經濟學人信息社：2022年全球糧食安全指數經濟影響（英文版）（48頁）.pdf

《經濟學人信息社：2022年全球糧食安全指數經濟影響（英文版）（48頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《經濟學人信息社：2022年全球糧食安全指數經濟影響（英文版）（48頁）.pdf（48頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、Supported bySupported byGlobal FoodSecurity Index 2022 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 20221Contents2Preface3Executive summary6Chapter 1 Driven by long-term systemic issues,weakness in the global food security environment continues10Chapter 2 Shocks are more frequent and extensive

2、,further weakening an already-fragile global food system17Chapter 3 Efforts to build food system resilience must be multidimensional and multilateral25Conclusion27Appendix I-GFSI 2022 results29Appendix II-Methodology The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 20222PrefaceThe Global Food Secu

3、rity Index(GFSI)is the pre-eminent source of intelligence on the drivers of global food security.Developed by Economist Impact and supported by Corteva Agriscience,it evaluates food security in 113 countries across four key pillars:affordability,availability,quality and safety,and sustainability and

4、 adaptation.The index is based on a dynamic benchmarking model constructed from 68 qualitative and quantitative drivers of food security.This report is a compilation of 11 years of research conducted by Economist Impact between 2012 and 2022.Economist Impact combines the rigour of a think-tank with

5、the creativity of a media brand to engage a globally influential audience.We believe that evidence-based insights can open debate,broaden perspectives and catalyse progress.The services offered by Economist Impact previously existed within The Economist Group as separate entities,including EIU Thoug

6、ht Leadership,EIU Public Policy,EIU Health Policy,Economist Events,EBrandConnect and SignalNoise.Along with framework design,benchmarking,economic and social impact analysis,forecasting,and scenario modelling,we bring creative storytelling,events expertise,design-thinking solutions and market-leadin

7、g media products,making Economist Impact uniquely positioned to deliver measurable outcomes.Economist Impact bears sole responsibility for the content of this report.The findings and views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the partners,experts or sponsors.The 113 countries included i

8、n the GFSI cover five regionsAsia Pacific,Europe,Latin America,the Middle East and Africa,and North America.The GFSI 2022 model and the global research report are available online at http:/ visit the website for more information on the global rankings,key findings and 2022 methodology.The project ma

9、nagement team(Kathleen Harrington,Sardar Karim,Apurva Kothari,Eve Labalme,Bhagya Raj Rathod,Aayushi Sharma and Pratima Singh)would like to extend our thanks to the experts,researchers,writer(Marianne Bray),editor(Paul Tucker)and graphic designer(Michael Kenny)who lent their expertise to this project

10、.The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 20223Executive summaryAt a time when global food security is of utmost importance,the Global Food Security Index(GFSI)shows that the global food environment is deteriorating.After hitting its peak in 2019,the GFSI has since declined amid skyrocketi

11、ng food prices and hunger on an unprecedented scale.Based on 11 years of data,the index highlights that the food system has been weakening over the years,with shocks in 2020-22,including the covid-19 pandemic and high commodity prices,showcasing this fragility.These shocks exacerbate the systemic is

12、sues that are threatening food security and weakening the resilience of the food system.The downward trend in food security is a reversal from the GFSIs early days,which saw eight years of strong growth before a slowdown began.This subsequent stalled progress reflects structural issues and significa

13、nt risks in the global food system,which include,but are not limited to,volatility in agricultural production,scarcity of natural resources,increasing economic inequality,and trade and supply-chain volatility.The economic and socio-political shocks of the past few years have only exacerbated an alre

14、ady-weakening food environment.As these shocks become more frequent and severe,global food security will be increasingly threatened.Overall food security environment:the top-and bottom-ranking countries in 2022Best performers2022 scoreWeakest performers2022 scoreFinland83.7Syria36.3Ireland81.7Haiti3

15、8.5Norway80.5Yemen40.1France80.2Sierra Leone40.5Netherlands80.1Madagascar40.6Japan79.5Burundi40.6Canada79.1Nigeria42Sweden79.1Venezuela42.6United Kingdom78.8Sudan42.8Portugal78.7Congo(Dem.Rep.)43 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 20224In GFSI 2022,affordability drags the index down.

16、The indexs affordability score has fallen by 4%,from 71.9 to 69,between 2019 and 2022 as shocks like the covid-19 pandemic and the war on Ukraine have led to rising costs for food.In addition,weakening trade freedom and an inability to fund safety nets have made it harder for people to afford food a

17、round the world.Meanwhile,social and political barriers to access have dampened the availability of food.In the past three years,the GFSI has shown rising risks from armed conflicts and political instability,indicators which have seen scores fall by 4%and 6%respectively.This has been accompanied by

18、a growing dependency on chronic food aid,the score for which has dropped by 8%since 2019.However,new metrics incorporated in this years GFSI model,including new metrics to gauge the inputs that farmers use on their farms and in the“first mile”(the segment that links farmers to the nearest market),sh

19、ow that agricultural inputs have seen some of the biggest increases in GFSI scores in the past few years(albeit,from a very low base,as these are some of the lowest-scoring indicators in the index).For example,scores measuring commitments to empowering female farmers and food security strategies hav

20、e increased by 19%and 13%respectively.In addition,despite a 10%fall in public expenditure on research and development since the indexs inception in 2012,there has been a strong reorientation towards innovation,with big improvements in access to agricultural technology,education and resources,and in

21、commitments to using innovative technology.The growth in the use of these inputs is crucial in improving agricultural productivity and enhancing food security(these measures have proven critical in staunching further declines in the GFSI in 2022).Also key in halting the indexs slide in 2022 are big

22、jumps in political commitments to agricultural adaptation and sustainability,especially related to financing.On average,scores for political commitments to adaptation increased by 10%from 2019 to 2022.In 2022 89 countries have a current climate strategy in place with specific measures for agricultur

23、e or food security,compared to just 74 countries in 2019.Improvements in political commitments to adaptation also include score increases in environmental economic accounting,risk management coordination and climate finance flows as central banks around the world push for green finance.There are als

24、o big jumps in scores for pest infestation and disease mitigation policies and a smaller jump in commitments to sustainable agriculture practices.In contrast,the GFSI also highlights how poorly nations fare in their soil organic content,which is important for growing high-nutrient foods,and in irrig

25、ation infrastructure,which is particularly important to have in place as the climate warms.Eight of the top ten performers in 2022 come from high-income Europe,led by Finland(with a score of 83.7),Ireland(scoring 81.7)and Norway(scoring 80.5).These nations score strongly on all four pillars of the G

26、FSI.Japan(scoring 79.5)and Canada(scoring 79.1)round out the remainder of the top ten.(See table on p.4)Between 2019 and 2022,the indexs affordability score has fallen by 4%,from 71.9 to 69,as shocks like the covid-19 pandemic,high input costs,and the war on Ukraine have led to rising costs for food

27、.The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 20225Consistent with previous years of the index,six of the bottom ten scoring nations in 2022 come from Sub-Saharan Africa.The Middle East and North Africa,along with Latin America,are home to the three worst performing nations.Syria sits at the b

28、ottom of the list(with a score of 36.3),followed by Haiti(scoring 38.5)and Yemen(scoring 40.1).The gap between the best performing country and the worst performer is starkSyria scores less than half the score of Finland.The difference between the top performer and the country at the bottom of the ra

29、nking has continued widening since 2019,reflecting the inequity in the global food system.Overall GFSI 2022 scores,by regionIn 2022,besides Sub-Saharan Africa,all regions performed above the global average,with North America leading the index.GlobalaverageNorth AmericaEuropeAsia PacificLatin America

30、Middle East and North AfricaSub-SaharanAfricaSource:Global Food Security Index 2022.62.278.674.863.463.463.047.0 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 20226The 2022 Global Food Security Index(GFSI)shows that the overall food security environment continues to deteriorate for the 113 nati

31、ons in the index.The early years of the GFSI(2012-15)saw the biggest improvements,with the average overall food security environment score jumping by 6%.However,the GFSI saw slower growth between 2015 and 2019 and then has weakened from 2019 to 2022,plateauing over the past three years as the world

32、faces its highest-ever food prices and hunger on an unprecedented scale.1 The GFSI score topped 62.6 out of a possible 100 in 2019 but currently stands at 62.2.In 2022 the index was dragged down by falls in two of its strongest pillarsaffordability,and food quality and safetyand saw continued weakne

33、ss in its other two pillarsavailability,and sustainability and adaptation.In this report,the theme of resilience will be examined as it plays into each of the four pillars of the GFSI:economic resilience(affordability),production and agricultural resilience(availability),nutritional resilience(quali

34、ty and safety),and environmental resilience(sustainability and adaptation).This report will examine this data to see what works best,especially when it comes to helping stakeholders to navigate an increasingly volatile world.1“2022 global report on food crises.”Global Network against Food Crises and

35、 Food Security Infor-mation Network.2022.https:/www.wfp.org/publications/global-report-food-crises-2022.2 Food costs refers to indicator 1.1,“Change in average food costs from the GFSI”.For more details and the complete framework,please refer to Appendix II.Affordability is a key component of food s

36、ecurity.Whenever safe and nutritious food is not available at a price affordable to all,it jeopardises peoples welfare.Affordability,the top-scoring pillar of the GFSI,dropped by 4%in 2019-22,from 71.9 to 69.0,dragged down by sharp rises in food costs,declining trade freedom and decreased funding fo

37、r food safety nets.2 Meanwhile,big falls in nutritional standards,particularly in national nutrition plans and monitoring,triggered a drop in scores,from 67.1 to 65.9,for the quality and safety pillar.Countries from all regions have dropped the ball on nutritional plans in 2022.Around one-third of c

38、ountries(35 out of 113)have no national nutrition plan or strategy in 2022,nearly double the number that lacked one in 2019.In addition,25 of 113 countries are not regularly monitoring the nutritional status of their population(compared with 15 in 2019).Without regular monitoring,policymakers cannot

39、 identify nutritional deficiencies and deploy resources where needed.Concurrently,the indexs remaining two pillarsavailability,and sustainability and adaptationremain weak.To boost availability,farmers need inputs like finance,but also community support,extension services and strong infrastructure,b

40、oth on the farm and in supply chains.In 2022 the score for the availability pillar is only 57.8,while Chapter 1 Driven by long-term systemic issues,weakness in the global food security environment continues The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 20227sustainability and adaptation trail b

41、ehind at 54.1.Farmers need political and social support to access markets and infrastructure,but the 2022 index shows that armed conflicts and political instability are being accompanied by a growing dependency on chronic food aid.Moreover,political upheaval and worsening climate change threaten to

42、pull these pillars down further.This weakening of the indexs overall food security score comes as the world is experiencing an unprecedented level of global shocks.3 These shocks are placing great pressure on food security with the UN World Food Programme(WFP)seeing the highest number of people in c

43、risis(or worse)since it started releasing its food crisis reports six years ago.4 5 Already,811m people face hunger,and in 2020 one in three global citizens did not have 3“How can we protect food systems against global shocks?Heres what business leaders say.”World Economic Forum.May 2022.https:/www.

44、weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/protect-food-systems-against-global-shocks/.4“2022 global report on food crises.”Global Network against Food Crises and Food Security Infor-mation Network.2022.https:/www.wfp.org/publications/global-report-food-crises-2022 5 The Integrated Food Security Phase Classificatio

45、n(IPC)and the Cadre Harmonis(CH)together make up the IPC/CH ranking.They gather data on food insecurity and malnutrition and the respons-es needed.The IPC/CH ranking has a five-phase categorisation,with crisis being phrase 3.If house-holds fall into this category,they either have food consumption ga

46、ps that are reflected by high or above-usual acute malnutrition,or they are marginally able to meet minimum food needs but only by depleting essential livelihood assets or through crisis-coping strategies.Under this phase,urgent ac-tion is required to protect livelihoods and reduce food consumption

47、gaps.Phase 4 and 5 are consid-ered worse than crisis mode,with phase 4 being emergency and phase 5 catastrophe or famine,re-quiring increasingly urgent actions to address.6“The world is at a critical juncture.”UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.2021.https:/www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutri-

48、tion#:text=Nearly%20one%20in%20three%20people%20in%20the%20world%20(2.37%20billion,people%20in%20just%20one%20year7“How can we protect food systems against global shocks?Heres what business leaders say.”World Economic Forum.May 2022.https:/www.weforum.org/agen-da/2022/05/protect-food-systems-against

49、-global-shocks/8“Why is the world facing a food crisis?”World Bank.June 2022.https:/www.worldbank.org/en/news/podcast/2022/06/10/world-food-crisis-security-hunger-sup-ply-chains-war-ukraine-development-podcast.access to adequate food.6 Experts say that shocks such as pandemics,conflict and extreme w

50、eather events due to climate change are going to become the new norm in a global food system of 600m food producers and 8bn consumers living in a degrading environment.7 8 Even before the impacts of these unpredictable,recent shocks were being felt,longer-term stresses were adversely affecting the g

51、lobal food system,both directly and indirectly.The most advanced countries were not immune to these structural risks in the global food system,which include volatility in agricultural production,scarcity of natural resources,and trade and supply-chain volatility.Looking ahead,most respondents to a r

52、ecent World Economic Forum survey on global risks ranked“climate action failure”as both the top GFSI average overall score,global 2012-22After climbing year on year between 2012 to 2018,the overall food security score has not improved since 2019.20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022Source:Glo

53、bal Food Security Index 2022.5658606264 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 20228long-term threat to the world and the risk that had the potential for the most severe impacts over the next decade,with a disorderly climate transition exacerbating inequalities.9To counter these stresses

54、 and shocks,and to ensure food security in the future,stakeholders will need to adopt a systemic approach and build resilience in the supply of food and in the environment upon which food is grown and distributed.Looking at the effects of covid-19 on the food supply system,the longer-term issues hig

55、hlighted by the pandemicsuch as the limitations of cost-efficient and streamlined supply chains and lack of agility in redistributing supplies between parts of the food sectorwill have to be addressed to build resilience to future shocks.10 To be resilient,a food system needs to deliver desired outc

56、omes,even when exposed to these stresses and shocks.11 Research shows that a resilient food system is robust(resists disruptions),is able to recover quickly after any disruption(bounces back)and re-orients(bounces forward)towards more sustainable food system outcomes.12 9“The global risks report 202

57、2.”World Economic Forum.2022.https:/www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2022.pdf10“Effects of COVID-19 on the food supply system.”UK Parliament POST.July 2020.https:/post.parliament.uk/effects-of-covid-19-on-the-food-supply-system/#:-text=In%20POSTs%20survey%20of%20over,rationing%20or%

58、20rules%20against%20stockpiling11“Resilience of the UK Food System in a Global Context.”Global Food Security programme.Accessed August 2022.https:/www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/research/food-system-resilience/12 Ibid.13“Sustainable food systems.Concept and framework.”UN Food and Agriculture Association.201

59、8.https:/www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf.14“What is nature positive and why is it the key to our future?”World Economic Forum.June 2021.https:/www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/what-is-nature-posi-tive-and-why-is-it-the-key-to-our-future/All of these responses involve reorganising and adapting to t

60、he way that the food system operates.However,given the complexity and connectedness of the food system,multiple stakeholders need to work together to overcome the different food system stressors and shocks,and to define resilience collectively.Particularly important will be to economically,socially

61、and environmentally align the long-term drivers of food security with the goals of a sustainable food systemone that lies at the heart of the UN Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs).13 Although sustainability and resilience are not the same,their twin aims can be positively synergistic if stakeholder

62、s focus on re-orientating.This puts the onus on introducing tools and policies that will counter shocks and risks in a net-zero and nature-positive way(that is,one that enriches biodiversity and protects the environment).14 The focus should be on policies that take into account the impact on all sec

63、tors of the food system(and beyond),and can re-orientate to alternative food system outcomes.So far,countries have been forced to react to shocks,but increasingly they will need to focus on long-term,sustainable solutions by prioritising agricultural adaptation practices.This has already started,as

64、shown in the 2022 GFSI:despite the plateauing of overall scores since 2019,the sustainability and adaptation pillar has jumped by 3.8%,led higher by increasing political commitments to adaptation,national agricultural adaptation policies and disaster risk management,and a rise in environmental econo

65、mic accounting.This adaptation is key:experts say that the sector needs to transform how it grows,distributes and Despite the plateauing of overall scores since 2019,the sustainability and adaptation pillar has jumped by 3.8%,led higher by increasing political commitments to adaptation,national agri

66、cultural adaptation policies and disaster risk management,and a rise in environmental economic accounting.The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 20229markets food;how it reorganises its social,policy,market,science and technology and biophysical environments;and how it looks at food syst

67、em outcomes.To examine the complexity of the food system and account for the importance of on-the-farm inputs and the“first mile”(the initial segment of our food sourcing)in achieving food security,several new indicators have been added to the GFSI this year,capturing data such as farmers access to

68、community organisations and extension services,and changes in producers prices(see box 1).With a more targeted focus on farmers,who are essential stakeholders in ensuring resilience in the food system,the GFSI will continue to help countries tailor policies and solutions to enhance global food secur

69、ity and counter growing shocks and risks to the system.Although nations cannot totally eliminate these shocks and risks,they can adapt to them and mitigate their impacts by building resilience.Adaptation may well provide the best opportunity to build resilience,because it allows stakeholders to work

70、 within the existing situation.box 1:Changes to GFSI frameworkIn early 2022 Economist Impact consulted with an expert panel for the GFSI,resulting in 14 new indicators,leading to a final tally of 68.Although we have added new indicators at a broader level to reflect the global nature of the food sys

71、temfor example,adding a measure on trade freedommany of the new indicators highlight the importance of farmers.A key focus is on the farm and the“first mile”,the segment of agriculture that links farmers to the nearest market,allowing them to operate efficiently and profitably to sell the goods that

72、 they produce.Some of the new measures reflect the support available to farmers,including their access to extension services as well as community organisations like co-operatives,and whether female farmers are empowered.There are other important changes to the organisation of the index.The GFSIs sec

73、ond pillar,availability,has been adjusted to start at food production,capturing more farmer-focused measures on accessibility to agricultural inputs.This includes moving access to finance and financial products from the affordability pillar to the availability pillar,as these measures are farmer-rel

74、ated.Government commitment to innovative technologies and a new composite indicator for on-farm infrastructure have also been added to this pillar to reflect more accurately what is happening on the fields in addition to in the supply chain.Reflecting a global impetus to move to sustainable food sys

75、tems and adapt to growing climate shocks,the GFSIs fourth pillar,previously called“natural resources and resilience”,has been renamed“sustainability and adaptation”.Given how important biodiversity is to the agricultural sector,soil organic content has been added to help measure the health of the la

76、nd and assess land degradation,while climate finance flows,environmental economic accounting implementation and sustainable agriculture have been added as new indicators to measure political commitment to adaptation more comprehensively.A new measure of pest infestation and disease has been added to

77、 the new composite indicator of disaster risk management as a way of including mitigation policies.For more details and the complete 2022 GFSI framework,please refer to Appendix II.The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202210Chapter 2 Shocks are more frequent and extensive,further weake

78、ning an already-fragile global food systemThe shocks of 2020 through to 2022 have showcased the fragility of the global food system and its consequences,bringing food security concerns to the fore.These more frequent and extensive shocksincluding covid-19,conflict,extreme weather events and soaring

79、costsare exacerbating the systemic issues that drive food security downward over time,weakening the resilience of the system.15Even before Russias invasion of Ukraine,state-based conflict had never been more prevalent,says the Oslo-based Peace Research Institute,and the number of conflicts continues

80、 to rise.16 17 The picture is not much rosier for shocks associated with a changing climate.A 2019 report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO)said that the number of shocks such as drought and flooding rose significantly in the 21st century.18 Indeed,whereas climate-induced shocks to the

81、 food system used to happen once every 12 years on average,they are now occurring about every 2.5 years.19 15“How can we protect food systems against global shocks?Heres what business leaders say.”World Economic Forum.May 2022.https:/www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/protect-food-systems-against-global

82、-shocks/.16“Conflict Trends:A Global Overview,19462019.”Prio.2020.https:/www.prio.org/publications/12442.17 Ibid.18“The state of the worlds biodiversity for food and agriculture.”UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.2019.https:/www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf.19 Kray H,Shetty S,Colleye P.“Three

83、challenges and three opportunities for food security in Eastern and Southern Africa.”World Bank.2022.https:/blogs.worldbank.org/africacan/three-challenges-and-three-opportunities-food-security-eastern-and-southern-africa.20“Why is the world facing a food crisis?”World Bank.June 2022.https:/www.world

84、bank.org/en/news/podcast/2022/06/10/world-food-crisis-security-hunger-supply-chains-war-ukraine-development-podcast.21“FAO Food Price Index.”UN food and Agriculture Organisation.Accessed August 2022.https:/www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/22 Ibid.23“2022 global report on food crises

85、.”Global Network against Food Crises and Food Security Infor-mation Network.2022.https:/www.wfp.org/publications/global-report-food-crises-202224“Transforming Food Systems with Farmers:A Pathway for the EU.”World Economic Forum.April 2022.https:/www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Transforming_Food_Systems_wi

86、th_Farmers_A_Pathway_for_the_EU_2022.pdfThe confluence of these shocks,along with their increased recurrence,is pushing a fragile food system into tipping points more and more frequently,leaving more people hungry and sending food prices to levels not seen before.20 The FAO food price index,which tr

87、acks the monthly change in international food prices,hit an all-time high in March 2022,and while it edged down in May it was still 22%above the value recorded a year earlier.21 22These shocks are coming at a time when developing countries are already struggling with“cascading challenges”that the WF

88、P says are not of their making,such as the COVID-19 pandemic and inadequate resources amid persistent and growing inequalities.23 These inequalities are reflected in figures that show that while farmers are the stewards of half of the land on Earth and produce 95%of food,they also comprise 65%of the

89、 worlds poorest people.24 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202211ConflictConflict is one of the main drivers of food insecurity,as evidenced in the GFSI,which shows that armed conflict is strongly linked to lower food security scores.Conflict negatively affects almost every aspect

90、of the food system,from production,harvesting,processing and transport to input supply,financing,marketing and consumption.25 The GFSI shows that armed conflict most negatively impacts supply-chain infrastructure,which is key to moving food from farm to fork.Hunger and food insecurity were already c

91、oncentrated in conflict zones even before the Ukraine invasion.The GFSI shows that 17 out of 25“The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021.”FAO,IFAD,UNICEF,WFP and WHO.2021.https:/doi.org/10.4060/cb4474en 26“2022 global report on food crises.”Global Network against Food Crises and Fo

92、od Security Infor-mation Network.2022.https:/www.wfp.org/publications/global-report-food-crises-202227“Seven things you need to know about climate change and conflict.”International Committee of the Red Cross.July 2020.https:/www.icrc.org/en/document/cli-mate-change-and-con-flict#:text=Conflict%20ca

93、n%20also%20contribute%20to,greenhouse%20gases%20into%20the%20air.28 Ibid.29 Ibid.113 nations were already at high or very high risk of conflict.Indeed a 2022 WFP report said that the war in Ukraine is“supercharging a three-dimensional crisisfood,energy and financewith devastating impacts on the worl

94、ds most vulnerable people,countries and economies.”26Conflict is also closely connected to climate change.Of the 25 nations most vulnerable to climate change,14 are mired in conflict.27 The ability of these countries to adapt to climate change is weakened when more urgent short-term issues such as s

95、afety and daily access to food are at stake and authorities and institutions are preoccupied with security.28 The natural environment can also be a casualty of conflict if it is attacked or damaged by warfare,leading to water,soil or land contamination,or air pollution.29 Those living in conflict ar

96、eas are more vulnerable to food insecurity.The GFSI shows a link between armed conflict and water pollution,with conflict impacting the quality and availability of this key resource for agriculture.Risk of armed conflict,2012-22The global risk of armed conflict has increased since 2012.(Lower score=

97、higher risk)20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022Source:Global Food Security Index 2022.7072747678GFSI average scores for 113 countriesThe GFSI shows a link between armed conflict and water pollution,with conflict impacting the quality and availability of this key resource for agriculture.The

98、 Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202212Cost Food price shocks are both an effect and a determinant of conflict.30 Robust demand,spurred by a recovery from covid-19 contractions,was pushing up food prices even before Russias invasion of Ukraine,but the war has pushed prices even higher

99、 with the added pressure of supply constraints.31 32 The 2022 GFSI data show that armed conflict has had a negative effect on affordability.The costs of energy,fertiliser and commodity prices have surged since the Ukraine conflict started,triggering price increases of up to 30%for staple foods.33 So

100、me areas in the US are reporting 300%increases in fertiliser costs.34 Higher prices for agricultural inputs such as fertiliser and fuel are being felt on the global markets through higher transport costs,logistical hurdles and disruption of supply chains,with the GFSI showing armed conflict has had

101、a particularly 30“Do high food prices and droughts fuel conflict?Highlights from chapter 7 of the 2014-2015 Global Food Policy Report.”International Food Policy Research Institute.March 2015.https:/www.ifpri.org/blog/do-high-food-prices-and-droughts-fuel-con-flict#:text=Food%20price%20shocks%20are%2

102、0both,consequence%2C%20food%20and%20nutrition%20insecurity.31“A Global Food Import Financing Facility(FIFF):Responding to soaring food import costs and ad-dressing the needs of the most exposed.”UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.June 2022.https:/www.fao.org/3/cb9444en/cb9444en.pdf.32“FAO Food Pri

103、ce Index.”UN food and Agriculture Organisation.Accessed August 2022.https:/www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/.33“Food insecurity threatens societies,exacerbates conflicts and no country is immune.”UN News.May 2022.https:/news.un.org/en/story/2022/05/1118652.34“Too Many to Count:Facto

104、rs Driving Fertilizer Prices Higher and Higher.”American Farm Bureau Fed-eration.December 2021.https:/www.fb.org/market-intel/too-many-to-count-factors-driving-fertilizer-prices-higher-and-higher.35 Food security update.World Bank.August 2022.https:/www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-

105、security-up-date#:text=Globally%2C%20hun-ger%20levels%20remain%20alarmingly,previous%20high%20reached%20in%202020.36“Food price crisis should have been avoidedexperts.”International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems.May 2022.https:/ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/Food%20price%20crisis%20r

106、eport_press%20release.pdf.37“Another perfect storm?”International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems.May 2022.https:/ipes-food.org/pages/foodpricecrisis38“A Global Food Import Financing Facility(FIFF):Responding to soaring food import costs and ad-dressing the needs of the most exposed.”UN

107、 Food and Agriculture Organisation.June 2022.https:/www.fao.org/3/cb9444en/cb9444en.pdf.39“As Conflict and Climate Change Bite,Are High Food Prices Here to Stay?”Voice of America.May 2022.https:/ perfect storm?”International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems.May 2022.https:/ipes-food.org/

108、pages/foodpricecrisisharmful effect on supply chain infrastructure.35 Systemic issues in the food system,including excessive commodity speculation,have also contributed to record prices.36 The 2022 GFSI data shows that the affordability of food has declined by 4%relative to 2019.GFSI scores measurin

109、g average food costs are poorperformance has plummeted by 11.4%,indicating soaring food prices between 2019 and 2022.The world is now facing the third global food price crisis in 15 years and policymakers are keen to avoid a repeat of 2008,when food prices also reached record highs.37 38 But they fa

110、ce a daunting task.“Climate change,widespread poverty and conflicts are now combining to create endemic and widespread risks to global food security,”the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems has noted,“which means higher food prices may be the new normal unless action is taken

111、to curb the threats,”39 40 Change in global average food costs,2012-22Between 2019 and 2022,the GFSI score for change in average food costs plummeted by 11.4%.(Lower score=higher average food costs)20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022Source:Global Food Security Index 2022.6065707580GFSI aver

112、age score for 113 countries70.779.8 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202213box 2:Structural factors like climate change are driving weakness41“Special report on climate change and land.Summary for policymakers.”Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.2019.https:/www.ipcc.ch/srccl

113、/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/.42 Ibid.43“How climate change increases hungerand why were all at risk.”Concern USA.Y 2022.https:/www.concernusa.org/story/climate-change-and-hun-ger/#:text=The%20more%20climate%20changes%20and,%2D%20and%20middle%2Dincome%20countries.44 Ibid.45“Unpacking the Climat

114、e Security Nexus:Seven Pathologies Linking Climate Change to Violent Con-flict.”The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.March 2022.https:/hcss.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Unpacking-the-Climate-Security-Nexus-HCSS-2022-1.pdf.46“Beyond borders:Out changing climateits role in conflict and displacement

115、.”Environmental Justice Foundation.2017.https:/ejfoundation.org/resources/downloads/BeyondBorders.pdf.47“Climate Change 2022:Impacts,Adaptation and Vulnerability.”Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.2022.https:/www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/.48“The state of the worlds biodiversity for food and ag

116、riculture.”UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.2019.https:/www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf.49“World leaders commit to tackling global hunger,climate change and biodiversity loss at historic UN Food Systems Summit.”UN.September 2021.https:/www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/world-leaders-com

117、mit-tackling-global-hunger-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss.50“Climate and weather related disasters surge five-fold over 50 years,but early warnings save lives-WMO report.”UN News.September 2021.https:/news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1098662.51“EU organizations join forces with farmers to fight cl

118、imate change.”World Economic Forum.January 2022.https:/www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/european-organizations-join-forces-with-farmers-to-fight-climate-change-and-restore-nature/52“2022 World Food Prize Awarded to Former IPCC Author Cynthia Rosenzweig.”Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.May 20

119、22.https:/www.ipcc.ch/2022/05/06/2022-world-food-prize-award-cynthia-rosenzweig/.53“2022 Rosenzweig.”World Food Prize Foundation.2022.https:/www.worldfoodprize.org/en/laureates/2022_rosenzweig/.An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)assessment report in 2019 stated that climate change and

120、 related biodiversity loss“have affected the productivity of all agricultural and fishery sectors,with negative consequences for food security and livelihoods.”41 A changing climate affects food security because it warms temperatures,changes precipitation patterns and leads to a greater frequency of

121、 extreme events.42 Climate change is a threat multiplier for hunger,as it exacerbates food insecurity,extreme poverty and inequitable access to natural resources,including water.43 44 The GFSI has shown that under a changing climate access to water is most at risk,and this is strongly linked to cost

122、 and conflict.Beyond the challenge of feeding humanity on an overheating planet,climate shocks like droughts,heatwaves and floods are threat multipliers in other areasthey increase conflict risks,creating climate refugees,social unrest and insurgency.45 46 These climate shocks make food more expensi

123、ve and exacerbate existing vulnerabilities,with long-lasting implications for nutritional security.Women are particularly susceptible.The greater the gender inequality in the GFSI,the lower the score for sustainability and adaptation.The GFSI shows that gender inequality goes hand in hand with havin

124、g lower access to fresh clean water and land resources and lower political commitment to adaptation and sustainable agricultural practices.A 2022 IPCC report states that a changing climate would lead to yield decreases in nutrient-rich food,as well as decreases in the nutrient content of staple food

125、s.47 Furthermore,food systems are becoming less resilient when it comes to fostering diversity.A key concern is how much organic carbon is present in the soil used for growing.High levels of organic carbon stabilise soil structure,reduce erosion,improve fertility and enhance how much water is held i

126、n the earth.However nations included in the GFSI scored very poorly when it came to this measure,with a global norm of only 29.1 out of 100.This underscores the urgent need to boost nutrients in the soil to drive higher yields,greater biodiversity and overall food security.There is also declining di

127、versity in energy sources used and lower biodiversity in agriculture,and diets are static.48 The GFSI shows an increase in agricultural water risk,which is tied to a drop in dietary diversity.The inaugural UN Food Systems Summit,held in 2021,acknowledged for the first time the need for a sustainable

128、 food system to feed more people and noted the interconnection of food,climate and health.49 Weather-related disasters have surged fivefold over 50 years.50 When shocks occur more frequently it is difficult for countries,regions or farmers to sufficiently recover in the meantime,making investments i

129、n building food systems resilience key.A key recognition is that food systems and climate change are inextricably linked.This demonstrates how much potential there is to design agrifood systems that are good for people and the planet,and how agriculture needs to be made part of the solution to remov

130、e greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.51“Climate change cannot be restrained without attention to food system emissions,and food security for all cannot be provided without resilience to increasing climate extremes,”2022 World Food Prize winner Cynthia Rosenzweig said in an IPCC press release in Ma

131、y.52 53 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202214Shocks weakening resilience The confluence of these shocks is weakening the overall resilience of the global food system,affecting how well stakeholders are able to prepare for,withstand and recover from disruptions to ensure a suffici

132、ent supply of acceptable and accessible food for all.Food availability and access,and the sustainability of the environment that underpins this availability,highlights the vulnerability of the system amid a growing recognition that stakeholders need to look at the food system as a whole.Stakeholders

133、 must look beyond just the consumer end of the food system,with its focus on affordability and quality,and towards the intricacies of producing food in an increasingly volatile and warming world.This includes looking at how resilient and accessible inputs are for farmers,how resilient the infrastruc

134、ture is that supports them,whether there are political and social barriers to overcome,the sustainability of the environment itself,and how quickly stakeholders can adapt to disruptions.The GFSIs increased focus on farming-focused metrics enables us to examine the important issue of the supply of fo

135、od and the need to focus resources on the early stages of the global food system.Any weakness of production has repercussions for the rest of the food system.This is particularly true when there are systemic inequalities in the system.For example,the weak status of women farmers drives food security

136、 down over time.Women are key players in agriculture,but they often lack access to inputs,and without a strategy to support them their inclusion,agency and resilience is challenged more when shocks affect the system.The average score on the“Empowering women farmers”metric among the 113 nations in th

137、e 2022 GFSI is only 28.3,and few countries have a national policy to support women and improve their access to inputs even as Global performance on commitment to empowering women farmers in 2022Across the world,the support for women farmers remains low.GlobalaverageNorth AmericaLatin AmericaAsia Pac

138、ificSub-Saharan AfricaEuropeMiddle East and North AfricaSource:Global Food Security Index 2022.GFSI 2022 regional average scores28.3100.057.930.428.613.53.3Table 1Biggest challenges (list of lowest scoring indicators 2022)Availability2.1.3)Agriculture producer prices 23.72.1.6)Empowering women farme

139、rs 28.32.2.1)Public expenditure on R&D 29.22.3.2)Irrigation infrastructure 20.5Sustainability and adaptation4.3.4)Soil organic content 29.1 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202215shocks roil the system.However,there are marked regional differences.North America scored 100 for its c

140、ommitment to women,but the Middle East and North Africa only scored 3.3;surprisingly,perhaps,Europe only scored 13.5.The interconnectedness of the food system can be seen in the way that political and social barriers to access,such as armed conflicts and political instability,can have effects in oth

141、er areas,including declines in trade freedom,and in air,port and rail infrastructure(see Table 2).The GFSI shows that political and social factors compound the inequalities in the system,further weakening resilience by affecting sufficiency of supply and leading to a greater dependency on chronic fo

142、od aid as average food costs soar.A drastic weakening in the ability to feed global populations and to fund food safety nets is compounded by intrinsic and deep-rooted problems with the environment,which require complicated solutions that take time to resolve.For example,few nations have irrigation

143、systems set up for their cultivated lands,with the global score reaching only 20.5 out of 100(see Table 1).And when it comes to the sustainability and adaptation pillar of the food system,most of the 113 nations scores are stagnant in 2022.Nations average a Table 2Biggest percentage drop in scores (

144、2019-2022)AffordabilityOverall affordability-3.9%1.1)Change in average food costs-11.5%1.4)Agricultural trade-3.1%1.4.2)Trade freedom-6%1.5)Food safety net program-4.2%1.5.2)Funding for food safety net programs-15.6%Availability2.6.3)Air,port and rail infrastructure-3.7%2.7)Sufficiency of supply-3%2

145、.7.2)Dependency on chronic food aid-7.5%2.8)Political and social barriers to access-2.1%2.8.1)Armed conflict-4.2%2.8.2)Political stability risk-6%Quality and safety3.2)Nutritional standards-10.6%3.2.2)National nutrition plan or strategy-19.6%3.2.4)Nutrition monitoring and surveillance-10.2%3.5.1)Rel

146、evant food safety legislation-4.2%Global public expenditure on agricultural R&D,2012-22The global average score for public spending on agricultural R&D has declined since 2012.20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022Source:Global Food Security Index 2022.282930313233GFSI average score for 113 co

147、untries The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202216score of 40 in how they have committed to manage exposure and co-ordinate risks.Water is a key area of concern,whether because of flooding,droughts,pollution,scarcity,eutrophication or marine biodiversity.The global score for all of th

148、e above(except for flooding)is around 40.Susceptibility to more frequent disruptions from droughts or flooding can lead to unpredictable crop loss and declines in food supply,while pollution can impact the quality and availability for water for agriculture.To overcome shocks,governments need to inve

149、st in research and development(R&D)to ensure long-term resilience and sustainability.54 Research shows that spending on R&D generates high returns,not only in terms of boosting productivity,54“Food systems-Research and innovation investment gap study.”European Commission.June 2022.https:/ec.europa.e

150、u/info/news/food-systems-research-and-innovation-investment-gap-study-2022-jun-15_en55“Public expenditure in agriculture:trends,“black boxes”,and more.”International;Food Policy Re-search Institute.January 2016.https:/www.ifpri.org/blog/public-expenditure-agriculture-trends-%E2%80%9Cblack-boxes%E2%8

151、0%9D-and-more#but also in broader welfare outcomes,such as poverty reduction.55 But this measure is among the lowest scoring in the 2022 GFSI index,with a global average of 29.2 dragged down by Sub-Saharan Africa and,to a lesser extent,Latin America.Furthermore,public expenditure on R&D has dropped

152、by 10%since 2012.Frequent shocks are overlapping to weaken resilience,yielding the most extreme and immediate threat to global food security since the inception of the GFSI in 2012.Achieving zero hunger by 2030the second of the 17 UN SDGsmay prove unfeasible unless interventions tackle deep-seated s

153、ystemic issues.Global public expenditure on agricultural R&D,2022In 2022,Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa score below the global average for spending on agricultural R&D.GlobalaverageNorth AmericaAsia PacificEuropeMiddle East and North AfricaLatin AmericaSub-SaharanAfricaSource:Global Food Secur

154、ity Index 2022.GFSI 2022 regional average scores29.252.638.633.932.824.116.9 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202217Chapter 3 Efforts to build food system resilience must be multidimensional and multilateralHumanitarian measures by governments and NGOs are necessary to offset the i

155、mpact of short-term shocks to the food system in the face of what the UN has called a“perfect storm”of crises.56 Such measures typically include price controls,the release of strategic supplies,and foreign aid to make food affordable and of good quality.56“Ukraine war unleashing a perfect storm of c

156、rises,warns UN chief.”UN News.April 2022.https:/news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1116152.57“Secretary-Generals Policy Brief.Investing in Jobs and Social Protection for Poverty Eradication and a Sustainable Recovery.”UN.September 2021.https:/unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/SG-Policy-Brief-on-Job

157、s-and-Social-Protection-Sept%202021.pdf.58“In Focus:FAO responds to the Ukraine crisis.”UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.https:/www.fao.org/in-focus/policy-proposals/en.Emergency funding can be used to increase food aid,especially via emergency food programmes like the WFP,both during times of c

158、onflict and amid record food prices and climate shocks.57 58 The presence of a food safety net in a country strongly correlates with a good overall GFSI score in 2022.Overall GFSI score vs trade freedom score,2022There is a strong positive association between overall food security scores and trade f

159、reedom scores.4050607080For details on the country specific scores and ranking,please visit the website.Source:Global Food Security Index 2022.Overall GFSI score,2022113 countries Pearsons correlation coefficient=0.75Trade freedom score,2022100806040 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Inde

160、x 202218Trade,food security strategies and setting nutritional standards are also necessary drivers for food security.Bringing down food costs requires trade freedom and farmer support;the FAO has said that financing facilities are needed for countries that are big food importers.59 60 Imposing trad

161、e or export restrictions should be avoided and price volatility should be minimised while tackling commodity speculation,and debt relief should be given priority.61 This years GFSI shows a strong link between trade freedom and food security.However,building long-term,systemic resilience must also be

162、 a priority if the larger trend towards greater food insecurity worldwide is to be reversed.There is no single,overall solution to enhance food system resilience,as each context and location needs to be considered and a prescriptive approach to a specific component may have a negative impact on othe

163、r components.62 Enhancing the resilience of the global food system will require a mix of robustness,recovery,reorientation and reorganisation to suit the location and the scale of need.63 Emphasis must go towards buttressing the supply of food and the environment that supports it,ensuring that produ

164、cers are supported and can adapt to a changing climate through shifts 59“Surging food prices:FAO calls for import financing facility for poorer nations at G20 meeting.”Re-liefWeb.April 2022.https:/reliefweb.int/report/world/surging-food-prices-fao-calls-import-financing-facility-poorer-nations-g20-m

165、eeting.60“A Global Food Import Financing Facility(FIFF):Responding to soaring food import costs and ad-dressing the needs of the most exposed.”UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.June 2022.https:/www.fao.org/3/cb9444en/cb9444en.pdf.61“Another perfect storm?”International Panel of Experts on Sustain

166、able Food Systems.May 2022.https:/ipes-food.org/pages/foodpricecrisis62“Resilience of the UK Food System in a Global Context.”Global Food Security programme.Accessed August 2022.https:/www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/research/food-system-resilience/63 Ibid.64“Potential global contribution of response options

167、 to mitigation,adaptation,combating desertification and land degradation,and enhancing food security.”Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change.November 2019.https:/www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2019/11/SPM3A-approval-v4-USletter.pngin sustainable practices,programmes and commitments.This

168、 can include improving land management,increasing soil organic carbon content,adopting sustainable sourcing,improving energy use,and reducing pollution,food waste and post-harvest losses.64 Adapting to a changing climate and promoting agricultural resilience,rather than just reacting to shocks,will

169、ensure that everyone is fed with nutritious food.Indeed,the GFSI shows that this is what nations are most re-orienting towards,with four of the five biggest rises in the index since 2019 coming from political commitments to adaptation(see Table 3).This includes a hefty 25.6%jump in environmental eco

170、nomic accounting,an 18.5%jump in risk-management coordination,a 16.6%jump in climate finance flows and a 13.7%jump in sustainable agriculture.There have also been big jumps in national agriculture adaptation policy(16%)and pest infestation and disease mitigation(11.3%),along with a smaller jump in c

171、ommitments to sustainable agriculture practices(3.6%).This re-orienting is important because sustainable food production requires putting systems in place so that there is still integrity in the availability of foodthat is,farmers can still farm and grow cropswhen extreme weather events strike.A hol

172、istic approach to food needs to focus not just on policy,but on a political will to integrate all sectors,including the private sector.This demands renewed engagement and action by all players in the food supply systemgovernments,businesses,consumers and NGOs.Through concerted initiatives,public,pri

173、vate and non-governmental entities are best-placed to address many of the core drivers of food insecurity,ultimately Through concerted initiatives,public,private and non-governmental entities are best-placed to address many of the core drivers of food insecurity,ultimately strengthening a sustainabl

174、e food system and improving its capacity to withstand shocks.The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202219strengthening a sustainable food system and improving its capacity to withstand shocks.The political will to build resilience is taking shape at the highest levels,with the UN in Mar

175、ch 2022 setting up a global crisis response group on food,energy and finance,followed by the World Bank in April calling for co-ordinated action on food security.65 66 In mid-May the World Bank joined forces with the Group of Seven(G7)nations to set up a global alliance for food security.67 68 It is

176、 imperative that these sorts of initiatives include the private sector,taking 65“Guterres unveils first recommendations of UN crisis group,set up in wake of Ukraine invasion.”UN News.April 2022.https:/news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/111562266“Joint Statement:The Heads of the World Bank Group,IMF,WFP,an

177、d WTO Call for Urgent Coordi-nated Action on Food Security.”World Bank.April 2022.https:/www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2022/04/13/joint-statement-the-heads-of-the-world-bank-group-imf-wfp-and-wto-call-for-urgent-coordinated-action-on-food-security67“Food Security Update.”World bank.August 2022

178、.https:/www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-security-up-date#:text=Globally%2C%20hun-ger%20levels%20remain%20alarmingly,previous%20high%20reached%20in%20202068“Joint statement:G7 Presidency,World Bank Group Establish Global Alliance for Food Security to Catalyze Response to Food Crisis

179、.”World Bank.May 2022.https:/www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2022/05/19/joint-statement-g7-presidency-wbg-establish-global-alliance-for-food-security advantage of its creative mindset to find solutions to grow,develop and process food through technology and innovations.This innovation,nurturing

180、and educating of consumers and farmers across generations forms the foundations of a sustainable food supply.The 2022 GFSI shows that nations are more likely to have higher global food security scores where farmers have access to agricultural inputs and financial products,governments invest in R&D a

181、nd innovative Table 3Largest rises in the GFSI,2019-2022Pillar or indicatorPercent increase from 2019 to 20222.1)Access to agricultural inputs4.2%2.1.1)Access to finance and financial products for farmers3.1%2.1.2)Access to diversified financial products6.9%2.1.3)Agriculture producer prices13.4%2.1.

182、6)Empowering women farmers18.5%2.2)Agricultural research&development6.8%2.2.2)Access to agricultural technology,education and resources10.2%2.2.3)Commitment to innovative technologies6.9%2.9)Food security and access policy commitments10.7%2.9.1)Food security strategy13.3%2.9.2)Food security agency5.

183、7%3.5.2)Food safety mechanisms6.1%Sustainability and adaptation pillar3.9%4.5)Political commitment to adaptation10.4%4.5.1)Climate finance flows16.7%4.5.2)Environmental-economic accounting implementation25.7%4.5.5)National agricultural adaptation policy16.1%4.5.6)Sustainable agriculture3.6%4.6)Disas

184、ter risk management13.7%4.6.1)Pest infestation and disease mitigation11.3%4.6.2)Risk management coordination18.7%The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202220box 3:South Korea 69“Achievements&Challenges in R&D to Strengthen the Sustainability of Agriculture in Korea.”Rural Development Ad

185、ministration,Republic of Korea.September 2021.https:/www.cepal.org/sites/default/files/presentations/un_eclac_tr_kwon_2021.9.9_vf.pdf70 Ibid.71 Ibid.72 Ibid.South Korea tops the GFSI when it comes to agricultural R&D,scoring 85.9 out of 100,showcasing how robust agricultural infrastructure and input

186、s can transform a sector.The country,with a population of 51.7m people,is joint top with five other nations when it comes to its public expenditure on R&D in this years index,scoring 100.It also sits in the top grouping of GFSI nations for having a strategy on agricultural innovation.The countrys Ru

187、ral Development Administration(RDA)employs more than 1,000 people and had a budget of US$997m in 2021.69 The RDA has four bureaus,respectively focusing on planning,research policy,extension services and technology co-operation.It also has four national institutes covering agricultural,crop,horticult

188、ural/herbal and animal science.On top of this,South Korea also has a public institute that covers agricultural technology,commercialisation and transfer.Its work is widespread,feeding into nine provincial agricultural research extension services and 156 city-or county-level agricultural technology c

189、entres.The country has a culture of sharing innovations with the world.70South Korea is strong in finance,sitting in the top grouping in the GFSI for having affordable financial services(savings and credit)for all farmers and access to diversified financial products.The country also gives farm busin

190、esses direct payments if they meet certain requirements.South Korea displays strong achievements when it comes to adapting to a warming world.It has set up early-warning systems for climate change,offering farms in 29 counties information through the internet and mobile phones.It has also set carbon

191、-neutral agriculture targets for 2050,promotes biodiversity conservation and hosts a national gene bank,incorporating one of the worlds largest seed vaults.71 It touts smart farming that controls environmental factors like temperature,light,water,nutrients,energy and automation.It also promotes data

192、-focused digital agriculture in all stages of the food system and uses a GIS-based soil system that directs which crops and fertilisers are used.All of these efforts have resulted in South Korea being able to reorient its food system outcomesproductivity increased by 65.4%in 1970-2020,while labour h

193、ours decreased by 92.3%over the same period.72 The GFSI also reveals that the country has low volatility of production,low food loss,strong sufficiency of supply,high food safety,and top marks for disaster risk management and its safety net programme,the latter resulting in very few of its populatio

194、n residing under the poverty line.technology,and supply-chain infrastructure is strong.Indeed,countries with access to agricultural inputs have seen some of the biggest rises in the index since 2019,especially commitments to empowering female farmers(with scores jumping by 18.4%);access to agricultu

195、ral technology,education and resources(up by 10.1%);commitment to using innovative technology(rising 7%);and prioritising food security strategies.These interventions are important because they have an outsized impact,not only on availability,but also in terms of sustainability,affordability,and qua

196、lity and safety.The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202221Innovate in all parts of food systemThe GFSI data highlight the threats to agricultural production posed by climate change and other risks.The demand is not just for more food,but for more nutritious foodand more responsive sup

197、ply chains that are responsible for less food waste and less damage to the environment.Farmers will need to grow more food on the same land with less inputs,requiring innovation in all parts of the food system.Innovation is essential to building resilience.73 Systemic innovations in particular are n

198、eeded to enhance the resilience of food system outcomes,either by adapting food system activities to maintain or return to the status quo(yielding robustness and recovery)or to transform the outcomes(through re-orienting).74 Resilient food systems are more able to generate innovative solutions to av

199、oid shocks,while innovation promotes new forms of organisation and 73 Charatsari C,Lioutas ED,De Rosa M,Vecchio Y.“Technological Innovation and Agrifood Systems Resilience:The Potential and Perils of Three Different Strategies.”Front Sustain Food Syst.April 2022.https:/www.frontiersin.org/articles/1

200、0.3389/fsufs.2022.872706/full74“Resilience of the UK Food System in a Global Context.”Global Food Security programme.Accessed August 2022.https:/www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/research/food-system-resilience/75 Charatsari C,Lioutas ED,De Rosa M,Vecchio Y.“Technological Innovation and Agrifood Systems Resili

201、ence:The Potential and Perils of Three Different Strategies.”Front Sustain Food Syst.April 2022.https:/www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2022.872706/full76 Ibid.transformation including moving to circular agrifood systems and promoting diversity as an engine for resilience.75 Apart from meg

202、a-technological trends like digital farming tools and nanotechnologies,there is also potential in simpler,internetworking or platforming technologies that promote new ways of sharing and organising.This could include farmers sharing services used to deliver the food that they grow,or using digital e

203、quipment-sharing platforms so that they dont have to buy expensive farming machinery themselves.It could also include small-scale micro-innovations,like tinkering or re-assembling existing technologies at low-cost that sustain small-scale farming resilience at the local level.76Climate resilience,to

204、o,can be built into agriculture to counter both stresses and shocks.Making commitments to sustainable agricultural practices and adaptation is strongly linked to scoring highly Overall GFSI score vs political commitment to adaptation,2022There is a strong positive association between overall food se

205、curity scores and scores for political commitment to adaptation.4050607080For details on the country specific scores and ranking,please visit the website.Source:Global Food Security Index 2022.Overall GFSI score,2022113 countries Pearsons correlation coefcient=0.61Political commitment to adaptation

206、score,20221007550250 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202222on overall food security in the 2022 GFSI.These practices could include crop rotation,permaculture,intercropping and agroforestry.Novel food products like plant-based meat substitutes and cell-cultured fish,alongside novel

207、 planting methods like vertical farming,are part of the re-orientation of the food system.By changing the way that food is produced,these new methods introduce alternative options during,before and after disruptions.These products also meet nutritional needs as well as national food security strateg

208、ies,and reduce the impact of food production on the environment.This type of re-orientation is taking place in the agrifood industry,with innovations that try to improve land productivity through higher yields and use green chemistry and technology to optimise how crops are grown through the seasons

209、.Agri-biotechnology is another area of innovation that can support climate-resilient agricultural production.Plant science and crop protection are also key centres of focus.Finance,too,can improve the robustness of the food system,aid in its recovery and re-orient the sector into new and alternative

210、 outcomes.As commitments to innovative climate financing grow,the 2022 GFSI shows a strong link between being food secure and being able to access market data and mobile banking.Finance is a big winner in 2022,with the GFSI showing rises across the board since 2019 for finance and financial products

211、,including diversified ones,along with climate finance flows 77“100 million farmers.”World Economic Forum.https:/www.weforum.org/communities/100-million-farmers 78 Ibid.79 Sperling F.“Strengthening the resilience of our global food system while advancing its transfor-mation.”IIASA.October 2021.https

212、:/blog.iiasa.ac.at/2021/10/06/strengthening-the-resilience-of-our-global-food-system-while-advancing-its-transformation/80 Ibid.81“Food 4.0:Technology in Agriculture and Food.”Economist Impact.November 2021.https:/ environmental economic accounting(see Table 3).Transformative finance and partnership

213、s tailored to local ecosystems and finding local solutions also have potential.77 And critical to centering the food system on climate,nature and resilience is the development and deployment of market-based incentivessuch as carbon marketsthat signal to stakeholders along supply chains that there is

214、 value beyond productivity.78Use data management and digital technology to lower food costs and adapt to climate change and other shocksStakeholders can work together to systematically collect and analyse data in all areas of the food system,from production and distribution to consumption.This will

215、help to boost resilience before and after shocks,and help to transform the sector.For example,timely access to seasonal forecasts and early-warning information,alongside systems that identify shocks and risks,can help farmers to decide when and what to plant,and to anticipate,adapt to and cope with

216、possible shocks.79 Precision agriculture,which harnesses advances in technology to ensure optimal health and productivity of crops and soils,can reduce the need for inputs.80 Farmers can use digital technology to be much more specific and accurate in applying fertiliser in the field,while organisati

217、ons can use information technology to connect producers in a web as opposed to a single supply chain.The Internet of Things(IoT),drones and artificial intelligence(AI)can collect,monitor and analyse data to improve farm productivity and cut food waste,alongside reducing costs.81 This can work at a s

218、maller scale,such as with the use of AI tools that give farmers data to maximise yield and adopt As commitments to innovative climate financing grow,the 2022 GFSI shows a strong link between being food secure and being able to access market data and mobile banking.The Economist Group 2022Global Food

219、 Security Index 202223more sustainable practices.82 Advanced analytics can help to better manage agricultural supply chain shocks.83 Stakeholders can also work together to better compile and compare data from different sectors to assess the performance of the food system and inform decision-making,e

220、specially in the face of mounting shocks.Set up local systems to generate and disseminate knowledge to prepare for and adapt to shocks and find local solutionsThe GFSI shows that farmers do better if they have access to local and regional knowledge providers such as extension services,co-operatives,

221、research institutes,private companies,laboratories and knowledge networks.Agricultural extension 82“Farmers need practical innovation,not moonshots,to stave off global food crisis.”World Economic Forum.September 2021.https:/www.weforum.org/forum_networks/100-million-farmers/articles/agriculture-farm

222、ing-innovation-technology83“How advanced analytics can address agricultural supply chain shocks.”McKinsey.April 2022.https:/ million farmers.”World Economic Forum.https:/www.weforum.org/communities/100-million-farmersservices can offer technical advice and new ideas to farmers,and can also supply th

223、em with the necessary inputs and services to support their production.Being able to access these types of services is strongly linked to scoring highly on overall food security in the 2022 GFSI.In particular,it reveals a strong and positive correlation between the overarching indicator of access to

224、agricultural inputs and the overall food security score.Key also is building up farmers knowledge,as well as trust and buy-in among stakeholders,to find practical solutions tailored to local food systems and the natural ecosystems that they depend on.84 Among such solutions are plans to stop pest in

225、festations and mitigate disease,and the GFSI showed a growing commitment in these two areas.4050607080For details on the country specific scores and ranking,please visit the website.Source:Global Food Security Index 2022.Overall GFSI score,2022113 countries Pearsons correlation coefcient=0.711007550

226、250Access to agricultural inputs score,2022GFSI Overall score vs access to agricultural inputs,2022There is a strong positive association between overall food security scores and scores for access to agricultural inputs.The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202224box 4:Farmer-centric in

227、novation85“The Food Systems Summit.”UN.2021.https:/www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit.86“Transforming Food Systems:Pathways for Country-led Innovation.”World Economic Forum/UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.January 2022.https:/www.weforum.org/communities/food-systems-innova-tion#:text=Global%20Coa

228、lition%20for%20Digital%20Food,digital%20innovation%20in%20food%20systems87 Ibid.88 Ibid.89“100 million farmers.”World Economic Forum.https:/www.weforum.org/communities/100-million-farmers90“How inclusive innovation could transform food systemsand help to end world hunger.”World Economic Forum.March

229、2022.https:/www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/food-systems-innovation-transformation/.91“New Coalition Announces Bold Plan to Decarbonize Europes Food System.”EIT Food.May 2021.https:/www.eitfood.eu/news/new-coalition-announces-bold-plan-to-decarbonize-europes-food-system 92 Ibid.93“Transforming Food S

230、ystems with Farmers:A Pathway for the EU.”World Economic Forum.April 2022.https:/www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Transforming_Food_Systems_with_Farmers_A_Pathway_for_the_EU_2022.pdf 94 Ibid.95 Kray H,Shetty S,Colleye P.“Three challenges and three opportunities for food security in Eastern and Southern Afr

231、ica.”World Bank.2022.https:/blogs.worldbank.org/africacan/three-challenges-and-three-opportunities-food-security-eastern-and-southern-africa.The UNs Food Systems Summit,held in 2021,recognised innovation as key to transforming the global food system,and a number of initiatives have emerged to boost

232、farmer-centric innovation.85 The World Economic Forum and the FAO have come up with a roadmap to help countries to accelerate such innovation.86 Part of the roadmap recommends establishing a global coalition for digital food systems innovation,uniting public,private and non-profit groups to promote

233、digital data ecosystems in the sector.87 A network of food innovation hubs also seeks to join stakeholders in leveraging knowledge,technology,data and institutional capacity to develop local innovation ecosystems for local needs.88 The roadmap aims to help farmers invest in sustainable food practice

234、s through the 100 Million Farmers multi-stakeholder platform89,which is catalysing action towards net-zero,nature-positive food systems by 2030.90 As part of this platform,the Carbon+Farming Journey coalition in Europe puts farmers at the centre of innovation in a bid to achieve food security and ne

235、t-zero climate goals at the heart of the European Green Deal.91 92 Solutions will need to be localised to other regions(what works in Europe will not always work elsewhere),but there are important lessons in terms of bringing stakeholders together and developing local solutions to grow resilience.A

236、survey of 1,600 farmers carried out by the Carbon+Farming Journey coalition showed the challenges that farmers face.Because farmers earn 60%less than non-farming families,they are unable to invest in climate-smart agricultural solutions.Just one in four farmers have good or very good knowledge about

237、 these solutions,and there is an uneven adoption of technology amid fragmented national policies.93 Given these challenges,a number of spaces were identified as crucial to accelerate change,including better financing and risk management,supportive innovation ecosystems and policies,and education and

238、 awareness campaigns.94The above solutions cannot work alonecollaboration needs to take place across the whole food system,ranging from inputs like seed provision,fertilisers,finance and extension services to farmers being supported by strong supply chains and broader social,economic and environment

239、al policies.For example,the 100 Million Farmers initiative draws on what it calls“lighthouse”projects to bring together innovation,data,transformative finance and partnerships and adapt these locally.For its part,the World Bank is working in eastern and southern Africa to enhance the resilience of f

240、ood systems,offering what it says are opportunities to go beyond tackling food insecurity to generating more jobs and promoting trade.95 The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202225ConclusionThe scores in the 2022 GFSI reflect a fragile global food system that is under immense pressure

241、and facing some of its worst outcomes ever.Food prices and hunger are hitting record highs,while affordability is plummeting as shocks like the covid-19 pandemic,armed conflict and climate change compound systemic stresses.These stresses and shocks pose risks that could get worse as threats to food

242、security become the new normal.Stakeholders in all parts of a complex and interconnected food system will need to work together to manage these risks and achieve the twin goals of resilience and sustainability.A key part of this momentum needs to come from stakeholders such as governments,multilater

243、als and NGOs.They can use humanitarian,trade,economic and social protection tools to offset the impact of short-term shocks.But this years GFSI also shows a clear path for other stakeholders,including businesses,farmers and local groups.By working together with governments and NGOs,they have already

244、 made inroads on adaptation policy,innovation and finance.The following efforts have been key to preventing the overall GFSI from falling lower than its current level:Despite affordability pulling down the GFSI since 2019,the adoption of sustainable policies,particularly in climate finance flows,her

245、alds significant effort by governments,multilaterals and businesses to adapt to and mitigate climate risks.Government efforts to coordinate risk management and introduce environmental economic accounting send a strong signal to businesses to adopt new operating frameworks and reporting requirements

246、that will boost sustainable and resilient agriculture.Despite public expenditure on R&D falling by 10%since the GFSIs first year(scoring 29.2 out of 100 in 2022),when it comes to farmer inputs,nations are seeing increased policy commitments to innovative technologies,and greater access to agricultur

247、al technology,education and resources.At the same time,farmers are getting better access to finance,including access to diversified financial products that can help to provide crop insurance.This is essential in providing better protection against economic,financial and climate shocks.All of these i

248、nputs are tied to resilience and powered by the private and public sectors.New tools and processes promote more sustainable farming systems and help farmers and businesses to increase their productivity.Key global initiatives like the 100 Million Farmers platform have focused on placing farmers at t

249、he centre of this adaptation and working with multiple stakeholders.However,to build a food system that is resilient in more turbulent timesone that is robust in response to shocks,can recover from disruptions and can reorient to achieve better outcomesrequires addressing some of the systems biggest

250、 and longest enduring shortfalls.The GFSI shows that there are clear gaps and challenges in managing the stress on natural resources:Climate change is a threat multiplier,and the GFSI shows that access to water is at risk as nations endure warmer temperatures.Irrigation infrastructure(the percentage

251、 of cultivated agricultural area equipped for irrigation)was the lowest scoring of all measures on the index,The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202226remaining largely unchanged in the 11 years of the GFSI,with a score of 20.5.Investments are urgently needed to install,improve or exp

252、and smart irrigation infrastructure to ensure a sufficient food supply in a way that is resilient to unpredictable weather events and also protects the environment.The situation is not much better when it comes to the soil on which crops are grown or on which livestock graze.Another of the indexs lo

253、west scoring measures(at 29.1 out of 100)is soil organic content,which indicates how good the quality of the land is.Urgent investment is needed to boost levels of organic carbon to stabilise soil structure,reduce erosion,improve soil fertility and enhance the ability of soil to hold water.A key foc

254、us now needs to be on finding solutions to these types of intrinsic challenges.These solutions will involve managing natural resources more effectively,ensuring access to water and high-quality soil,and scaling quickly to meet the needs of farmers and the food system.Ultimately,all stakeholders need

255、 to work together to build a robust and resilient food system that can withstand wider stresses and shocks amid a demand for more food on limited land amid a warming climate.The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202227Appendix I:GFSI 2022 resultsRank /113CountryScore /1001Finland83.72Ir

256、eland81.73Norway80.54France80.25Netherlands80.16Japan79.5=7Canada79.1=7Sweden79.19United Kingdom78.810Portugal78.711Switzerland78.212Austria78.113United States78.0=14Denmark77.8=14New Zealand77.816Czech Republic77.717Belgium77.518Costa Rica77.419Germany77.020Spain75.721Poland75.522Australia75.423Uni

257、ted Arab Emirates75.224Israel74.8=25Chile74.2=25China74.227Italy74.028Singapore73.129Bulgaria73.030Qatar72.431Greece72.232Kazakhstan72.133Uruguay71.834Hungary71.435Oman71.236Slovakia71.137Peru70.838Bahrain70.3Rank /113CountryScore /10039South Korea70.240Panama70.0=41Malaysia69.9=41Saudi Arabia69.9=4

258、3Mexico69.1=43Russia69.145Romania68.846Vietnam67.947Jordan66.248Ecuador65.649Turkey65.350Kuwait65.251Brazil65.1=52Bolivia65.0=52Dominican Rep.65.054Argentina64.855Belarus64.556El Salvador64.257Morocco63.058Guatemala62.859South Africa61.760Honduras61.561Serbia61.462Tunisia60.363Indonesia60.2=64Colomb

259、ia60.1=64Thailand60.166Azerbaijan59.867Philippines59.3=68Algeria58.9=68India58.970Paraguay58.671Ukraine57.972Myanmar57.673Uzbekistan57.574Nepal56.975Tajikistan56.776Nicaragua56.6Rank /113CountryScore /10077Egypt56.078Cambodia55.779Sri Lanka55.280Bangladesh54.081Laos53.182Kenya53.083Ghana52.684Pakist

260、an52.285Mali51.986Senegal51.287Botswana51.188Rwanda50.689Burkina Faso49.690Tanzania49.1=91Benin48.1=91Malawi48.193Uganda47.794Mozambique47.395Cte dIvoire46.596Cameroon46.497Niger46.398Togo46.299Guinea45.1100Ethiopia44.5101Angola43.7102Zambia43.5103Chad43.2104Congo(Dem.Rep.)43.0105Sudan42.8106Venezue

261、la42.6107Nigeria42.0=108Burundi40.6=108Madagascar40.6110Sierra Leone40.5111Yemen40.1112Haiti38.5113Syria36.3Table 1.2022 GFSI overall rankings tableWeighted total of all pillar scores(0-100 where 100=most favourable)The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202228Rank /113CountryScore /1003

262、5Oman+13.8=25China+13.746Vietnam+13.4=52Bolivia+12.223United Arab Emirates+12.0=41Saudi Arabia+11.878Cambodia+11.474Nepal+11.133Uruguay+10.989Burkina Faso+10.790Tanzania+10.282Kenya+10.075Tajikistan+9.629Bulgaria+9.532Kazakhstan+9.4104Congo(Dem.Rep.)+9.399Guinea+9.357Morocco+9.181Laos+9.0=91Benin+8.

263、940Panama+8.884Pakistan+8.786Senegal+8.7=68Algeria+8.472Myanmar+8.261Serbia+8.024Israel+7.8103Chad+7.737Peru+7.760Honduras+7.485Mali+7.4=43Mexico+7.3105Sudan+7.367Philippines+7.29United Kingdom+7.239South Korea+7.173Uzbekistan+7.1=7Canada+7.0Rank /113CountryScore /10021Poland+7.080Bangladesh+6.936Sl

264、ovakia+6.95Netherlands+6.793Uganda+6.758Guatemala+6.676Nicaragua+6.348Ecuador+6.2=43Russia+6.1=25Chile+5.9100Ethiopia+5.845Romania+5.818Costa Rica+5.7=41Malaysia+5.738Bahrain+5.6=52Dominican Rep.+5.516Czech Republic+5.456El Salvador+5.41Finland+5.334Hungary+5.3=14New Zealand+5.2=68India+5.111Switzer

265、land+5.063Indonesia+4.82Ireland+4.831Greece+4.788Rwanda+4.728Singapore+4.722Australia+4.670Paraguay+4.659South Africa+4.6=64Thailand+4.6=14Denmark+4.455Belarus+4.362Tunisia+4.397Niger+4.26Japan+4.117Belgium+3.9Rank /113CountryScore /10010Portugal+3.912Austria+3.719Germany+3.694Mozambique+3.598Togo+3

266、.54France+3.4=7Sweden+3.466Azerbaijan+2.947Jordan+2.949Turkey+2.996Cameroon+2.8=91Malawi+2.627Italy+2.530Qatar+2.579Sri Lanka+2.377Egypt+2.283Ghana+2.171Ukraine+2.195Cte dIvoire+1.554Argentina+1.351Brazil+1.313United States+1.3=108Madagascar+1.287Botswana+0.9101Angola+0.820Spain+0.8111Yemen+0.13Norw

267、ay-0.450Kuwait-0.5107Nigeria-0.9110Sierra Leone-1.0=108Burundi-1.4102Zambia-1.8=64Colombia-2.2106Venezuela-4.9112Haiti-5.4113Syria-10.5Table 2.Score changes(Net change in overall score,2022 versus 2012)Weighted total of all pillar scores(0-100,where 100=most favourable)Score improved Score declined

268、The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202229Appendix II:MethodologyThe Global Food Security Index(GFSI)considers food affordability,availability,quality and safety,and sustainability and adaptation across 113 countries.The index is a dynamic quantitative and qualitative benchmarking mod

269、el constructed from 68 unique indicators that measure the drivers of food security across both developing and developed countries.The 2022 edition of the GFSI incorporates 14 new indicators to reflect the global nature and interconnectedness of the food system and to highlight the importance of“firs

270、t mile”and farm-level metrics in determining food security for populations.The focus on the first mile,(the segment of agriculture that includes production and links farmers to the nearest market,allowing them to operate efficiently and profitably to sell the goods that they produce)is critical,as t

271、he path to enhancing food security requires concerted efforts across the value chain.Some of the new measures reflect the support available to farmers,including their access to extension services as well as community organisations like co-operatives,and whether female farmers are empowered.The Econo

272、mist Impact team adjusted the Availability pillar to start at food production,capturing more farmer-focused measures such as access to agricultural inputs.This includes moving access to finance and financial products from the Affordability pillar to the“availability”pillar,as these measures are rela

273、ted to farming.Government commitment to innovative technologies and a new composite indicator for on-farm infrastructure have been added to the Availability pillar to reflect more accurately what is happening on the fields,in addition to in the supply chain.Reflecting a global impetus to move to sus

274、tainable food systems and adapt to growing climate shocks,the GFSIs fourth pillar,previously called Natural Resources and Resilience,has been renamed Sustainability and Adaptation.Reflecting how important biodiversity is to the agricultural sector,soil health has been added to help measure the healt

275、h of the land and assess land degradation,while new indicators for climate finance flows,environmental accounting implementation and sustainable agriculture have been added to track political commitment to adaptation.In addition,a measure of pest infestation and disease has been added as part of a n

276、ew composite indicator,disaster risk management,as a way of including mitigation policies.Other changes in the 2022 framework include updating indicators to rely on more up-to-date data sources,creating more challenging standards for existing qualitative metrics and adjusting weights(after consultat

277、ion with our expert panel)to reflect the realities of the current global food system.Detailed information on the changes to the pillars and indicators included in the 2022 GFSI are as follows:The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 2022301.AffordabilityThe Economist Impact team has develo

278、ped new composite indicator 1.4)Agricultural trade and added 1.4.2)Trade freedom to measure agricultural trade more comprehensively.Previously,1.4)Agricultural import tariffs was a standalone indicator.In another move designed to measure agricultural trade more comprehensively,we have added a new co

279、mposite indicator to include both 1.4.1)Agricultural import tariffs)and 1.4.2)Trade freedom as sub-indicators.We have removed composite indicator 1.6)Market access and agricultural financial services and moved three sub-indicators(Access to finance and financial products for farmers,Access to divers

280、ified financial products,and Access to market data and mobile banking)to the“availability”pillar under 2.1)Access to agricultural inputs and 2.3)On-farm infrastructure.2.AvailabilityWe have added a new composite indicator 2.1)Access to agricultural inputs to capture more farmer-focused measures on a

281、ccess to agricultural inputs.We have also:Moved 2.1.1)Access to finance and financial products for farmers from Affordability(deleted composite indicator“Market access and agricultural financial services”),as this measure is farmer-related.Moved 2.1.2)Access to diversified financial products from Af

282、fordability(deleted composite indicator“Market access and agricultural financial services”),as this measure is farmer-related.Added 2.1.3)Producer prices,to measure farmers financial wellbeing more comprehensively,through the prices that they receive for the resources that they produce.Added 2.1.4)A

283、ccess to extension services.Experts recommended adding a measure on farmers access to extension services,which play an important role in boosting agricultural productivity and improving farmers livelihoods.Added 2.1.5)Community organisations.Experts recommended adding a measure on government support

284、 for community organisations,such as professionally run farm-based organisations and farmer companies or co-operatives,which are key enablers of farmer well-being.Added 2.1.6)Empowering women farmers.Experts recommended adding a measure on empowering women farmers,who are key players in the agricult

285、ural sector but often lack access to agricultural inputs.Added 2.2.3)Commitment to innovative technologies to 2.2)Agricultural research&development to measure how committed governments are to promoting innovative agricultural technology adoption and use by producers.Removed composite indicator 2.3)A

286、griculture infrastructure and moved sub-indicators(Crop storage facilities;Irrigation infrastructure;Road infrastructure;and air,port and rail infrastructure)into two new composite indicators:2.3)Farm infrastructure and 2.6)Supply-chain infrastructure.Added new composite indicator 2.3)Farm infrastru

287、cture to capture infrastructure on farms(versus in the supply chain)more accurately.Moved 2.3.1)Crop storage facilities from deleted composite indicator Agricultural infrastructure.Moved 2.3.2)Irrigation infrastructure from deleted composite indicator Agricultural infrastructure.The Economist Group

288、2022Global Food Security Index 202231 Moved 2.3.3)Access to market data and mobile banking from Affordability(removed composite indicator Market access and agricultural financial services).Moved 2.4)Volatility of agricultural production and 2.5)Food loss to after 2.3)On-farm infrastructure.Added new

289、 composite indicator 2.6)Supply-chain infrastructure to capture infrastructure in the supply chain(versus on-farm)more accurately.Added 2.6.1)Planning and logistics to assess how well countries are able to move food from areas of excess to areas of need.Moved 2.6.2)Road infrastructure from deleted c

290、omposite indicator Agricultural infrastructure.Moved 2.6.3)Air,port and rail infrastructure from deleted composite indicator Agricultural infrastructure.Moved 2.7)Sufficiency of supply from the beginning of the Availability pillar to after 2.6)Supply chain infrastructure.3.Quality and SafetyWe have

291、added new composite indicator 3.1)Dietary diversity and sub-indicator 3.1.2)Sugar consumption to more comprehensively measure dietary diversity,and in particular the consumption of sugar,as households increasingly migrate to urban areas.Previously,indicator 3.1)was a standalone indicator,but experts

292、 recommended looking at the consumption of snack foods or sugar.We have also added 3.5.1)Relevant food safety legislation to 3.5)Food safety to measure how responsive food safety mechanisms are to current and future-facing food safety issues.4.Sustainability and AdaptationWe have renamed this pillar

293、(previously called Natural Resources and Resilience)Sustainability and Adaptation.In terms of other changes to the pillar,we have also:Added 4.3.4)Soil organic content to 4.3)Land,to more comprehensively measure the health of land and how land degradation might impact agriculture.Soil organic conten

294、t is critical to the ecosystems of goods and services associated with soils.Added 4.5.1)Climate finance flows to 4.5)Political commitment to adaptation,to measure how much money governments are trying to channel toward adaptation and risk mitigation.Added 4.5.2)Environmental accounting implementatio

295、n to 4.5)Political commitment to adaptation,to assess how countries are improving national planning for national resource management and monitoring.Added 4.5.6)Sustainable agriculture to 4.5)Political commitment to adaptation,to assess commitment to sustainable agricultural practices,which can impro

296、ve country resilience to climate and natural resource risk.Added new composite indicator 4.6)Disaster risk management and sub-indicator 4.6.1)Pest infestation and disease mitigation.Previously,indicator 4.6 was a standalone indicator.To incorporate a measure of mitigation policies for pest infestati

297、on and disease,Economist Impact changed indicator 4.6 to a composite indicator to include both 4.6.2)Risk management coordination(an existing indicator)and the new 4.6.1)Pest infestation and disease mitigation as sub-indicators.Removed 4.5)Sensitivity,including 4.5.1)Food import dependence and 4.5.2

298、)Dependence on natural capital,as we incorporated trade-related The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202232measurements in the Affordability pillar to reflect the changing nature and interconnectedness of the global food system.Removed 4.7)Demographic stress,including 4.7.1)Projected p

299、opulation growth and 4.7.2)Urban absorption capacity,based on experts recommendations that population growth and urban absorption capacity are not necessarily positive or negative drivers of food security.Expert panel participantsThe methodology for the GFSI was developed by Economist Impact in cons

300、ultation with a peer panel of experts.Each year,the methodology is reviewed to ensure that the index remains a credible,frequently referenced and trusted source of information for stakeholders looking to better understand the global environment for food security.The first iteration2012 GFSIThe first

301、 peer panel meeting was designed to engage a panel of experts from the academic,non-profit,and government sectors to help select and prioritise food security indicators through a transparent and robust methodology.The diverse backgrounds and extensive experience of the experts involved ensured that

302、a wide variety of views were considered.The panel met as a group in February 2012 in Washington DC to review the framework,selection of indicators,weighting and overall construction of the index.The panel has also provided ongoing support,as needed,throughout all editions of the index,as well as adv

303、ising on the selection of weightings.The expert panel consisted of the following:Ademola Braimoh Senior Natural Resources Management Specialist,World BankMargaret Enis Director of the Office of Markets,Partnerships and Innovation,US Agency for International Development(USAID)Bureau for Food Security

304、Craig Gundersen ACES Distinguished Professor,Agricultural Strategy,Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics,University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202233Eileen Kennedy Professor,Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy,Tufts Univ

305、ersitySamarendu Mohanty Senior Economist&Head,International Rice Research InstitutePrabhu Pingali Professor&Director,Tata-Cornell Agriculture&Nutrition Institute,Cornell UniversityPedro Sanchez Research Professor,Tropical Soils,University of Florida.David Spielman Senior Research Fellow,Internationa

306、l Food Policy Research InstituteRobert Thompson Senior Fellow,Chicago Council on Global AffairsPatrick Westhoff Director,Food and Agricultural Policy Research InstituteHoward Cowden Professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics,University of Missouri.The sixth iteration 2017 GFSIFor the sixth iter

307、ation of the GFSI,Economist Impact convened an additional expert panel in March 2017 to assist in the development of a fourth index pillar,Natural Resources and Resilience,which captures climate-related and natural resource risks to global food security.The following experts on climate change and na

308、tural resources participated in the meeting:Joe Glauber Senior Research Fellow,International Food Policy Research InstituteElise Golan Director,Sustainable Development,US Department of AgricultureSusanna Hecht Professor of Urban Planning,University of California,Los AngelesKarin Kemper Global Direct

309、or,Environment,Natural Resources and Blue Economy Global Practice,World BankCatie Lee Senior Marketing Manager,GreenLight BiosciencesShaun Martin Vice-President,Ecological and Social Resilience at World Wildlife FundDawn Rittenhouse Director,Sustainable Development,DuPontAllison Thomson Vice-Preside

310、nt,Science and Research,Field to Market:The Alliance for Sustainable AgricultureSonja Vermeulen Director of Programmes,CGIAR System Management OrganisationSara Walker Senior Manager,Water Quality and Agriculture,World Resources InstituteThe ninth iteration 2020 GFSIAs part of the review process in 2

311、020,Economist Impact consulted several new experts,along with a few from past panels,to ensure that the index remains a powerful tool in highlighting the major challenges for food security worldwide.The following additional experts were consulted during this review:Boaz Keizire Head of Policy and Ad

312、vocacy,Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202234Paul Winters Associate Vice-President,Strategy and Knowledge Department,International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentLauren Phillips Lead Advisor,Policy and Results,International Fund for Agri

313、cultural DevelopmentAbdul Sattar Statistician,Statistics&Food Security and Nutrition team,Statistics Division,Food and Agriculture OrganisationAkmal Siddiq Chief,Rural Development and Food Security Thematic Group,Asian Development BankThe 11th(and most recent)iteration 2022 GFSIEconomist Impact cont

314、inues to review the framework and methodology annually to strengthen each iteration.For the 11th iteration of the GFSI,Economist Impact convened an advisory panel of 11 experts in March 2022 to review and critically assess the GFSI framework,suggest modifications to the index in the form of adding o

315、r subtracting indicators,and discuss alternatives for indicators with data constraints.The following experts participated in the meeting:Tilahun Amede Head of Resilience,Climate&Soil Fertility,Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa(AGRA)Rob Bertram Chief Scientist,Bureau for Resilience and Food S

316、ecurity,USAIDJade Dyson Director,GAFTA:The Grain and Feed Trade Association(GAFTA)Nicoline de Haan Director,CGIAR Generating Evidence and New Directions for Equitable Results(GENDER)PlatformSheryl Hendriks Head of Department and Professor of Food Security,Department of Agricultural Economics,Univers

317、ity of Pretoria,South AfricaNarayan Iyer Senior Natural Resources and Agriculture Specialist,Asian Development Bank(ADB)Eileen Kennedy Professor,Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy,Tufts UniversityLloyd Le Page Managing Director,Kincannon&Reed GlobalLauren Phillips Senior Technical Speci

318、alist on Policy,International Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD)Rob Vos Director Markets,Trade and Institutions,International Food Policy Research Institute(IFPRI)Stanley Wood Senior Program Officer,Agricultural Development,Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation The Economist Group 2022Global Food Secur

319、ity Index 202235Country selection The 113 countries in the index were selected by Economist Impact based on regional diversity,economic importance,population size(countries with larger populations were chosen so that a greater share of the global population is represented)and the goal of including r

320、egions around the globe.The countries included in the 2022 index are:Asia PacificAustraliaAzerbaijanBangladeshCambodiaChinaIndiaIndonesiaJapanKazakhstanLaosMalaysiaMyanmarNepalNew ZealandPakistanPhilippinesSingaporeSouth KoreaSri LankaTajikistanThailandUzbekistanVietnamEuropeAustriaBelarusBelgiumBul

321、gariaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSerbiaSlovakiaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUkraineUnited KingdomLatin AmericaArgentinaBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHaitiHondurasMexicoNicara

322、guaPanamaParaguayPeruUruguayVenezuelaNorth AmericaCanadaUnited StatesMiddle East and North AfricaAlgeriaBahrainEgyptIsraelJordanKuwaitMoroccoOmanQatarSaudi ArabiaSyriaTunisiaTurkeyUnited Arab EmiratesYemenSub-Saharan AfricaAngolaBeninBotswanaBurkina FasoBurundiCameroonChadCongo(Dem Rep)Cte dIvoireEt

323、hiopiaGhanaGuineaKenyaMadagascarMalawiMaliMozambiqueNigerNigeriaRwandaSenegalSierra LeoneSouth AfricaSudanTanzaniaTogoUgandaZambia The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202236Weightings The weighting assigned to each pillar and indicator in the workbook can be changed by users to reflec

324、t different assumptions about their relative importance.Two sets of weightings are provided in the index.One possible option,known as neutral weights,assumes that all indicators are equally important and distributes weightings evenly.The second available option,known as peer panel recommendation,ave

325、rages the weightings suggested by the 11 members of the 2022 expert panel.The 2022 expert weightings are the default weightings in the model.The model workbook also enables users to create customised weightings to allow them to test their own assumptions about the relative importance of each indicat

326、or.Data modellingIndicator scores are normalised and then aggregated across pillars 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 favourab

327、le environment for food securityinequality-adjusted income or food supply adequacyhave been normalised on the basis of:x=(x Lower threshold(x)/(Upper threshold(x)Lower threshold(x)where Lower threshold(x)and Upper threshold(x)are specified for all series.For the indicators for which a high value ind

328、icates an unfavourable environment for food securitysuch as volatility of agricultural production or political stability riskthe normalisation function takes the form of:x=(x Upper threshold(x)/(Upper threshold(x)Lower threshold(x)where Lower threshold(x)and Upper threshold(x)are specified for all s

329、eries.The normalisation method,by which the underlying data for all series are converted into comparable scores of 0-100,has been updated.In the 2022 edition,upper and lower threshold values are specified for all series(the data values that correspond to a score of 100 and zero respectively).This ha

330、s been done to ensure that data outliers do not skew the scores.The same upper and lower thresholds are applied across all years 2012-22 for each series.In previous editions,normalisation thresholds for some series were calculated based on the minimum and maximum data values appearing in the dataset

331、 in each given year.Applying the same normalisation thresholds across all years means that scores can be compared directly across years;this makes for more intuitive time-series analysis.The Economist Group 2022Global Food Security Index 202237Sources and definitionsThe 2022 edition of the GFSI intr

332、oduces a few new data sources and datasets.The primary goal of the framework revision was to ensure that the GFSI is designed to be a powerful and forward-looking tool that highlights the major challenges for food security worldwide.Our review process included conversations with food security expert

333、s,desk research and data reviews by the Economist Impact team,and conversations with users of the GFSI.Data for the quantitative indicators are drawn from national and international statistical sources.Where there were missing values in quantitative or survey data,Economist Impact has used estimates.Estimated figures have been noted in the model workbook.Of the qualitative indicators,some have bee