Professor Sheryl Hendriks, during South Africa’s Commodity & Corporate Chamber Conference presented on “Improving Food Security, Food Safety and Research” at the end of April for the Global Food Security Index and Inplications for South Africa
2. Background and purpose of the
presentation
• The Agricultural sector presented a 5-year plan
to the Presidency late last year.
• It will form part of the MTSF.
• One of the proposals was to identify the
hindrances in die DuPont Food Security Index
that we can improve to increase our current
ranking of #45 in the world to #35 by 2024.
• Analyse all the different aspects of the GFSI
• Make a few proposals to improve our ranking
as a country.
3. What is the Global
Food Security Index?
• Developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit and sponsored by
Corteva Agriscience, the Agriculture Division of DowDuPont
• Considers three core pillars of food across 113 countries
• A dynamic quantitative and qualitative benchmarking model
• Constructed from 28 unique indicators
• Measures these drivers of food security
• Now includes an adjustment factor on natural resources and
resilience.
• Assesses a country’s exposure to the impacts of a changing climate;
• Its susceptibility to natural resource risks; and
• How the country is adapting to these risks.
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
4. Includes 3 core issues and an
adjustment factor for natural
resources and resilience
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
5. What data is the index based on?
• Data for the quantitative indicators are drawn from national and
international statistical sources.
• Where there were missing values in quantitative or survey data,
the EIU has used estimates.
• Estimated figures have been noted in the model workbook.
• Of the qualitative indicators, some have been created by the
EIU, based on information from development banks and
government websites, while others have been drawn from a
range of surveys and data sources and adjusted by the EIU.
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
6. Weightings
• The weighting assigned to each category and indicator can be
changed by users to reflect different assumptions about their
relative importance.
• Two sets of weightings are provided in the index.
• One, known as neutral weights, assumes that all indicators are equally
important and distributes weightings evenly.
• The second option (default in the model), known as peer panel
recommendation, averages the weightings suggested by five members of
the 2012 expert panel.
Category weights Nominal Weight Weight (%)
1) AFFORDABILITY 2,5 40,0%
2) AVAILABILITY 2,75 44,0%
3) QUALITY AND SAFETY 1 16,0%
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
7. Normalisation
• Indicator scores are normalised and then aggregated across categories to
enable a comparison of broader concepts across countries.
• Normalisation rebases the raw indicator data to a common unit so that it
can be aggregated. The indicators for which a higher value indicates a
more favourable environment for food security— such as GDP per head or
average food supply— have been normalised on the basis of:
x = (x - Min(x)) / (Max(x) - Min(x))
where Min(x) and Max(x) are, respectively, the lowest and highest values in the 113
economies for any given indicator.
• The normalised value is then transformed from a 0-1 value to a 0-100
score to make it directly comparable with other indicators.
• This in effect means that the country with the highest raw data value will
score 100, while the lowest will score 0.
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
8. Normalisation cont…
• For the indicators for which a high value indicates an
unfavourable environment for food security—such as volatility of
agricultural production or political stability risk—the
normalisation function takes the form of:
x = (x - Max(x)) / (Max(x) - Min(x))
where Min(x) and Max(x) are, respectively, the lowest and highest values
in the 113 economies for any given indicator.
• The normalised value is then transformed into a positive
number on a scale of 0-100 to make it directly comparable with
other indicators.
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
9. Natural Resources & Resilience:
adjustment factor
• Adjusted overall score = X * (1 - Z) + (X * (Y / 100) * Z)
where X is the original overall score, Y is the Natural Resource &
Resilience score, and Z is the adjustment factor weighting (where 0 = 0%
adjustment, 0.5 = 50% adjustment and 1 = 100% adjustment).
• The default setting for the adjustment factor weighting is 0.25 =
25%.
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
15. The good and the bad
VERY GOOD (TOP QUARTILE) VERY GOOD (TOP
QUARTILE)
MODERATE (2ND QUARTILE)
1.5) Presence of food safety net programmes 100,0 3.5) Food safety 89,3
3.2) Nutritional standards 100,0 2.4) Volatility of agricultural production 86,9
1.4) Agricultural import tariffs 86,2 1.2) Proportion of population under global poverty line 73,8
2.2) Public expenditure on agricultural R&D 62,5 3.1) Diet diversification 48,3
2.6) Corruption 50,0 3.4) Protein quality 44,4
3.3) Micronutrient availability 38,0
GOOD (3RD QUARTILE) WEAK (BOTTOM QUARTILE)
2.8) Food loss 90,1 2.7) Urban absorption capacity 68.3
1.6) Access to financing for farmers 75,0
1.1) Food consumption as a share of household
expenditure 73,8
2.3) Agricultural infrastructure 70,4
2.1) Sufficiency of supply 60,5
2.5) Political stability risk 58,8
1.3) Gross domestic product per capita (US$ PPP) 10,0
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
16. Worst and best performance
Gross domestic product per capita (US$ PPP) 10
Micronutrient availability 38
Protein quality 44,4
Corruption 50
Diet diversification 48,3
Sufficiency of supply 60,5
Political stability risk 58,8
Public expenditure on agricultural R&D 62,5
Urban absorption capacity 68.3
Agricultural infrastructure 70,4
Access to financing for farmers 75
Proportion of population under global poverty line 73,8
Food consumption as a share of household expenditure 73,8
Agricultural import tariffs 86,2
Food loss 90,1
Food safety 89,3
Volatility of agricultural production 86,9
Presence of food safety net programmes 100
Nutritional standards 100
Source:TheEconomistIntelligenceUnit,2018
17. Datapoints
2005 ‐
2007 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1.1) Food consumption as a share of household
expenditure 2014
1.2) Proportion of population under global
poverty line 2014
1.3) Gross domestic product per capita (US$
PPP) 2017
1.4) Agricultural import tariffs 2016
1.5) Presence of food safety net programmes 2018
1.6) Access to financing for farmers 2013, 2016
2.1.1) Average food supply 2013
2.1.2) Dependency on chronic food aid 2011‐2016
2.2) Public expenditure on agricultural R&D 2014
2.3.1) Existence of adequate crop storage
facilities 2018
2.3.2) Road infrastructure 2018
2.3.3) Port infrastructure 2018
2.4) Volatility of agricultural production 1996‐2015
2.5) Political stability risk 2018
2.6) Corruption 2018
2.7) Urban absorption capacity 2014‐2018
2.8) Food loss 2013
3.1) Diet diversification 2011‐13
3.2.1) National dietary guidelines 2018
3.2.2) National nutrition plan or strategy 2018
3.2.3) Nutrition monitoring and surveillance 2016
3.3.1) Dietary availability of vitamin A 2005‐07
3.3.2) Dietary availability of animal iron 2005‐07
3.3.3) Dietary availability of vegetal iron 2005‐07
3.4) Protein quality 2005‐2007; 2011‐2013
3.5.1) Agency to ensure the safety and health of
food 2018
3.5.2) Percentage of population with access to
potable water 2015
3.5.3) Presence of formal grocery sector 2017 Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
19. Affordability -0,2
Indicator Measure Source
1.1) Food consumption as a share of household
expenditure % of total household expenditure UN
1.2) Proportion of population under global poverty line % of population living under $3.20/day 2011 PPP World Bank
1.3) Gross domestic product per capita (US$ PPP) US$ at PPP / capita EIU
1.4) Agricultural import tariffs % WTO
1.5) Presence of food safety net programmes Qualitative assessment (0-4) EIU qualitative score
1.6) Access to financing for farmers Qualitative assessment (0-4) EIU qualitative score
VERY GOOD GOOD MODERATE WEAK
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
21. Availability +0,9
Indicator Measure Source
2.1) Sufficiency of supply
2.1.1) Average food supply kcal/capita/day FAO
2.1.2) Dependency on chronic food aid Qualitative assessment (0-2) EIU estimate based on OECD
2.2) Public expenditure on agricultural R&D Rating 1-9 ASTI
2.3) Agricultural infrastructure
2.3.1) Existence of adequate crop storage facilities Qualitative assessment (0-1) EIU qualitative score
2.3.2) Road infrastructure Qualitative assessment (0-4) EIU
2.3.3) Port infrastructure Qualitative assessment (0-4) EIU
2.4) Volatility of agricultural production standard deviations FAO
2.5) Political stability risk Rating 0-100; 100=highest risk EIU
2.6) Corruption Rating 0-4; 4=highest risk EIU
2.7) Urban absorption capacity
GDP (% of real change) minus the urban
growth rate EIU/World Bank
2.8) Food loss
Total waste/total domestic supply quantity
(tonnes) FAO
VERY GOOD GOOD MODERATE WEAK
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
23. Quality and safety -0,1
Indicator Measure Source
3.1) Diet diversification % FAO
3.2) Nutritional standards
3.2.1) National dietary guidelines Qualitative assessment (0-1) EIU qualitative score
3.2.2) National nutrition plan or strategy Qualitative assessment (0-1) EIU qualitative score
3.2.3) Nutrition monitoring and surveillance Qualitative assessment (0-1) EIU qualitative score
3.3) Micronutrient availability
3.3.1) Dietary availability of vitamin A Qualitative assessment (0-2) FAO
3.3.2) Dietary availability of animal iron mg/person/day FAO
3.3.3) Dietary availability of vegetal iron mg/person/day FAO
VERY GOOD GOOD MODERATE WEAK
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
24. Quality and safety -0,1
Indicator Measure Source
3.4) Protein quality Grams FAO
3.5) Food safety
3.5.1) Agency to ensure the safety and health of food Qualitative assessment (0-1) EIU qualitative score
3.5.2) Percentage of population with access to potable water
% of population using at least basic drinking
water services World Bank
3.5.3) Presence of formal grocery sector Qualitative assessment (0-2) EIU qualitative score
VERY GOOD GOOD MODERATE WEAK
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
25. Natural resources and resilience
adjustment
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
27. Natural Resources and ResilienceVERY GOOD GOOD MODERATE WEAK
Category Score Rank
Average score
(all countries)
4.1) Exposure 63,1 65 63,3
4.1.1) Temperature rise 87,5 30 70,4
4.1.2) Drought 61,3 68 64,9
4.1.3) Flooding 46,8 29 39,5
4.1.4) Storm severity (AAL) 60,2 54 56,4
4.1.5) Sea level rise 99,8 9 95,1
4.1.6) Commitment to managing exposure 0 101 39,5
4.2) Water 44,3 80 55
4.2.1) Agricultural water risk—quantity 39,9 86 53,2
4.2.2) Agricultural water risk—quality 61,7 63 62
4.3) Land 85,6 39 82,9
4.3.1) Soil erosion/organic matter 89 50 86,2
4.3.2) Grassland 99,9 65 97,6
4.3.3) Forest change 61 55 58,6
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
28. Natural Resources and ResilienceVERY GOOD GOOD MODERATE WEAK
Category Score Rank
Average score
(all countries)
4.4) Oceans 21,1 104 59,7
4.4.1) Eutrophication and hypoxia 0 100 75,2
4.4.2) Marine biodiversity 41,2 63 53
4.4.3) Marine protected areas 24,3 45 33,7
4.5) Sensitivity 74,2 10 54
4.5.1) Food import dependency 20,5 66 24,7
4.5.2) Dependence on natural capital 90,5 81 88,8
4.5.3) Disaster risk management 100 1 57,6
4.6) Adaptive capacity 50 55 58,1
4.6.1) Early warning measures/climate smart ag 0 66 46
4.6.2) National agricultural risk management system 100 1 70,2
4.7) Demographic stresses 61,9 54 58,4
4.7.1) Population growth (2016-21) 61,5 53 57,8
4.7.2) Urbanisation (2016-21) 63,1 59 60,2
Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018
29. What can we change?
Gross domestic product per capita (US$ PPP) 10
Micronutrient availability 38 Update data
Protein quality 44,4 Update data
Corruption 50
Diet diversification 48,3 Update data
Sufficiency of supply 60,5 Update data
Political stability risk 58,8
Public expenditure on agricultural R&D 62,5
Urban absorption capacity 68.3
Agricultural infrastructure 70,4
Access to financing for farmers 75
Proportion of population under global poverty line 73,8
Food consumption as a share of household expenditure 73,8
Agricultural import tariffs 86,2
Food loss 90,1 Update data
Food safety 89,3
Volatility of agricultural production 86,9
Presence of food safety net programmes 100
Nutritional standards 100
30. Recommendation #1
Be smart with data!
• Simply update the data
• Release national data
into the public domain
and UN system
• Partner to fill the gaps
• Update methodologies
31. Recommendations - focus
Gross domestic product per capita (US$ PPP) 10
Micronutrient availability 38
Protein quality 44,4
Diet diversification 48,3
Sufficiency of supply 60,5
Political stability risk 58,8
Urban absorption capacity 68.3
Access to financing for farmers 75
Food consumption as a share of household expenditure 73,8
Food loss 90,1
33. #2 Get GDP growth on track
• Gross domestic product per capita (US$ PPP)
• Political stability risk
Long‐term GoalsShort‐term Goals
34. #3 Urban absorption
capacity
• GDP (% of real change) minus the
urban growth rate
• Population growth
• Migration
• Unemployment
• Shift in rural-urban dynamics
• Consumption shifts
36. #4 Finance for farmers
• Access to financing for farmers
• Political stability risk
• Innovation needed in
products and services across
the entire food system and
across the spectrum
• Incentives for diversification
• Incentives for driving
nutritional change
39. #6 Improve food supply,
availability and diet quality
Indicators:
• Sufficiency of supply
• Average food supply
• Dependency on chronic food aid
• Food consumption as a share
of household expenditure
• Diet diversification
• Protein quality
• Micronutrient availability
In 2016:
• 28% of urban and 32% of rural households
were at risk of hunger
• 26% of urban and 36% of rural households
were experiencing hunger
• 32.2% of children are short for their age
• 3.3% of children are underweight for height
• 6.7% of children are underweight for age
(SANHaNES, 2016)
40. Lessons learnt - Africa
How did 7 countries in Africa achieve this
between 2000 and 2016?
Multi-sectoral approach and coordination
High level coordination
Nutrition a policy priority
Private sector involvement
Focus on children
‘Localize’ ownership
41. #7 Implement what we have
committed to (especially evidence-based
policy planning)
• SDGs
• Africa’s Agenda 2063
• WHO Assembly Nutrition Targets (2011)
• Malabo Declaration and Commitments (2014)
• National Food and Nutrition Security Strategy (2014)
• National Council for Food Security and Nutrition
• National Food and Nutrition Security Plan (drafted 2016)
42. In summary – proposals to
improve the GFSI for SA:
#7 Implement what we have committed to
#1 Be smart with data
#2 Get GDP growth on track
#3 Urban absorption capacity
#4 Finance for farmers
#5 Reduce food losses and waste
#6 Improve food supply, availability and diet quality
#8 Sustainability and resilience
