food security assessment: why countries are at risk

Note: Title page added to electronic version byUSAID Development Experience Clearinghouse

Food Security Assessment:Why Countries Are at Risk

by

Shahla Shapouri and Stacey Rosen

Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 754

August 1999

Market and Trade Economics DivisionEconomic Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Food Security Assessment: Why Countries Are At Risk. By Shahla Shapouriand Stacey Rosen. Market and Trade Economics Division. AgricultureInformation Bulletin No. 754.

AbstractFood insecurity in many low-income, developing countries is projected to inten-sify unless steps are taken to reverse the performance trend of key contributingfactors: agricultural productivity, foreign exchange earnings, and populationgrowth. For the poorest countries, an increase in agricultural productivity is thekey to improving food security. In these countries, imports play a small role inthe domestic food supply because of limited foreign exchange availability. Thisstudy evaluates availability and distribution of food and analyzes their trendsthrough 2008 by projecting food gaps to maintain per capita consumption, meetnutritional needs, and fulfill requirements stemming from unequal food distribu-tion.

Keywords: Food security, developing countries, productivity, foreign exchangeavailability, import capacity, income distribution, population growth, nutritionalrequirements, per capita consumption.

Acknowledgments

Appreciation is extended to Kitty Smith and Nicole Ballenger for their supportof the food security project. The authors gratefully acknowledge the reviews ofDavid Atwood, Carl Mabbs-Zeno, Mark Rosegrant, and Mary Bohman. Theauthors wish to thank Birgit Meade for her superior efforts on tables and charts.Special thanks go to Carrie Ingoglia and Thomas McDonald, our technical edi-tors, Wynnice Pointer-Napper and Anne Pearl, our graphics designers.

1800 M Street, NWWashington, DC 20036-5831 August 1999

ii Food Security Assesment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Food Insecurity Will Escalate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Food Problems Vary Among Regions and Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Degree of Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Closing Food Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Increasing Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Increasing Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Reducing Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Appendix I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Appendix II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assesment/AIB-754 iii

Food insecurity in many low-income, developing countries is projected to inten-sify unless steps are taken to reverse the performance trend of key factors.Agricultural productivity, foreign exchange earnings, and population growth allinfluence a country�s food security. For the poorest countries, an increase inagricultural productivity is the key to improving food security. In these coun-tries, imports play a small role in the domestic food supply because of limitedforeign exchange availability.

In this study, two main food gaps are used to measure food insecurity: the statusquo gap and the nutrition gap. The status quo gap is the difference betweenprojected food supplies and base period (1995-97 average) per capita consump-tion. The nutrition gap is the difference between projected food supplies andthe food needed to support minimum per capita nutritional standards. Therequirements stemming from unequal food distribution among income levels aremeasured through the distribution gap. The food gap to maintain per capitaconsumption�status quo�at the base level for the 66 countries is estimated at11 million tons for 1998 and is projected to be 18.8 million tons in 2008. Manycountries that cannot maintain their per capita consumption are also consumingbelow their nutritional targets. The food supplies needed to meet their mini-mum nutritional requirements are projected to rise from less than 18 milliontons in 1998 to more than 28 million in 2008.

Sub-Saharan Africa is the most vulnerable region with respect to food security.The region�s per capita consumption is projected to decline 0.5 percent per yearthrough the next decade. By 2008, Sub-Saharan Africa is projected to accountfor 61 percent of the total (all 66 countries) gap to maintain consumption and 79percent of the nutritional gap even though the region�s population constitutesonly 25 percent of the total for the 66 countries. The main problem in the Sub-Saharan region is high population growth, which puts pressure on food supplies.While the region�s production growth during 1980-97 exceeded that in Asia andLatin America, its population growth was also higher.

The Asian countries included in this study, despite having the second largestfood gap, have made significant gains in increasing food availability over thepast three decades. The ratio of food gaps to total consumption is very small (1-2 percent) and is projected to remain relatively constant for the next decade.The region, which will account for 63 percent of the population of all 66 coun-tries in 2008, is projected to account for only 29 percent of the status quo foodgap and 16.5 percent of the nutritional gap.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, the most difficult dimension of food secu-rity is the distribution of food within each country. Highly skewed distributionof income limits purchasing power and access to food for low-income house-holds which, in turn, intensifies food security problems. As a result, 40 percentof the region�s population is projected to be undernourished in 2008.

North Africa is the only study region with food supplies adequate to meet itsnutritional needs.

Food consumption in the New Independent States (NIS, part of the formerSoviet Union) is projected to increase because of economic recovery, improvedexport performance, and higher food production. This region is projected to

Summary

achieve the largest gains in per capita consumption�roughly 1 percent per year.Only the war-torn economy of Tajikistan, projected to have a significant foodgap on a consistent basis, will likely remain vulnerable to food insecurity.

Among the factors contributing to food insecurity, the most crucial componentis the performance of the food production sector. Domestic food productioncontributes to more than 90 percent of consumption in the most food-insecurecountries. During the last decade, domestic production contributed 97 and 91percent of consumption in the two lowest income groups in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. In North Africa, Latin America, and the NIS, domestic produc-tion contributed 50-60 percent. The volume of food production, in addition toits direct impact on consumption, has a strong link to population growth.Improvements in technology reduce the traditional reliance on human labor andaffect human fertility decisions.

Although the main factors influencing food security are domestic food produc-tion, foreign exchange availability for food imports, and population growth, dis-tribution of purchasing power within each country also plays a part in determin-ing food security. Lower income groups have larger nutritional gaps thanwealthier people. The distribution gap, which measures the amount of foodrequired to raise food consumption of each income group to the nutritionalrequirement, is projected to increase 36 percent between 1998 and 2008. Thegrowth of this gap far surpasses the growth in the number of people becomingfood insecure. In fact, the number of people failing to meet their nutritionalrequirement is projected to grow only 3 percent during the next decade, reach-ing 1.13 billion by 2008. This means distribution-related nutritional problemswill not necessarily spread to countries that are unaffected today, but insteadproblems will grow in countries that already suffer from food insecurity. Food-insecurity problems will intensify in those more than they will spread to othercountries.

iv Food Security Assesment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA

The world�s resources are adequate to produce enoughfood for its population for at least the next fewdecades. The available food, however, is not distrib-uted evenly. This means that many countries experi-ence �food insecurity� when food supplies are not ade-quate to provide all people at all times with sufficientfood for an active and healthy life. Although undernu-trition is rarely viewed as an emergency, it reducesproductivity and a society�s long-term growth.Participants at the World Food Summit in November1996 pledged �to reduce the number of undernourishedpeople to half their present level no later than 2015.�The success of the World Food Summit pledgedepends on the current state of global food securityand governments� commitment to implement policiesthat can improve the situation.

The principal focus of food security policies has beento increase food supplies; little attention has been paidto unequal distribution of food as the cause of foodinsecurity. A review of nutritional data, however,shows that undernutrition is prevalent even in middle-income countries with ample food supplies. In fact, ifthe objective of the World Food Summit is to be met,not only do food supplies need to expand, but strate-gies for reducing poverty and inequality of purchasingpower need to be adopted.

In this study, we evaluate two aspects of food securi-ty�availability and distribution of food�and analyzetheir trends through 2008. The study includes 66countries that have been or are potential food aid recip-ients (see box, p.2). We project food consumption at

the aggregate level, as well as by different incomegroups, through the next decade. To assess food secu-rity of countries, we project shortfalls in food avail-ability from that needed to maintain per capita con-sumption, to meet national nutritional requirements,and to meet nutritional requirements for each incomegroup within a particular country. We also examinethe feasibility of achieving food security by evaluatingthe required growth for the principal factors affectingfood security�agricultural productivity, foreignexchange earnings, and population.

We project that food insecurity in many of the studycountries will intensify unless the performance trendsof the key contributing factors are improved. For thepoorest countries, an increase in agricultural productiv-ity is the key to improving food security. In thesecountries, imports play a small role in the domesticfood supply because foreign exchange availability islimited. Raising productivity is not an easy task, how-ever. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the region most vulnera-ble to undernutrition, grain yields must grow at a rate60 percent higher than the growth achieved during1980-97 to satisfy nutritional requirements by 2008.Achieving this goal will require a substantial increasein investment. In other regions, although there are vul-nerable countries, the overall picture is more promis-ing. In Asia, food security will improve if yields orimports continue to grow as they did during 1980-97.The challenge, however, is to overcome Asia�s recentslowdown in yield growth and external financial diffi-culties that may pose food-security problems in thelong term.

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 1

Food Security AssessmentWhy Countries Are At Risk

Shahla Shapouri

Stacey Rosen

Introduction

Projections indicate that food consumption willincrease at a slower rate than population in many low-income countries during the next decade, leading to adecline in per capita consumption. Many countrieswill also be unable to meet the minimum nutritionalrequirements of their people. In some countries,although their national performance shows an increasein average consumption, low-income groups remainvulnerable to food insecurity because of internal distri-bution problems.

Forty-seven of the 66 countries will face a decliningper capita consumption trend through 2008, which, inmost cases, will lead to nutritional problems. By 2008,

39 countries are projected to be unable to meet theirnutritional food requirements.

In this study, two main food gaps are used to measurefood insecurity: the status quo gap and the nutritiongap. The status quo gap is the difference between pro-jected food supplies and base period (1995-97 average)per capita consumption (see box, p. 3). The nutritiongap is the difference between projected food suppliesand the food needed to support minimum per capitanutritional standards. The food gap to maintain percapita consumption (status quo) at the 1995-97 baselevel for the 66 countries is estimated at 11 milliontons for 1998 and is projected to be 18.8 million tonsin 2008 (table 1). Many countries that cannot maintaintheir per capita consumption are also consuming belowtheir nutritional targets. The food supplies needed tomeet their minimum nutritional requirements are pro-jected to rise from less than 18 million tons in 1998 tomore than 28 million in 2008.

National-level analysis, however, masks the impact ofunequal access to income on food security. People in

Food Insecurity Will Escalate

Regions and Countries

North Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia

Sub-Saharan Africa: Cameroon, Central AfricaRepublic, the Congo (formerly known as Zaire),Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda,Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Angola,Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique,Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Benin, BurkinaFaso, Cape Verde, Chad, Cote d�Ivoire, Gambia,Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali,Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone,Togo

Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia,Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam

Latin America and Caribbean (LAC): Bolivia,Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, ElSalvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica,Nicaragua, Peru

NIS: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan

2 Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1—Production, commercial imports, andfood gaps*

The distribution gap is projected to be double the sizeof the status quo gap and 35 percent higher than thenutrition gap in 2008.

Food gapsCom-

Pro- mercial Status Nutri- Distri- Region duction imports quo tion bution

---------------Million tons----------------North Africa1998 38.0 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.12008 44.2 23.8 0.2 0.0 0.1

Sub-Saharan Africa1998 138.4 8.6 6.7 13.9 17.92008 173.2 9.8 12.1 22.4 27.0

Asia1998 418.1 16.6 3.8 2.7 8.42008 489.8 23.4 5.7 4.7 8.7

LAC1998 27.5 10.3 0.4 0.4 1.82008 32.7 13.8 0.7 0.6 1.7

NIS1998 6.1 1.5 0.1 0.7 0.82008 7.1 2.0 0.1 0.6 0.7

Total 66 countries1998 628.1 56.2 11.0 17.7 29.02008 747.0 72.8 18.8 28.3 38.2

* in grain equivalent.

lower income groups have larger nutrition gaps thanwealthier people. The distribution gap is the amount offood required to increase food consumption for allincome groups to the level to meet nutritional require-ments (see box, p. 4). This gap is projected to increase32 percent during the projection period to 38.2 milliontons by 2008. The growth of this gap far surpasses thegrowth in the number of people becoming food inse-cure. In fact, the number of people failing to meet

their nutritional requirement is projected to grow by 3percent�from roughly 1.1 billion in 1998 to 1.13 bil-lion by 2008. This means distribution-related nutri-tional problems will intensify more than they willspread.

A study by the United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganization projected a decline in the number ofundernourished people between 1990 and 2010. Thisassessment was made despite the study�s assumption

The Food Security Assessment model used in thisreport was developed at USDA�s Economic ResearchService for use in projecting food consumption andaccess, and the food gap in 66 low-incomecountries�37 in Sub-Saharan Africa, 4 in NorthAfrica, 11 in LAC, 9 in Asia, and 5 in the NewIndependent States (NIS) of the former Soviet Union.The projection period covered in this study is the 10-year period 1998 through 2008. The reference to foodincludes grains, root crops, and �other.� The �other�category includes most other components of the diet.These three food commodity groups account for asmuch as 90 percent of all calories consumed in thestudy countries. Root crops are generally not traded,while the bulk of all food imports of these countries,commercial or food aid, is in the form of grains.

Food security of a country is evaluated based on thegap between projected domestic food consumption(produced domestically and imported commercially)and a consumption requirement. Although food aid isexpected to be available during the projection period,it is not included in the projection of food consump-tion. It should be noted that while projection resultswill provide a baseline for the food security situationof the countries, they depend on assumptions andspecifications of the model. Since the model is basedon historical data, it implicitly assumes that the histor-ical trend in key variables will continue in the future.

Projections of food gaps for the countries are based ondifferences between consumption targets and estimatesof food availability, which are domestic supplies (pro-duction plus commercial imports) minus nonfood use.The estimated gaps are used to evaluate food security

of the countries. Food gaps are projected using twoconsumption criteria:

Status quo target, where the objective is to maintainaverage per capita consumption of the recent past.The most recent 3-year average (1995-97) is used forthe per capita consumption target in order to eliminateshort-term fluctuations.

Nutrition-based target, where the objective is to main-tain the minimum daily caloric intake standards rec-ommended by the UN�s Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO). The caloric requirements (basedon total share of grains, root crops, and �other�) usedin this assessment are those necessary to sustain lifewith minimum food-gathering activities. They arecomparable to the activity level for a refugee�they donot allow for play, work, or any activity other thanfood gathering.

The status quo measure embodies a �safety-net� crite-rion by providing food consumption stability at recent-ly achieved levels. The nutrition-based target assistsin comparisons of relative well-being. Comparing thetwo consumption measures either for countries orregions provides an indicator of the need, dependingon whether the objectives are to achieve consumptionstability and/or to meet a nutritional standard. Largenutrition-based needs relative to status quo needs, forexample, mean additional food must be provided ifimproved nutrition levels are the main objective. Incases where nutrition-based requirements are belowstatus quo consumption needs, food availability coulddecline without risking nutritional adequacy, on aver-age. Both methods, however, fail to address inequali-ties of food distribution within a country.


Model Description and Definitions


of a decline in the growth rate of agricultural outputduring the projection period compared with 1970-90.Lower population growth is projected, resulting inhigher per capita food consumption and, therefore,less nutritional problems. The incidence of undernu-

trition is projected to decline in all regions exceptSub-Saharan Africa (12).1

A recent FAO report indicates that the total number ofchronically undernourished people in developingcountries increased slightly between 1990-92 and1994-96, from 822 million to 828 million (14).

The projections of food gaps in this study do notinclude external food assistance. In the past, food aidhas played an important role in reducing food insecu-rity in low-income countries, but it remains inade-quate to offset the full magnitude of needs. In fact,food aid shipments have declined in recent years,principally due to smaller budget outlays in donorcountries. From the mid-1980�s to the early 1990�s,total food aid shipments exceeded 10 million tonsannually. During the last 2 years, shipments haveaveraged around 5 million tons. Global food aid in1997/98 was 5.3 million tons. At this level, food aidcould fill about half the estimated food gap necessaryto maintain consumption and roughly 30 percent ofthe nutrition gap for the 66 countries in 1998.

Measuring a

Distribution GapIn the estimation of nutritional deficits in develop-ing countries, unequal distribution of food con-sumption is a major concern. We have estimated adistribution gap which measures the food neededto meet nutritional requirements under a targetedpolicy scenario. Under this scenario, consumptionby each specified group (by income or any othercategory) is targeted to rise by the amount neces-sary to meet that particular group�s nutritionalrequirements. The distribution food gap is project-ed to be more than 38 million tons in 2008, this is33 percent higher than the projected gap to meetaggregate nutritional requirements. 1 Italicized numbers in parentheses refer to sources listed in the

References.

Regional comparisons of projections of food gapsreveal the intensity of the current as well as futurefood security problems of different regions. Theresults place Sub-Saharan Africa as the most food-insecure region. By 2008, this region is projectedto account for 61 percent of the total (all 66 coun-tries) gap to maintain consumption and 79 percentof the gap to meet nutritional needs even though theregion�s population constitutes only 25 percent ofthe 66-country total (fig. 1). The region�s nutritiongap, as a share of consumption (total available foodsupplies), is projected to exceed 10 percent by 2008(fig. 2). The main problem in the Sub-Saharanregion is high population growth, which puts pres-sure on food supplies; while the region�s productiongrowth during 1980-97 exceeded that in Asia andLatin America and the Caribbean (LAC), its popu-lation growth was also higher.

In addition to inadequate food availability, skeweddistribution of purchasing power amplifies Sub-Saharan Africa�s nutritional problems. The distribu-tion gap for the region is projected to be 27 milliontons in 2008. This is 21 percent higher than theregion�s aggregate nutrition gap. The number ofpeople in Sub-Saharan Africa who cannot meettheir nutritional requirements is projected toincrease from 361 million during 1995-97 to 516million by 2008 (fig. 3). This means that two-thirds of this region�s population will be undernour-ished in 2008. Sub-Saharan Africa also suffers thegreatest nutritional problems. It is the only regionwhere consumption is projected to fall below theminimum nutritional requirement for 80 percent ofthe population during the next decade (table 2). Inother regions, the problem is generally concentratedin the lowest income group (20 percent of the popu-lation).

The Asian countries included in this study, despitehaving the second largest nutrition gap, have madesignificant gains in increasing food availability overthe past three decades. The ratio of food gaps tototal consumption is very small (1-2 percent), and isprojected to remain relatively constant for the nextdecade. Asia will account for 64 percent of thepopulation of all the study countries in 2008, and isprojected to account for only 29 percent of the


Food Problems Vary Among Regions and Countries

Figure 1

While Sub-Saharan Africa is projected to account for only25 percent of the population of the 66 countries in 2008, the region is expected to account for 79 percent of thenutrition gap.

Population Share

Status quo gap

Nutrition gap

LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean, NAfr = North Africa,NIS = New Independent States, SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa.

Asia 16%

LAC 3% NIS 2%

SSA 79%

Asia 29%

LAC 4%NIS 1%

SSA 61%

NAfr 5%

Asia 64%

LAC 5%NIS 1%

SSA 25%

NAfr 5%

Population and food gaps in 2008

status quo food gap and 16.5 percent of the nutritiongap. In fact, most Asian countries may be able to closetheir food gaps by increasing imports slightly aboveprojected growth rates. The region�s impressive gains,however, mask food problems of large segments of thepopulation whose purchasing power is insufficient.When skewed purchasing power is taken into account,the region�s distribution gap is projected at almost twotimes the average nutrition gap in 2008. Moreover,although the number of people who cannot meet theirnutritional requirements is projected to decline overthe next decade, still 40 percent of the region�s popula-tion will be undernourished in 2008.

In LAC, the most difficult dimension of food securityis the distribution of food within each country. Thedistribution gap is projected to be almost three timeslarger than the nutrition gap in 2008. The number ofpeople who cannot meet their nutritional requirementsis projected to decline slightly between the 1995-97average levels and 2008. However, 40 percent of theLAC region�s population is projected to be undernour-ished in 2008. Because the distribution of income ishighly skewed, low-income households have limitedpurchasing power and access to food which, in turn,intensifies food-security problems.

North Africa is the only study region with adequatefood supplies to meet its nutritional needs. However,

Table 2—Ratio of consumption to nutritionalrequirements

Consumption is projected to fall short of the minimumnutritional requirement for all but the highest incomegroup in the Sub-Saharan region.

Income quintiles

Region Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest20% 20%

North AfricaBase 0.99 1.08 1.14 1.19 1.302008 1.11 1.17 1.22 1.27 1.38

Sub-Saharan AfricaBase 0.74 0.82 0.88 0.94 1.092008 0.70 0.78 0.83 0.89 1.03

AsiaBase 0.89 0.97 1.03 1.08 1.202008 0.89 0.96 1.00 1.06 1.19

LACBase 0.75 0.89 0.97 1.05 1.202008 0.85 0.95 1.03 1.11 1.31

NIS 1

Base 0.74 0.83 0.88 0.93 1.012008 0.92 1.00 1.06 1.13 1.24

1 Regional average income distribution was used for estima-tion.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080

5

10

15

20

25

Nutrition gap as a share of consumptionAsia's and LAC's nutrition gaps are projected to remain quite small relative to their consumption throughout the projection period.

Figure 2

Percent

NIS

SSA

LAC

Asia


frequent droughts often affect a country�s economicgrowth and welfare. The region�s current level of foodconsumption is among the highest in the world, andconsumption is projected to increase in Morocco andTunisia, but decrease marginally in Algeria and Egypt.Political instability would be a major threat to foodsecurity in the region. The North African region, likethe others, is faced with unequal food distribution.Therefore, while food consumption, on average,exceeds nutritional requirements, food consumption for20 percent of the population (the lowest income group)in Algeria is projected to be less than the requirementby 2008.

Food consumption in the New Independent States isprojected to increase because of economic recovery,improved export performance, and higher food produc-tion. Only the war-torn economy of Tajikistan, pro-jected to have a significant food gap on a consistent

basis, will likely remain vulnerable to food insecurity.It should be noted that data for the NIS are weak, andbecause their economies are in a transition stage, theprojection results should be used with caution.

Based on the projected results, countries covered inthis report can be grouped into four different food-security categories: 1) countries that are projected, onthe national level, to have adequate food in 2008, butbecause of inequality in purchasing power, segments oftheir population will face food insecurity; 2) countriesthat are moderately food insecure, where projectedaverage food consumption falls in the range of 75 to99 percent of the nutritional requirement; 3) countrieswith severe food-insecurity problems, where averagefood consumption is projected to fall to less than 75percent of the nutritional requirement; and 4) countrieswhere all income groups are projected to have ade-quate food (table 3).


Asia

North Africa

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

The share of population undernourished increases most in Sub-Saharan Africa.

LAC

SSA

Figure 3

Share of population undernourished

Number of undernourished in 2008:Latin America: 69 millionAsia: 516 millionSub-Saharan Africa: 484 millionNorth Africa: 14 million

1998 2008 (Projected)

70

Percent of regional population


Table 3—Food insecurity in 2008

In 39 of the 66 countries, consumption is projected to fall short of the nutritional requirement on the national level,and in 12 countries the nutritional problem is due to large disparity in income distribution.

Nationally food secure 1 Moderately food insecure 2 Highly food insecure 3

N.Africa: Algeria

Sub-Saharan Africa: Benin, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Centr. Afr. Republic, Burundi, Eritrea,

Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria D.R. of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia,Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, Angola, Cape Verde,Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Chad, Liberia,Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Sierra LeoneBurkina Faso, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, Togo

Asia: India, Pakistan,Sri Lanka Bangladesh, Nepal Afghanistan

LAC: El Salvador, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru Nicaragua, Haiti

NIS: Azerbaijan Tajikistan

In the remaining 26 countries, all income groups are projected to have adequate food.

1 Adequate food but unequal distribution.2 Meet 75 percent or more of requirement.3 Meet less than 75 percent of requirement.

In the first category of insecure countries, skewedincome distribution limits access of low-incomegroups to sufficient amounts of food despite adequatefood supplies on the national level. Twenty-seven ofthe 66 countries have adequate aggregate food sup-plies, but in 12 of them, skewed income distributionlimits purchasing power for lower income groups,thereby precluding adequate diets. In these countries,improved agricultural performance can reduce incomeinequality. Most poor live in rural areas with limitedaccess to resources such as land or credit. In thesecountries, food insecurity in the low-income group isexpected to continue unless programs to createemployment and increase productivity of the poor areadopted. Increasing investment to improve marketinfrastructure will also help markets work, increasingreturns to farming communities.

The second group includes 27 countries that are mod-erately food insecure, where projected food consump-tion represents 75 to 99 percent of nutritional require-ments. Most of the countries in this group are in Sub-Saharan Africa, but factors contributing to their foodinsecurity vary. Some countries are experiencing civilunrest; others have shown progress in their agriculturalperformance and may be able to sustain the recentgrowth momentum. For example, the Congo�s civilunrest during the last 2 years has displaced popula-tions, adversely affecting food production and hinder-ing marketing activities. This factor, plus floodingfrom El Niño in early 1998 that damaged houses,infrastructure, and crops, led to higher food prices andfood insecurity in many parts of the country. On theother hand, Mozambique is reaping the benefits of sus-tained peace. Production has risen steadily for the last6 years, and grain output in 1997 was roughly threetimes higher than the average output of the late 1980�s.

The common characteristic of this group, however, isthe large contribution of domestic food production tofood consumption. Since these countries have beenunable to adopt new technologies to increase produc-tivity, labor remains the principal input in production,encouraging large families. With slow growth indomestic food production, these countries use commer-cial imports to fill food gaps. Historically, imports inthese countries were supported by external assistance,which helped reduce the financial burden of foodimports. With the decline in external assistance, a

larger share of foreign exchange availability must beallocated to food imports. However, any increase inspending on food imports will crowd out spending onessential raw materials and spare parts, raising concernover the long-term economic health of these countries.

The 12 countries in the third group are the most foodinsecure, and all but 2 are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Forthese countries, average food consumption is projectedto fall to less than 75 percent of the nutritional require-ment in 2008. A common characteristic among thesecountries is that they have been or are currently facedwith political problems. While the projections of pro-duction and imports did not represent a decline fromthe historical period, population growth alone willseverely deteriorate their food security situationbecause of their already weak position.

The political problems of these countries reinforcelong-term trends in poverty, food insecurity, and abreakdown of social structure. Consequently, eventssuch as drought, disease (human or livestock), orfloods can easily trigger acute food shortages andfamine. For these countries, political stability and bet-ter policies are essential for improving food security.

Fifteen of the study countries fall into the fourth group,projected to be food secure because their consumption,both on average and by individual income group, willbe higher than the minimum nutritional requirements.

In summary, Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are project-ed to face a deteriorating nutritional situation. In Asia,however, the deterioration is negligible, and theregion�s current consumption is higher than that ofSub-Saharan Africa. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the deteri-oration is measurable, and consumption has a lowerbase value. In this region, only the highest incomegroup is projected to consume more than the minimumnutritional requirement, compared with the top threegroups in Asia. The severity of the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa is confirmed by projected changes inthe distribution gap. With the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa, for all the regions covered in thisstudy, this gap declines or increases negligibly duringthe projection period. For Sub-Saharan Africa,however, the distribution gap jumps more than 50 per-cent over the next decade. This statistic alone is astrong indicator of the intensity of the region�s foodinsecurity problem.


Degree of Vulnerability

Closing Food GapsA country will be faced with growing food insecuritywhen food supplies are nutritionally inadequate and/ordo not keep pace with population growth. Projectionsare made assuming trends in the key factors affectingfood security�agricultural productivity, foreignexchange availability, and population growth�contin-ue. Any change in the performance of these factorscould significantly alter the projection results (fig. 4).We used a projections model to simulate the effect ofchanges in these factors. For example, to estimate thefeasibility of closing food gaps by increasing cropyields, we assumed fertilizer use to increase at a higherrate than that of the baseline projections; we then com-pared the effect on per capita consumption with thebaseline results.

Increasing Production

Agricultural productivity is, generally, the essentialelement of the food security equation. In food-inse-cure countries, growth in food production is usuallylow, and, in many cases, population growth is high,

putting additional pressure on food demand. Theannual production growth rate required to close theaverage nutrition food gap by 2008 ranges from 3.4percent in Sub-Saharan Africa to 1.4 percent in NorthAfrica (fig. 5). The questions are: can past success berepeated or failures avoided? what would be the sourceof growth? Surprisingly, for the 66 countries studied,the average annual growth in food production wasabout 3 percent during 1980-97, more than their aver-age population growth of 2.3 percent for the same peri-od. Most of the food production growth, however, wasconcentrated in a handful of countries.

For example, Egypt showed an impressive productiongrowth rate following the adoption of a new wheatvariety that led to more than a 60-percent increase ingrain yields between 1980 and 1997. In Nigeria, grainproduction increased nearly 7 percent annually, andproduction of root crops grew 10 percent per year dur-ing 1980-97. Nigeria�s continued restrictions on foodimports have increased domestic prices, thereby raisingthe incentives to produce. Nigerian farmers adopted a


new variety of cassava, and increased their averageyield threefold. Because of Nigeria�s size relative toother countries in the region, its strong growth support-ed Sub-Saharan Africa�s food output growth at 3.6 per-cent per year during 1980-97. In fact, if Nigeria isexcluded from the Sub-Saharan statistics, the annualgrowth rate of food production in the region wouldhave been only 2 percent per year, which is lower thanthe region�s 3-percent-per-year increase in population.

In Asia, average food production grew 2.6 percent peryear during 1980-97, which roughly translates into a0.5-percent-per-year increase per capita. Food produc-tion growth in the LAC countries increased only 1.2percent per year, considerably less than their 2.2-per-cent population growth. In the NIS countries, produc-tion has stagnated since 1987, the first year data wereavailable.

Future production growth in the countries depends onexpanding crop area, improving productivity of theexisting lands, or both.

Expanding Crop Area

Since many low-income countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and LAC, have not experiencedimprovements in technology, most increases in agricul-tural output have stemmed from area expansion (1,12).In Sub-Saharan Africa, area expansion measured morethan 2 percent per year during 1980-97. However, thelong-term prospects for acreage expansion are notbright, because, in most countries, a large part of landthat could be used for farming is unfit to cultivatewithout major investment. In LAC and Sub-SaharanAfrica, continued expansion of cropland means con-verting range and forest land to crop production, aprocess with high economic and environmental costs.According to FAO estimates, about half of the landthat could be used to produce food in Sub-SaharanAfrica has poor soil (12). Sub-Saharan Africa has avast and diverse land area, but the region faces a num-ber of resource constraints (such as lack of water) tosustainable agricultural growth (6). Some countries,such as Sudan and Zaire, have vast areas of rainfedland with crop potential, while others, such as Kenyaand Madagascar, have already exhausted their high-potential land. In addition, relative to land currently inproduction, much of the potential cropland is distantfrom domestic and foreign markets. Moreover, thetransport and communications infrastructure necessary

for trade between the areas of crop potential and mar-kets is poorly developed.

Demographic changes are placing increasing pressureon land in Sub-Saharan Africa. More than 20 percentof all vegetative land is degraded due to human causes;however, water and wind erosion still account for amajority of the affected hectares. Much of this degrad-ed area is in the Sahel, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia,Kenya, and southern Africa. Historically, farmersadjusted to resource constraints by following severalyears of planting with several fallow years. However,population pressures have reduced the practice of thesesustainable agricultural techniques, and are leading torapid declines in land productivity.

Growth in Yields

The only option to sustain production growth is toincrease yields. Growth in yields is projected to matchor exceed 1980-97 levels in LAC, Sub-Saharan Africa,and the NIS. These optimistic trends are attributed tothe improved government policies of recent yearswhich are expected to increase returns and provide bet-ter incentives to producers. In North Africa, growth ofgrain yields is projected to be slower than during 1980-97 because no major technological shift, similar to theearly 1990�s adoption of high-yielding varieties inEgypt, is expected in the future (12). Grain yields inAsia are projected to follow the recent trend (since the


Asia0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

SSA NorthAfrica

NIS LAC

Figure 5

Projected growth in food production, 1998-2008Production growth needed to close the nutrition gapin Sub-Saharan Africa far exceeds projected rates.

Percent per year

Projected growth Growth needed to fill nutritional gap

mid-1990�s), which is slower than the growth of thelast two decades. In LAC and Sub-Saharan Africa,while yield growth is projected to at least match that of1980-97, it falls short of the growth required to signifi-cantly improve food security. Sub-Saharan Africa�sannual yield growth would need to accelerate to 2.2percent from projected rates of 1.4 percent to eliminatethe nutrition food gap by 2008. In LAC, yield growthwould need to increase 1.5 percent per year, or threetimes the historical rate (table 4).

Average regional grain yields are the highest in NorthAfrica, followed by Asia, the NIS, LAC, and Sub-Saharan Africa (fig. 6). The quality of resources anduse of new technology are the reasons behind thisranking. During 1980-97, yields declined in the NIScountries and increased only marginally in LAC. InSub-Saharan Africa, yields grew 1.4 percent per year.Distorted policies, limited resources, low input use,and little use of new technology are the principal fac-tors constraining yields in many countries in theseregions. Despite constraints, Asia and North Africaexperienced relatively strong yield growth of 2.6 and3.5 percent per year during 1980-97. In Egypt, thecombination of fertile land and the adoption of high-yielding crop varieties boosted the country�s yields sig-nificantly in the early 1990�s, thereby raising the aver-age regional yields. During the 1970�s, most of Asia�sproduction gains stemmed from the use of �Green

Revolution� technology and crop varieties, expansionin the land base through irrigation, as well as improvedcultivation practices. Use of improved inputs also con-tributed to yield growth. Farmers who adopt improvedcrop varieties must use more fertilizer and timely waterapplication and drainage to achieve yield potential. InAsia, many governments made a package of


0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Figure 6

Grain yields by regionAverage grain yields are influenced by quality of resources and use of technology.

BaseNIS

LAC

Asia

SSA

North Africa

2008(Projected)

kg/ha

Table 4—Grain yield growth by region

Yield growth must accelerate to eliminate the nutritiongap in most regions.*

Regions 1980-97 1998-2008 Growthto fill gap

Percent per year

North Africa 3.5 1.5 0.8

Sub-Saharan Africa 1.4 1.4 2.2

Asia 2.6 1.3 1.4

LAC 0.5 0.9 1.5

NIS NA 1.0 1.7

NA = not available.

* Given projected import growth.

technologies (high-yielding varieties, adequate fertiliz-er, and chemicals) available to farmers. In countrieswith limited support for inputs, the adoption rate wasvery slow. The pace of yield growth, however, hasslowed during the last decade and the current slowertrend is expected to continue.

Yield projections are based on the use of improvedinputs, particularly fertilizer use. The Asian countriesuse the most fertilizer, 95 kg per hectare, followed byLAC at 76 kg, North Africa at 74 kg, and Sub-SaharanAfrica at a very low level of 7 kg. Sub-Saharan Africaaccounts for only 1 percent of the world�s fertilizeruse. This study assumes higher fertilizer applicationsfor yield projections in all regions. But yield does notincrease proportionally to increases in fertilizer use. Inthis study, a 1-percent increase in fertilizer use is pro-jected to result in a 0.1�0.3 percent increase in yield(estimates based on cross country data of the 66 coun-tries) (2,6). Because of such low responsiveness,growth rates of fertilizer use are projected to be low�in the range of 1 to 4 percent annually. In Sub-Saharan Africa, growth is projected to be positive,reversing the trend during 1980-97. Despite thisassumption of growth, fertilizer use per hectare willremain low by world standards, rising to only 9 kg by2008. Because of Sub-Saharan Africa�s low responseof yields to fertilizer use, this increase will translateinto only a small gain in yields�6 percent in 10 years.

The principal factor limiting yield response to fertilizeruse is the inadequate supply of water during the grow-ing season. Although water availability varies consid-erably across the regions, it has become a serious prob-lem in many countries. According to the World Bankstudy �Resources and Global Food Prospects,� deple-tion and degradation of water resources are majorproblems facing many low-income countries (4,5).Within 10 years, if population grows at projected rates,per capita water availability will decrease by an aver-age of 20 percent in developing countries and 34 per-cent in African countries. The agricultural sector con-sumes over half the annual freshwater withdrawals inmost of the countries and could face greater competingdemands from household and industrial uses in thefuture.

The sparse rainfall that characterizes much of Sub-Saharan Africa affects fertilizer response and demand(5,9). Farmers are very reluctant to risk fertilizer useuntil rain falls, since without adequate moisture to dis-solve nutrients in fertilizer (especially nitrogen), crops

can �burn.� Irrigation can make the use of fertilizerprofitable and increase agricultural output. However,in Sub-Saharan Africa, only 4.3 percent of arable landis irrigated. This is low, even when compared withother developing regions. In LAC, 13 percent ofarable land is irrigated, and 38 percent is irrigated inAsia (13). The world average is 19 percent. There ispotential for expanding irrigated area in Sub-SaharanAfrica, but it is costly and requires investment.Increasing the use of fertilizer raises production costs.In many low-income countries, particularly those inSub-Saharan Africa and LAC, almost all fertilizer isimported, and the lack of adequate foreign exchangeconstrains availability.

The effects of technical change, improvements ininfrastructure, and research on yield growth are diffi-cult to quantify. A paper by USDA economists sum-marizing earlier studies on agricultural productivity inSub-Saharan Africa indicates that policy reform,improvement in infrastructure, and research expendi-tures encourage adoption of yield-increasing technolo-gies (16). In recent years, however, public spendingon these activities has declined in most countries. Thistrend could have detrimental implications for increas-ing food production.

Increasing Imports

The performance of domestic production would be lesscritical to food security if countries could import theirrequired foods. Financial constraints are importantfactors limiting the role of imports in many countries.In some regions, the size of the food gaps are quitesmall relative to commercial imports, meaning that ifimports grew at a slightly higher rate than projected,the gaps could close. This is the case in North Africaand LAC. In Asia, the ratio of the nutrition gap tocommercial imports is projected to be more imposing,however, at 20 percent in 2008. In Sub-SaharanAfrica, the ratio of the average nutrition gap to com-mercial imports is projected at 229 percent. Given theregion�s prospects for slow import growth, it is highlyunlikely that the gap will be filled by expandingimports. To close nutrition gaps, food imports mustgrow nearly 13 percent per year in Sub-Saharan Africa,5.6 percent in the NIS, 4.7 percent in Asia, and justunder 4 percent in LAC (table 5). The North Africancountries do not have any nutrition gaps, but to main-tain their consumption, food imports need to grownearly 3 percent per year. Given the import patterns of


the regions during 1980-97, the most difficult chal-lenge is the significant import growth required in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The outlook for the financial conditions of most of thestudy countries permits only slow growth in foodimports. During 1980-97, food imports expanded inall regions. Asian imports increased at the fastest rate,nearly 8 percent per year (13). Sub-Saharan Africa�simports grew at the slowest rate, 1.9 percent. The pos-itive import growth was a response to a combination offactors: declining world food prices, slow domesticproduction growth (particularly in Sub-Saharan Africaand LAC), improvements in financial conditions (inNorth Africa and Asia), and the relaxation of importrestriction policies in many countries.

Food imports are supported by foreign exchange avail-ability. Foreign exchange availability, in this study, isdefined as the sum of real export earnings and real netexternal financial flows. The response of food importsto foreign exchange availability is not one-to-one inthis study (inelastic response in the range of 0.6 to 0.8,depending on the country�estimates based on crosscountry data). This means that, everything beingequal, to achieve a 1-percent growth in food imports,foreign exchange availability must grow by 1.3 to 1.7percent. Export earnings growth is projected to be

positive in all regions, while the real net externalfinancial flow (credit and external assistance) isassumed to remain constant at 1995-97 levels. Thisprojection assumes that performance of exports will bethe key determinant of food imports. For example, toachieve the target import growth, Sub-Saharan Africa�sexport earnings must increase by 13 to 17 percentannually.

While Sub-Saharan Africa�s projected growth rate forexports is almost double the growth experienced dur-ing 1980-97, it falls well short of the growth requiredto fill the food gaps. Continued political instability inLiberia, the Congo, Central African Republic, Sudan,Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, and Angola dampens theregion�s prospects for export growth. In addition, Sub-Saharan Africa continues to depend on the exports of afew primary commodities�such as coffee, tea, sugar,and tobacco�for most of its export earnings. Pricesfor these commodities are projected to decline in thelong term. According to the World Bank, in real terms,non-energy and agricultural commodity prices are pro-jected to decline on average by nearly 2 percent peryear in 1997-2006, metals by 1.8 percent, and bever-ages by 3.5 percent (19). Internal market conditions(demand, supply) of Sub-Saharan countries generallyhave no significant influence on world market prices.Therefore, their export earnings are influenced byworld commodity prices and shifts in foreign demand.Consequently, lower commodity prices will limitexport earnings, and thereby limit imports, which willultimately increase the region�s vulnerability withrespect to food security.

Any significant increase in the net external financialflows to these countries is unlikely. Average net flowsof money to the regions of North Africa, Sub-SaharanAfrica, and LAC declined during the last decade, whilethe flow to the Asian countries in this study grew lessthan 1 percent per year (19). External credit and assis-tance has contributed roughly 10 to 15 percent of thetotal annual value of imports of the countries duringthe last decade, although there is a wide variationamong countries. For countries such as Mozambique,as much as 75 percent of imports were supported byexternal assistance in the last 5 years, while countrieswith political problems, such as Algeria, are faced witha net loss due to capital flight. For a number of coun-tries, the debt burden continues to dampen growthprospects and the risks of setbacks are considerable;


Table 5—Food import growth

Food import growth must accelerate to close nutritiongaps.*

GrowthRegions 1980-97 1998-2008 to fill

gap

Percent per year

North Africa 3.7 2.6 2.6

Sub-Saharan Africa 1.9 1.9 12.7

Asia 7.7 3.1 4.7

LAC 5.9 3.4 3.8

NIS NA 3.2 5.6

NA = not available.

* Given projected production growth.

therefore, financial conditions remain difficult.According to the World Bank, the ratio of debt toexports exceeded 200 percent in the low- and middle-income countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, LAC, andSouth Asia in 1995 (19).

To deal with the financial squeeze, many countrieshave responded by taking economic or political stepsto help provide a more financially stable future. Theseprograms emphasize currency devaluation, privatiza-tion, and reduction in market distortions. They arealso expected to promote export performance, but it isnot clear how much these policies will influence theamount of foreign capital these countries receive. Theannual growth of earnings from exports (which isdeflated by 2.5 percent, the World Bank�s projectedinflation rate in the countries designated by theOrganization of Economic Cooperation andDevelopment) is projected to be highest in the Asiancountries, at 6 percent, and the lowest in Sub-SaharanAfrica, at 1.5 percent (19).

Reducing Population Growth

High population growth rates are the principal factorsstimulating food demand. The United Nations projectsa declining trend in population growth, but at variedrates across regions. The highest rate of decline is pro-jected for North Africa, where during 1980-97, popula-

tion growth was 2.4 percent and is projected to slow to1.7 percent by 2008 (fig. 7). The smallest decline isexpected in Sub-Saharan Africa where the growth of 3percent per year during 1980-97 is projected to declineto 2.7 percent during 1998-2008. If populationgrowth in this region were to decline to 2.3 percent,the projected growth in domestic food productionwould be adequate to eliminate the nutrition gap.

Sub-Saharan Africa�s population more than doubled toan estimated 527 million between 1960 and 1990, andby the year 2008 it will approach 800 million. Thereis little doubt that prolonged rapid population growth,in the absence of subsequent increases in agriculturalinvestment and sustainable cultivation methods, causesbleak prospects for most countries in Sub-SaharanAfrica. The decision to reduce family size, however,will not happen automatically. A large number of fac-tors such as agrarian structure, stagnant rural incomes,and religious and cultural beliefs are believed to beimportant determinants of a family�s demand for chil-dren in the region (8,10). With the exception of suc-cessful family planning initiatives in Botswana, Kenya,and Zimbabwe, there is no indication of a sustaineddecline in Sub-Saharan Africa�s population growthrate. The present age composition will also lead tocontinued high population growth. Between 35 and 50percent of the region�s population is 15 years old oryounger. With such a large percentage of the region�s


Asia

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.51.0

Figure 7

Population growth ratesPopulation growth rates are projected to slow.

North Africa

SSA

LAC

NIS

Percent per year

3.0

Historical

Projectedby 2008

inhabitants about to enter their reproductive years,population growth likely will remain high even if aver-age fertility rates decline.

The extensive food production systems common inSub-Saharan countries create a strong incentive forlarge families, because the ability to increase cultivatedarea increases with family size. Family size is evenmore important because most of the food-productionwork is done by women and children. Until the timethat an additional child becomes more expensive thanthe income and labor that the child contributes, house-holds will have few incentives to restrict family size.Therefore, to reduce population growth, governmentsneed to curb incentives for large families by promotingtechnology as a means of raising agricultural produc-tivity. This would be achieved through investments in

market infrastructure as well as research and extension.If new agricultural technologies are not adopted, laborwill remain the principal input in production, and largefamilies will be the norm. Such a scenario would con-tinue the trend of little or no growth in per capita foodsupplies, stagnant or deteriorating caloric intake, anddeclining nutritional status (2).

In many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, population pres-sure has forced people in traditional agriculture towork harder without being able to maintain theirincomes or their standard of living�measured in termsof food consumption and production. Ill health causedby malnutrition, unexpected illness, disease, and acci-dents hinders a country�s development potential andtraps it in a cycle of rapid population growth, fallingper capita food production, and insufficient health care.


Uneven distribution of the world�s resources meansthat the poor, low-resource countries are vulnerable tofood insecurity. Per capita food consumption is pro-jected to decline in 47 of the 66 study countries in thenext decade, and 39 countries are projected to beunable to meet their minimum nutritional require-ments. Sub-Saharan Africa is identified as the mostfood-insecure region, and the situation is projected todeteriorate further during the next decade. Theregion�s per capita consumption is projected to decline0.5 percent per year through the next decade. The NISregion is projected to achieve the largest gains in percapita consumption�roughly 1 percent per year. Theregional overview, however, masks the food problemsfaced by individual countries. For example, countriessuch as Afghanistan in Asia, Haiti in LAC, andTajikistan in the NIS region are also considered vulner-able to food insecurity, despite their regions� more pos-itive outlook, because their food consumption through2008 is projected to be less than 80 percent of theirnutritional requirement.

The main factors influencing the food security positionof the countries are domestic food production, foreignexchange availability, population growth, and distribu-tion of income. Among these factors, domestic foodproduction is the most crucial. Domestic productioncontributes to more than 90 percent of consumption inthe most food-insecure countries. In North Africa,LAC, and the NIS, domestic production contributed50-60 percent of consumption. Domestic production,in addition to its direct impact on consumption, has astrong link to population growth. Improvements intechnology reduce the traditional reliance on humanlabor and therefore the desirability of large families.

Sub-Saharan Africa, the most food-insecure region, iscaught in a web of interlocking problems. Findingsolutions amid continuing crises is the challenge facingpolicymakers. Based on the current trend, agriculturalgrowth lags behind population growth, thereby widen-ing food gaps and putting pressure on purchasingpower. Commercial food imports, used to fill foodgaps, divert limited foreign exchange availability fromdomestic investment. The countries remain unsuccess-ful in adopting new technologies to raise food cropyields and increase productivity, leaving people relianton large families as the principal input in production.This will lead to little or no growth in per capita food

supplies, stagnant or deteriorating caloric intake, anddeclining nutritional status. In addition, African coun-tries face unfavorable terms of trade because of declin-ing prices for their exports, and civil strife and politicalinstability have continued even into the post-cold warperiod.

During 1980-97, Sub-Saharan Africa�s imports weresupported by external assistance�food aid providedadditional support to reduce the financial burden offood imports. With the decline in external assistance, alarger share of foreign exchange availability must beallocated to food imports. Any increase in spending onfood imports, however, will crowd out spending onessential raw materials and spare parts, raising concernover the region�s long-term economic health. Mostcountries depend on imports of energy and capital tocomplement domestic production. In the long run,import capacity of the countries will depend mainly onthe performance of their export sectors. Annualgrowth in Sub-Saharan Africa�s export earnings wasless than 1 percent during 1980-95, and agriculturalexports accounted for 20 to 40 percent of the region�stotal export earnings. Although prices for these com-modities are projected to decline in the next decade, anincrease in the volume of exports can have a positiveeffect on the trend.

To improve food security, it is essential to promotepolicies that accelerate agricultural growth, particularlyin Sub-Saharan Africa. Foreign exchange availabilityis limited, which limits imports. Increases in produc-tion would translate into a gradual increase in foodsupplies, a decline in population growth, and anincrease in export earnings to support food imports. Asignificant improvement in agricultural performance,however, requires innovative technologies to increaseproductivity of both land and labor. Reports indicatethat such technologies are available throughout theregion, but only experimentally and on a small scale(2). Kenya and Zimbabwe adopted high-yielding cornvarieties and significantly increased yields in theregion during the last two decades. Improved produc-tion practices such as mixed cropping, which is cur-rently used extensively, can be used to further increaseyields. Therefore, to close food gaps, regions mustdisseminate these technologies to prevent further foodinsecurity and perhaps stimulate domestic production.


Conclusion

1. Brown, M., and I. Goldin. The Future ofAgriculture: Developing Country Implications.Development Center of the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development, Paris, France, 1992.

2. Cleaver, K., and G. Schreiber. Reversing the Spiral:The Population, Agricultural, and Environment Nexusin Sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank, WashingtonDC, 1994.

3. Crosson, P., and J. Anderson. Resources and GlobalFood Prospects: Supply and Demand for Cereals.World Bank Technical Paper No. 184, Washington DC,1992.

4. Gray, D., and B. Larson. �Environmental Problemsand Resource Constraints.� International Agriculturaland Trade Reports, Africa and Middle East Situationand Outlook Series. United States Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Service, WRS-94-3,1994.

5. Harold, C., B. Larson, and L. Scott. �FertilizerConsumption Remains Low.� InternationalAgricultural and Trade Reports, Africa and MiddleEast Situation and Outlook Series. United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Economic ResearchService, WRS-94-3, 1994.

6. Ingram, K. and G. Frisvold. �Productivity inAfrican Agriculture: Sources of Growth andStagnation.� International Agricultural and TradeReports, Africa and Middle East Situation and OutlookSeries. United States Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service, WRS-94-3, 1994.

7. Lewis, J., and contributors. Strengthening the Poor:What have We Learned? Overseas DevelopmentCouncil, U.S.-Third World Policy Perspectives, No.10, Washington DC, 1988.

8. Missiaen, M., S. Shapouri, and R. Trostle. Food AidNeeds and Availabilities: Projections for 2005. GFA-6,United States Department of Agriculture, EconomicResearch Service, 1995.

9. Seckler, D., D. Gollin, and P. Antoine. AgriculturalPotential of �Mid-Africa�: A Technological

Assessment. Agricultural Technology in Sub-SaharanAfrica. World Bank Discussion Papers 126,Washington DC, 1991.

10. Shapouri, S. and L. Scott. �Population and theAgricultural Sector.� International Agricultural andTrade Reports, Africa and Middle East Situation andOutlook Series. United States Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Service, WRS-94-3,1994.

11. Shapouri, S., and S. Rosen (Coordinator).International Agricultural and Trade Reports, FoodSecurity Assessment, Situation and Outlook Series.United States Department of Agriculture, EconomicResearch Service, GFA-9, 1997.

12. United Nations, Food and AgricultureOrganization. Agriculture: Towards 2010, Rome,1993.

13. United Nations, Food and AgricultureOrganization. Electronic database, Rome, 1998.

14. United Nations, Food and AgricultureOrganization. The State of Food and Agriculture,Rome, 1998.

15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, EconomicResearch Service. PS&D database, various years.

16. Wiebe, Keith D., Meredith J. Soule, and David E.Schimmelpfennig. �Agricultural Productivity andFood Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.� InternationalAgricultural and Trade Reports, Food SecurityAssessment, Situation and Outlook Series. UnitedStates Department of Agriculture, Economic ResearchService, GFA-9, 1998.

17. World Bank. Global Economic Prospects and theDeveloping Countries. Washington DC, variousissues.

18. World Bank. Electronic database. Washington DC,1997.

19. World Bank. Taking Action to Reduce Poverty inSub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC, 1997.


References

Projections of Food Availability� The simulationframework used for projecting aggregate food avail-ability is based on partial equilibrium recursive modelsof 66 lower income countries. The country models aresynthetic, meaning that the parameters that are usedare either cross country estimates or are estimated byother studies. Each country model includes three com-modity groups, grains, root crops, and �other.� Theproduction side of the model is divided into yield andarea response. Crop area is a function of 1-year lagreturn (real price times yield), while yield responds toinput use. The projections of consumption for the�other� commodities is simply based on a trend thatfollows the projected growth in supply of the foodcrops (grains plus root crops). Although this is a verysimplistic approach, it represents an improvement fromthe previous assessments where the contribution to thediet of commodities such as meat and dairy productswas overlooked. The plan is to enhance this aspect ofthe model in the future.

Commercial imports are assumed to be a function ofdomestic price, world commodity price, and foreignexchange availability. Foreign exchange availability isa key determinant of commercial food imports and isthe sum of the value of export earnings and net flow ofcredit. Foreign exchange availability is assumed to beequal to foreign exchange use, meaning that foreignexchange reserve is assumed constant during the pro-jection period. Countries are assumed to be price tak-ers in the international market, meaning that worldprices are exogenous in the model. However, producerprices are linked to the international market.

For each commodity group (c), food consumption (FC)is defined as domestic supply (DS) minus nonfood use(NF). n is country index and t is time index.

FC cnt = DS cnt - NF cnt (1)

Nonfood use is the sum of seed use (SD), feed use(FD), exports (EX), and other uses (OU).

NF cnt = SD cnt + FD cnt + EX cnt + OU cnt (2)

Domestic supply of a commodity group is the sum ofdomestic production (PR) plus commercial imports(CI), food aid (FA), and changes in stocks (CSTK).

DS cnt = PRcnt + CIcnt + FA cnt+ CSTK cnt (3)

Production is generally determined by the area andyield response functions:

PRcnt =ARcnt * YLcnt (4)

YL cnt = f ( LBcnt ,FR cnt , K cnt ,Tcnt ) (5)

RPYcnt =YL cnt * DPcnt (6)

RNPYcnt =NYL cnt * NDPcnt (7)

ARcnt = f ( ARcnt-1, RPY cnt-1,

RNPY cnt-1, Zcnt) (8)

where AR is area, YL is yield, LB is rural labor, FR isfertilizer use, K is indicator of capital use,T is the indi-cator of technology change, DP is real domestic price,RPY is yield times real price, NDP is real domesticsubstitute price, NYL is yield of substitute commodity,RNPY is yield of substitute commodity times substi-tute price, and Z is exogenous policies.

The commercial import demand function is defined as:

CI cnt = f (WPRct , NWPRct , FEXnt,

DRcnt, Mnt) (9)

where WPR is real world food price, NWPR is realworld price of nonfood items, FEX is real foreignexchange availability, DR is real domestic price, andM is import restriction policies.

The real domestic price is defined as:

DPcnt = f (DPcnt-1, DS cnt, NDScnt,

GDnt, EXRnt) (10)

where NDS is supply of substitute commodity, GD isreal income, and EXR is real exchange rate.


Appendix 1

Structural Framework for Projecting Food Consumption

in the Aggregate and by Income Group

Projections of Food Consumption byIncome Group- Inadequate economic access is themost important cause of chronic undernutrition amongdeveloping countries and is related to the level ofincome. Estimates of food gaps at the aggregate ornational level fail to take into account the distributionof food consumption among different income groups.Lack of consumption distribution data for the countriesis the key factor preventing estimation of food con-sumption by income group. An attempt was made tofill this information gap by using an indirect method ofprojecting calorie consumption by different incomegroups based on income distribution data.1 The proce-dure uses the concept of the income/consumption rela-tionship and allocates the total projected amount ofavailable food among different income groups in eachcountry.

Assuming a declining consumption and income rela-tionship (semi-log functional form):

C = a + b ln Y (11)

C = Co/P (12)

P = P1 +........+ Pi (13)

Y = Yo/P (14)

I = 1 to 5 (15)

where C and Y are known average per capita food con-sumption (calorie consumption) and per capita income(all quintiles), Co is total food consumption, P is thetotal population, I is income quintile, a is the intercept,b is the consumption income propensity, and b/C isconsumption income elasticity (point estimate elastici-ty is calculated for individual country). To estimateper capita consumption by income group, the parame-ter of b is estimated based on cross country (66 low-income countries) data for per capita calorie consump-tion and income. The parameter a is estimated for eachcountry based on the known data for average per capitacalorie consumption and per capita income. In thenext step, point consumption/income elasticities areestimated for each country using base level countryincome and consumption data. These elasticities arethen used to estimate calorie consumption by differentincome groups in each country. The estimated distri-bution gap measures the food needed to bring foodconsumption of each income group up to the nutrition-al requirements. To estimate the number of peoplevulnerable to food insecurity, the portion of populationthat consumes less than the requirement is multipliedby the total population to estimate the number of peo-ple who have inadequate access to food. Countryincome distribution is assumed constant during theprojection period. For countries where income distribu-tion data are not available (mainly in Sub-SaharanAfrica), average sub-regional income distribution dataare used.


1 The method is similar to the method used by Shlomo Reutlinger

and Marcelo Selowsky in �Malnutrition and Poverty,� World Bank,

1978.

Historical Data

Historical supply and use data for 1980-97 for mostvariables are from a USDA database. Data for grainproduction in 1997 for most countries are based on aUSDA database as of October 1997. Food aid data arefrom the UN�s Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), and financial data are from the InternationalMonetary Fund and World Bank. Historical nonfood-use data, including seed, waste, processing use, andother use, are estimated from the FAO Food Balanceseries. The base year data used for projections are theaverage for 1995-97, except export earnings, which are1994-96.

Model Assumptions

Endogenous variables: Production, area, yield, com-mercial import, and domestic producer price.

Exogenous variables:

Population�data are UN population projections.

World prices�data are USDA/baseline projections.

Stocks�assumed constant during the projection peri-od.

Seed use�projections are based on area projectionsusing constant base seed/area ratio.

Industrial use�projections are based on extrapolationof historical trends.

Food exports�projections are either based on the pop-ulation growth rate or extrapolation of historicaltrends.

Inputs�Fertilizer and capital projections are, in gener-al, an extrapolation of historical growth.

Agricultural labor�projections are based on UN popu-lation projections, accounting for urbanization growth.

Food aid�assumed no food aid during the projectionperiod (food aid is included only in the base year).

Net foreign credit�net real flow of foreign credit isassumed constant during the projection period.

Value of exports�projections are based on WorldBank (Global Economic Prospects and the DevelopingCountries, various issues), IMF (World EconomicOutlook, various issues), or an extrapolation of histori-cal growth.

Export deflator or terms of trade�World Bank(Commodity Markets�Projection of Inflation Indicesfor Developed Countries).

Income�projected based on World Bank report(Global Economic Prospects and the DevelopingCountries, various issues) or extrapolation of historicalgrowth.

Income distribution�World Bank data. Income distri-butions are assumed constant during the projectionperiod.

Model Coefficients and Assumptions

Technical coefficients used in the model are either esti-mated, using cross country data, or synthesized fromother sources. With the exception of countries withpolitical problems, the model was validated using thehistorical data (1980-96). Growth in crop area andyield per hectare are functions of crop prices, fertilizeruse, labor, and technological progress. Area responseto price changes is small, in the range of 0.1 to 0.3.Similarly, yield response to fertilizer use is 0.1 to 0.2and the labor/land ratio (as an indicator of intensifica-tion) is in the range of 0.2 to 0.3. The main determi-nant of commercial import growth is the availability offoreign exchange which is defined as the sum ofexports and net flow of capital. World food prices,non-food prices, and expected domestic production(indicator of government import policy) also influencefood imports. The food import response to foreignexchange availability is in the range of 0.6 to 0.8 andthe response to food prices is in the range of 0.3 to 0.5.The response to non-food price changes is in the rangeof 0.1 to 0.2.


Appendix II

Data Sources and Assumptions

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities onthe basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities whorequire alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)should contact USDA�s Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, WhittenBuilding, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voiceor TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

It�s Easy To Order Another Copy!

Just dial 1-800-999-6779. Toll free in the United States andCanada.

Ask for Food Security Assessment: Why Countries Are At Risk (AIB-754).

Charge to your VISA or MasterCard.

For additional information about ERS publications, databases, and otherproducts, both paper and electronic, visit the ERS Home Page on theInternet at http://www.econ.ag.gov/

National Agricultural Library Cataloging Record:

Shapouri, ShahlaFood security assessment: why countries are at risk.(Agriculture information bulletin; no. 754)1. Food supply--Developing countries�Forecasting. 2. Agricultural

productivity--Developing countries�Forecasting. 3. Incomedistribution�Developing countries�Forecasting. 4. Population�Developingcountries--Forecasting. 5. Food consumption�Developingcountries--Forecasting. 6. Nutrition--Developing countries�Requirements--Forecasting.

I. Rosen, Stacey L. II. Title. HD9018.D44

The cover photograph of a field of millet in Niger was taken by P. Cenini of the UN Food andAgriculture Organization.

food security assessment: why countries are at risk

Documents