12). Lower levels of food loss and increased access to high-quality protein resulted in marked improvements in the other two categories, Availability and Quality & Safety, as well. The political environment also stabilised in most countries (Yemen is a noteworthy exception, as the intensity of its political crisis has escalated in recent months).
Europe is the only region that worsened in food security, as scores of 85% of countries fell.
The region is complex and is composed of Western European countries and the transition economies in Central and Eastern Europe (26 countries in all). When considered as a separate group, the countries of Western Europe, though they also experienced a slight decline in their food security, outperform all other regions and are the benchmark for good food security practices in advanced economies. Although the availability of food remained constant, progress in reducing food loss and improving physical infrastructure for food systems was more than offset by higher levels of political risk and instability in 11 countries. A fall in urban absorption capacity—a measure of the extent to which the GDP growth rate outpaces the urbanisation rate, and the corresponding ability to support urban growth—was also a constraint.
In Quality & Safety, SSA made impressive gains.
The region improved by 2.5 points—more than twice the increase recorded by MENA, which came in second in terms of improvement. Burkina Faso (+9.7) and Mali (+8.8) led the way, driven by improved access to quality protein, a measure of the average consumption of essential amino acids in a country’s diet. Burkina Faso also made significant strides in the diet diversification indicator, with a 25% increase (87% score increase) in the amount of non-starchy foods consumed in the average diet.
Strong economic fundamentals are driving GDP growth in emerging markets in Asia & Pacific,
where scores improved in 73% of countries. High saving and investment rates, rapid workforce growth, an expanding middle class and a shift from low-productivity agriculture to high-productivity manufacturing are the key drivers of progress in developing and emerging markets in the region. As a result, the score gap between Asia & Pacific and the top scoring regions is shrinking.
The right policies, priorities and investments can rapidly improve food security.
Over the past four years, most countries have achieved steady, incremental improvement in food security, but a few countries have made dramatic progress. Upper-middle-income countries have seen the most improvement in developing their food systems (+3.6 points). Low- and lower-middle-income populations in Asia & Pacific, MENA and SSA—comprising 41 of the 109 countries in the index—remain the most vulnerable to food price shocks.
Concentrated government focus and public-private partnerships are crucial to progress in structural elements of food security.
These include such areas as infrastructure and programmes to ensure nutrition, food safety and farmer financing. The cost of food and its impact on household incomes has an almost immediate effect on food security, while infrastructure upgrades, improvements to national diets and the implementation of nutritional standards take longer to show results. On the negative side, corruption, political instability and failure to accommodate urbanisation all hinder the operating environment for food systems.
Diet diversification and access to high-quality protein are increasing rapidly in low-income countries.
For example, SSA experienced the largest score increase in dietary intake of quality protein (+7.1). However, high-income countries still have greater diet diversity and better access to nutrient-rich foods. Both governments and NGOs are placing emphasis on increasing the intake of essential vitamins and nutrient-dense foods across the globe.
In the five-year period between 2009 and 2013, lower-income countries saw the greatest increase in urbanisation.
The average urbanisation rate in lower-middle and low-income countries was 3.3%, which was more than double the rate in high and upper-middle-income countries (1.5%). There is a fairly strong negative correlation (-0.67) between urban growth rates and food security, indicating that countries struggle to improve their food security infrastructure when accommodating the costs of urbanisation. Since 2012, countries such as Ukraine, Sierra Leone, Honduras, Brazil and Mozambique have grappled to improve food security owing to rapid urbanisation and unstable GDP growth rates, resulting in score declines for both urban absorption capacity and overall food security.
Nutritional standards have improved substantially in almost every region.
With the exception of North America, where standards were already high, all regions have improved their scores, largely owing to the introduction of nutritional monitoring and surveillance programmes. In 2012, 85 of the 109 countries had such programmes; an additional 18 have instituted them since then. For example, countries such as Azerbaijan and Côte d’Ivoire are taking steps to enable the government to collect data on and monitor its citizens’ nutritional status. And Azerbaijan's Ministry of Health, supported by the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), conducted its first major nutritional survey in 2013.
In the Affordability category, the food safety-net factor has seen the greatest gains.
Countries have made the most progress on the indicator that considers the scope and presence of food safety-net programmes, with SSA countries achieving an average 16.1-point increase. In Benin, dedicated aid from the UN World Food Programme (WFP), coupled with the country’s commitment to establishing a national school food programme (in line with the government’s strategy of making universal primary education available by 2015), has improved its performance on this indicator. In Senegal, meanwhile, combined efforts by the UN, NGO partners and the WFP have improved food security in accordance with the government's National Strategy for Economic and Social Development for 2013-17. Countries in other regions, most notably MENA and Asia & Pacific, have also seen improvements. Azerbaijan enjoyed significant economic growth in the late 2000s, and has since implemented social reforms, increasing government spending on assistance and establishing state programmes to reduce poverty and increase agricultural production.
No comments:
Post a Comment