Food Security in Focus: Asia Pacific


Published on

Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 is an
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) report
commissioned by DuPont. The report discusses the
major findings in the 2014 Global Food Security
Index (GFSI) for the 22 countries of Asia & Pacific
included in the index.

Published in: Technology, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Food Security in Focus: Asia Pacific

  1. 1. A report from The Economist Intelligence Unit Food securityinfocus: Asia & Pacific2014 Sponsoredby
  2. 2. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20141 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 is an Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) report commissioned by DuPont. The report discusses the major findings in the 2014 Global Food Security Index (GFSI) for the 22 countries of Asia & Pacific included in the index. About the GFSI The GFSI considers the core issues of affordability, availability, and quality & safety across a set of 109 countries. The index is a dynamic quantitative and qualitative benchmarking model, constructed from 28 unique indicators, that measures the drivers of food security across both developed and developing countries. Food security is defined as the state in which people at all times have physical, social and economic access to sufficient and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs for a healthy and active life, based on the definition established at the 1996 World Food Summit. The overall goal of the study is to assess the vulnerability of food systems to security and insecurity by looking at drivers of the Affordability, Availability, and Quality & Safety of food. The 2014 GFSI is the third annual index in this series. Acknowledgements Lucy Hurst, associate director of custom research for the Americas, was the project director. Joshua Grundleger, analyst, was the project manager. Katherine Stewart, research associate, was the editor of the Food security in focus series. Martin Vieiro, analyst, provided research and analytical support. Leo Abruzzese, global forecasting director and global director of public policy, served as senior adviser. William Shallcross designed and constructed the benchmarking model, and Mike Kenny was responsible for layout and design. Duncan Innes-Ker, regional editor, Asia, provided regional expertise. PrefaceContents A regional analysis of food security 2 Regional results and comparisons 3 Food security in Asia & Pacific 6 The countries of Asia & Pacific 10 Appendix 13
  3. 3. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20142 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 The Food security in focus regional reports identify both similarities and differences between countries in each region and highlight regional areas of strength and weakness, providing regional analysis and context to the results in the 2014 GFSI. Food security is a complex and nuanced issue, which can be analysed through many viewpoints and from many geographical perspectives— national, regional and global. To facilitate greater insight into the primary elements of global food security, and to develop a common standard against which all countries and regions can be measured, The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) created the Global Food Security Index (GFSI). The index is a tool to be used by a wide range of organisations and individuals working to address food security and the smooth functioning of food systems at a variety of levels. Some of the major elements of food security and, in particular, the deficiencies that may lead to greater food insecurity, differ across the globe. The regional reports seek to facilitate a deeper analysis of food security through a unique lens. Specifically, these reports seek to: l Examine regional challenges, strengths and issues surrounding food security to gain greater insight into the study’s measures. l Provide a point of comparison between the regions to understand the dynamics of food security and the mechanisms that may be employed to address the unique issues that are experienced within a region. l Explore the role of regional commonalities— countries within a region tend to have similar environments, problems, solutions and, in some cases, may share common institutions. l Create more accurate country comparisons and a more nuanced understanding of food security by narrowing the frame of analysis. l Offer insight into the economic, political and social context of the results of the 2014 GFSI. A regional analysis of food security
  4. 4. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20143 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 Overview On a regional level, structural elements, which are generally more similar within regions than across the globe, tend to play an extremely important role in determining food security. Also, in regions that include countries with different economic systems, policy environments, agricultural infrastructures and nutritional standards, the gap in food security between best and worst performers is wider. These structural elements tend to change little year on year; however, when changes do occur, they have a greater impact on food security than other factors explored in the index. l Economic development has the largest impact on food security, as shown by the strong correlation between food affordability and food security. The top performers in the index are rich countries with developed economies; these tend Regional results and comparisons Ranking/score table of all regions Overall Rank Region 2014 GFSI Score 1 North America 80.0 2 Europe 75.4 3 Middle East and North Africa 57.4 4 Central and South America 56.0 5 Asia and Pacific 55.0 6 Sub-Saharan Africa 36.1 to have relatively high levels of GDP per capita and low shares of household expenditure on food. Although emerging economies are experiencing rapid GDP growth, resulting in increased Affordability scores and greater urban absorption capacity, the gap between developed and developing countries is still great. l The most food-secure countries also tend to have developed infrastructures, including advanced agricultural infrastructures and facilities and systems that support agricultural investment and research and development (R&D). Transport infrastructure, including road and port systems, and adequate crop storage facilities drive food availability and are underdeveloped and undersupplied across food-insecure countries owing to underinvestment.
  5. 5. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20144 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 l A stable, efficient and functional policy environment is crucial for food security. More food-insecure regions, as well as countries, frequently have higher political stability risk and corruption levels, alongside weaker institutions that fail to provide appropriate government regulation and oversight. By contrast, the more food-secure regions have robust policy environments that facilitate food accessibility through stable supply chains, and affordability through food safety-net programmes. l Nutrition plays an important role in determining food security. Highly food-secure countries have diversified diets and a high quality of protein. Their diets contain a high level of micronutrients, including iron and vitamin A. More food-insecure countries are often deprived of nutritious diets and lack organisations that regulate nutritional standards. Regional results North America and Europe, which collectively encompass 29 of the 109 countries in the index, recorded the strongest performances in the GFSI, driven by the developed countries’ dominance of those regions. l As two regions comprised primarily of rich countries, Europe and North America have high levels of GDP per capita at an average of US$32,462 measured in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), compared with an average of US$9,900 at PPP in the other four regions, while an average of 17.7% of household expenditure goes on food—just over half the global average of 34.5%. l Wealth corresponds with high sufficiency of food supply, developed agricultural infrastructure, strong diet diversification, relatively low political stability risk and low corruption levels (Ukraine and Russia are exceptions). These factors contribute to North America’s and Europe’s first and second place rankings respectively in the overall index and in each of the categories. Availability Rank Region Score 1 North America 76.7 2 Europe 69.8 3 Asia and Pacific 55.6 4 Middle East and North Africa 55.0 5 Central and South America 54.1 6 Sub-Saharan Africa 42.1 Affordability Rank Region Score 1 North America 83.6 2 Europe 80.3 3 Middle East and North Africa 59.1 4 Central and South America 56.8 5 Asia and Pacific 53.9 6 Sub-Saharan Africa 29.2
  6. 6. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20145 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 The next three highest-ranked regions—the Middle East & North Africa (MENA), Central & South America and Asia & Pacific—together account for 52 countries in the index. They all fall within a range of 2.4 points and share several common factors: l They are comprised of a mixture of developed and developing countries that vary in terms of economic and political structures. l MENA’s strong Affordability score (third overall), which is 2.3 points ahead of Central & South America, and its third-place tie in Quality & Safety with Central & South America account for its overall third-place regional rank in the index. l Asia & Pacific’s comparatively high percentage of the population under the global poverty line and low diet diversification explain its lower scores in the Affordability and Quality & Safety categories. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has the lowest regional score in the 2014 GFSI, with an overall score that is just two-thirds that of the Asia & Pacific region. l It also scores the lowest in each of the Affordability, Availability and Quality & Safety categories, owing to the large percentage of low-income countries in the region; of the 28 countries included in the region, 18 are low- income, according to World Bank income classifications. l Low agricultural import tariffs and commitment to agricultural research and development, while still weak, are areas of relative strength in comparison with select regions, but underdeveloped agricultural infrastructure, low income levels and poor diet diversification drive the region’s poor results. Quality & Safety Rank Region Score 1 North America 80.3 2 Europe 78.9 =3 Central and South America 59.5 =3 Middle East and North Africa 59.5 5 Asia and Pacific 56.4 6 Sub-Saharan Africa 36.8
  7. 7. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20146 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 The Asia & Pacific region is one of the most diverse in the world. It contains the world’s two largest countries—China and India—which, in line with their vast populations, are the world’s biggest producers and consumers of many types of food. It also contains much more sparsely populated nations, such as those in Central Asia. Climates and soils vary enormously. Some countries, such as Vietnam, Thailand, China, New Zealand and Australia, are important exporters of agricultural commodities in the global market. Others are major importers, with the Philippines, for example, traditionally ranking among the world’s top rice importers. The diverse climates, population sizes, levels of development and agricultural production capacities of the countries in Asia & Pacific make the region extremely vulnerable to risks to food security and food prices. Natural disasters have challenged the region in recent years. Although the wealthier states in the region are able to rebound from the damage caused by such disasters, poorer countries’ food security is severely affected by such events, and they are slow to recover. The impact of Typhoon Haiyan, which struck in November 2013, on food security in the poorer eastern parts of the Philippines may linger for years. Likewise, flooding hampered food security in many poorer parts of India and south-east Asia last year. By contrast, Japan’s food security was barely affected by the earthquake and tsunami that struck that country’s east coast in 2011. Food prices vary significantly across the Asia & Pacific region, based on local supply-and-demand dynamics, but some new patterns are emerging. Rising Chinese demand is shifting market dynamics for some key sectors. The impact of Chinese consumers in pushing up dairy prices has been much discussed and was again in evidence over the last year (to the benefit of milk-exporting New Zealand). China’s demand for meat is also an important driver of prices in markets for pork and beef, as well as some seafood products. In addition, China is gradually liberalising policies that had sought to protect self-sufficiency in most key categories of grain. This process, which began several years ago with soybeans, has resulted in China playing an increasing role as an importer of grains such as rice and maize. Although its domestic consumption of rice is falling, China’s imports of rice are expected to grow strongly in 2013-14, which will prop up prices. China has expanded investments in Sub-Saharan Africa to capture new agricultural markets for its imports. Imports from the Philippines and Indonesia are also expected to recover in 2014 from relatively weak levels in 2013. This support for the rice market is welcome at a time when Thailand’s policy of subsidising rice farmers by purchasing rice at above-market prices has led to worryingly large stockpiles being built up in that country, even as increased exports from Vietnam have served to drive global rice prices down. Local market dynamics often obscure global Food security in Asia & Pacific
  8. 8. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20147 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 trends. For example, despite the drop in global rice prices, the local price of rice in India increased sharply last year, contributing to a wider problem with rapid food price inflation that has become entrenched in that country. The government’s National Food Security Act, which was signed into law in 2013 and provides subsidised access to key grains such as rice, wheat and millet, has bolstered the upward pressure on food prices. Regional highlights Collectively, Asia & Pacific is one of the lowest- scoring regions for food security, coming ahead of only Sub-Saharan Africa. However, this low overall score disguises sharp differences between wealthy nations and underdeveloped ones, and these divides are more acute within Asia than within any other region. If the top five countries within the region—Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Japan and South Korea—were considered separately, that region would rank second globally. By contrast, poor countries such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar and Cambodia have some of the highest levels of food insecurity seen around the world. Asia’s food security overall, however, is improving. Of the 22 nations in Asia covered by the GFSI, 15 experienced an overall improvement in their scores between 2013 and 2014, while only three—Myanmar, Bangladesh and Vietnam—saw a decline. This gave an overall score improvement for the region of 0.9, which was broadly in line with the average improvement seen in other regions around the world. Nonetheless, the fact that the scale of the improvement in 2013 was relatively modest must be seen as a disappointment, given that Asia was the world’s fastest-growing region economically over the year. In general, Asia’s economic growth contributes positively to underlying levels of food security. However, in the 2014 index factors besides economic performance had an impact on food security scores, since Myanmar, Bangladesh and Vietnam all experienced robust economic growth over the year. It is also notable that political turmoil did not drive movements in food security scores. Although Bangladesh did experience rising political tensions ahead of the January 2014 general election, these were not sufficient to increase political stability risk in a manner that would impact food security. Similarly, Thailand’s ongoing political crisis, which resulted in a slight increase in political stability risk, did not prevent a modest improvement in its GFSI score between 2013 and 2014 because of other factors that buttressed this increase in risk. Political instability will, of course, begin to have a wider impact on food security if it is sustained, but it has not had much of a negative impact in most Asian countries 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 Jan 2000 Jan 2001 Jan 2002 Jan 2003 Jan 2004 Jan 2005 Jan 2006 Jan 2007 Jan 2008 Jan 2009 Jan 2010 Jan 2011 Jan 2012 Jan 2013 India Food price inflation Jan 2005=100 Source: Economist Intelligence Unit; FAO.
  9. 9. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20148 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 over the last year. There does, however, seem to have been a strong correlation between shifts in food affordability and changes in the GFSI. All three Asian countries that saw their overall scores fall witnessed a deterioration in affordability as households were forced to spend a growing proportion of their incomes on food. Bangladesh and Vietnam also experienced a decline in their scores for farmers’ access to finance, which depressed their scores for food affordability and dragged down their overall performance. Regional strengths: Robust governance Asia & Pacific’s key strength lies in the relatively impressive levels of governance seen in the region. Many countries which are less developed economically still have governments that are able to manage and implement policy effectively, particularly in the agricultural sector. This has helped to ensure that places such as Indonesia, China and Vietnam have low levels of volatility when it comes to agricultural output. It is also a factor in the region’s good scores for nutritional standards. Only a handful of Asian governments have not yet implemented national dietary guidelines and nutritional monitoring systems, and all countries in the region have a national nutrition strategy. Countries are also putting in place food safety nets: Azerbaijan, New Zealand, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Thailand all saw score improvements in this category in 2014. Governance standards continue to be raised, with China, Malaysia, Nepal and Pakistan all seeing slight improvements in their scores for corruption in the 2014 GFSI compared with 2013; corruption levels, nevertheless, remain high on average across the region. Good governance also supports high urban absorption capacity in countries across the region, such as Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan, bolstering rapid economic growth and well-balanced rural-urban policies that help to control the pace of migration from the countryside to the cities and reduce the negative side effects associated with mass urbanisation. Nonetheless, there can also be downsides to these policies. China’s hukou household registration system, for example, not only curbs urbanisation, but also ensures that rural dwellers get access to a much lower quality of public services—one of the reasons that the government is moving to relax the policy. Asia & Pacific also has relatively low agricultural import tariffs. This at least partly reflects the strong web of free-trade agreements (FTAs) in place. While countries in Asia (notably India) have often been blamed for the lack of progress on global deals under the World Trade Organisation (WTO), they have moved rapidly to cut tariffs, including on agricultural goods, through bilateral and regional deals. However, south and central Asian nations have moved more slowly on this front than those in east Asia and south-east Asia (including Australia and New Zealand). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Agricultural import tariffs, by country % South Asia Nepal Pakistan Bangladesh Sri Lanka India Central Asia Tajikistan Kazakhstan Azerbaijan Uzbekistan South-east Asia Singapore Indonesia Myanmar Malaysia Cambodia Vietnam Thailand East Asia Australia New Zealand China Japan South Korea Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
  10. 10. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20149 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 Regional weaknesses: Poverty and underdevelopment The region’s weakest food security scores are closely correlated to levels of economic development. With the notable exception of the region’s five higher-income countries (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Singapore), average levels of GDP per capita are low. High levels of poverty contribute to particularly low levels of vegetal iron in Asian diets. Poorer households are less able to afford the diet diversification that makes for a healthy diet. In Asia & Pacific, such households tend to rely disproportionately on rice-based meals, a poor source of vegetal iron. The low levels of meat and fish consumption associated with poverty further compound the problem of iron deficiency, since meat and fish consumption enhances the absorption of vegetal iron. Low levels of economic development may also be a factor behind the unusually weak level of public spending on agricultural research and development (R&D) in Asia. As a whole, the region scores the lowest out of any region in the index, with a score of just 5.1 out of 100. It is particularly surprising that even economies where agriculture plays an important role, such as Australia and New Zealand, still see relatively low levels of public R&D spending. This may reflect a cultural reluctance to invest public money in agricultural research, or the absence of state entities like Brazil’s Embrapa, through which research funds can be channelled. In Asia’s poorer economies, state agricultural R&D spending is universally below 0.5% of agricultural GDP.
  11. 11. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 201410 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 The countries of Asia & Pacific Asia & Pacific can be broadly divided into three regions. The region’s five developed countries— Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan and South Korea—are relatively wealthy, with good infrastructure, effective governments and sound safety nets. Food security is generally high in these locations. The nations of Central Asia—Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan—have varying levels of economic development, but generally have poor infrastructure and high levels of corruption. Diets there are more closely related to those in the Middle East than they are to those in South or East Asia. The rest of the region is dominated by emerging markets. Many of these countries struggle with food security issues, but their rankings in the GFSI tend to correlate closely with levels of GDP per capita. Country highlights Levels of food security vary throughout Asia & Pacific, and the gap between rich and poor nations is apparent across the GFSI. As family incomes rise, food costs tend to eat up a smaller proportion of the family spending budget, improving affordability metrics. In Cambodia and Myanmar, levels of food spending as a proportion of total household Correlation between GFSI percentage of household expenditure on food score and GFSI agricultural infrastructure score Household expenditure v Agricultural infrastructure, Asia & Pacific Source: Economist Intelligence Unit 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Agriculturalinfrastructure Food consumption as share of household expenditure Food consumption as share of household expenditure: Rating 0–100 Agricultural infrastructure: Rating 0-100 Correlation (x,y) -0.87
  12. 12. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 201411 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 expenditure are among the highest in the world, at nearly 71%, while Singaporean and Australian families spend very little of their total household budget on food, at 6.7% and 10.2%, respectively. Wealthier states are also able to afford better infrastructure, both in terms of physical infrastructure (ports, roads and storage facilities) that improves the logistics of food supply, and in terms of the soft infrastructure of government that improves elements of food security, such as food safety and monitoring. There is a very strong correlation between levels of economic development and levels of agricultural infrastructure in Asia. Countries such as Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea top the list, while Nepal, Cambodia and Tajikistan score poorly. Within this pattern, China scores unusually highly relative to its GDP per capita, while most Central Asian nations score relatively poorly. The former reflects China’s infrastructure investment- led growth model, while the latter may partly be owing to the land-locked nature of countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. A similar pattern is present with regard to food safety. Malaysia scores relatively well, in line with its higher GDP per capita, while Indonesia, which has a lower GDP per capita, does poorly. This partly reflects the impressive investments that the former has made to ensure the availability of potable water supplies, while Indonesia has been unable to make these investments. Food security successes Given the correlation between economic prosperity and food security, it is not surprising that the wealthiest countries in the region—Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore— perform considerably stronger than other countries in the index. Japan and South Korea lag slightly behind the three other rich nations, partly owing to extremely low levels of public R&D spending on agriculture for advanced economies. South Korea’s protectionist tariffs also serve as a drag on its scores. By contrast, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore are all staunch free traders—with the former two also being major exporters of agricultural products. Some of the region’s weaker performers have also made rapid progress over the last year. Nepal and Azerbaijan posted some of the strongest gains in the index. Nepal’s political situation remains fragile, but it has improved slightly compared with a year ago, resulting in score improvements in corruption and political stability risk that helped to lift the country’s overall food security scores. Both Nepal and Azerbaijan saw significant improvements in Affordability, as the proportion of the household budget taken up by food spending fell. The two countries also slightly reduced the average tariffs imposed on agricultural imports. Azerbaijan’s score was further bolstered by the establishment of a rudimentary food safety net, a product of a series Public expenditure on agricultural R&D, by region and country 2014 score, 0-100 where 100=best *Japan and South Korea had a score of 0 in 2014. Source: Economist Intelligence Unit North America Europe Middle East and North Africa Sub-Saha- ran Africa Central and South America Asia and Pacific New Zealand Australia Singapore Japan* South Korea* 0 10 20 30 40 50
  13. 13. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 201412 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 of social assistance programmes which began in the early 2000s and which have continued to expand to include food safety nets. Additionally, Azerbaijan experienced a score increase in Availability owing to a drop in the urbanisation rate and higher real GDP growth, which lead to a large score increase in urban absorption capacity. Food security challenges It is unsurprising that Cambodia, Bangladesh and Myanmar have the lowest food security scores in the Asia & Pacific region. The three boast some of the lowest levels of annual GDP per capita in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) in Asia, at US$2,620, US$1,970 and US$1,300 respectively. What is more worrying is that despite comparatively rapid economic growth over the past year, which might have been expected to improve their metrics, food security scores in Myanmar and Bangladesh actually declined. The sharp decline in Myanmar’s rating was driven by falls in its score for both Affordability and Quality & Safety. However, these may be less of a source for concern than might at first appear, as the drops largely reflect more accurate data rather than a deterioration of the situation on the ground. Because of the country’s past political isolation, few multilateral organisations had a presence there. This, combined with the country’s weak internal capacities, meant that its statistical data were a product of weak estimates. As Myanmar’s government has pursued economic reform and political opening, the quality of data has improved, but many measures, such as GDP per capita in PPP terms and food as a proportion of total household spending, have deteriorated as better information has become available. The underlying picture in Myanmar is of a country undergoing overdue reforms that should serve to improve food security, but the political reform process remains fragile, with a high risk of reversals. In Bangladesh, a slight slowing of economic growth over the last year put downward pressure on the country’s score for its urban absorption capacity, resulting in a marginal dip in its food availability score. However, the bigger reason for the decline in its overall GFSI score was a drop in Affordability as access to financing among farmers deteriorated. This development was linked to the ongoing political battle between the country’s government and Muhammad Yunus, which has undermined the operations of Mr Yunus’ Grameen Bank, the biggest microlender in Bangladesh.
  14. 14. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 201413 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 Appendix Asia & Pacific Central & South America Europe Middle East & North Africa North America Sub-Saharan Africa Australia Argentina Austria Algeria Canada Angola Azerbaijan Bolivia Belarus Egypt Mexico Benin Bangladesh Brazil Belgium Israel United States Botswana Cambodia Chile Bulgaria Jordan Burkina Faso China Colombia Czech Republic Kuwait Burundi India Costa Rica Denmark Morocco Cameroon Indonesia Dominican Republic Finland Saudi Arabia Chad Japan Ecuador France Syria Congo (Dem. Rep.) Kazakhstan El Salvador Germany Tunisia Côte d’Ivoire Malaysia Guatemala Greece Turkey Ethiopia Myanmar Haiti Hungary United Arab Emirates Ghana Nepal Honduras Ireland Yemen Guinea New Zealand Nicaragua Italy Kenya Pakistan Panama Netherlands Madagascar Philippines Paraguay Norway Malawi Singapore Peru Poland Mali South Korea Uruguay Portugal Mozambique Sri Lanka Venezuela Romania Niger Tajikistan Russia Nigeria Thailand Serbia Rwanda Uzbekistan Slovakia Senegal Vietnam Spain Sierra Leone Sweden South Africa Switzerland Sudan Ukraine Tanzania United Kingdom Togo Uganda Zambia Country selection table
  15. 15. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 201414 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 These tables list the rankings and scores for Asia & Pacific in the overall index and across the three categories (Affordability, Availability and Quality & Safety). Overall ranking Affordability Overall Rank Country Score Rank Country Score 1 Singapore 84.3 1 Singapore 94.0 2 New Zealand 82.2 2 Australia 91.8 3 Australia 81.9 3 New Zealand 85.2 4 Japan 77.8 4 Japan 85.0 5 South Korea 73.2 5 South Korea 78.0 6 Malaysia 68.0 6 Malaysia 66.9 7 China 62.2 7 Thailand 63.9 8 Thailand 59.9 8 China 58.9 9 Kazakhstan 53.3 9 Kazakhstan 58.2 10 Sri Lanka 51.7 10 Azerbaijan 51.3 11 Azerbaijan 50.3 11 Sri Lanka 49.6 12 Philippines 49.4 12 India 44.7 13 Vietnam 49.1 13 Philippines 44.1 14 India 48.3 14 Indonesia 43.3 15 Indonesia 46.5 15 Vietnam 40.0 16 Uzbekistan 46.0 16 Tajikistan 37.8 17 Pakistan 43.6 17 Uzbekistan 37.6 18 Tajikistan 38.7 18 Pakistan 37.1 19 Nepal 37.7 19 Myanmar 31.5 20 Myanmar 37.6 20 Bangladesh 30.9 21 Bangladesh 36.3 21 Cambodia 28.5 22 Cambodia 33.1 22 Nepal 27.3 Availability Quality & Safety Rank Country Score Rank Country Score 1 New Zealand 79.9 1 Australia 84.8 2 Singapore 78.5 2 New Zealand 81.1 3 Australia 71.9 3 Japan 79.3 4 Japan 70.6 4 South Korea 77.1 5 Malaysia 68.2 5 Singapore 76.0 6 South Korea 67.4 6 Kazakhstan 70.3 7 China 63.5 7 Malaysia 70.0 8 Thailand 57.2 8 China 66.6 9 Vietnam 56.0 9 Thailand 57.4 10 Sri Lanka 55.1 10 Pakistan 55.5 11 India 53.1 11 Philippines 54.3 12 Philippines 52.3 12 Vietnam 52.9 13 Uzbekistan 51.5 13 Uzbekistan 51.4 14 Indonesia 51.1 14 Sri Lanka 47.5 15 Azerbaijan 51.0 15 Azerbaijan 45.7 16 Nepal 45.4 16 India 44.0 17 Pakistan 45.3 17 Nepal 42.3 18 Myanmar 43.9 18 Indonesia 42.0 19 Bangladesh 43.2 19 Tajikistan 40.2 20 Kazakhstan 42.7 20 Myanmar 35.3 21 Tajikistan 39.0 21 Cambodia 35.2 22 Cambodia 36.5 22 Bangladesh 31.2 Appendix
  16. 16. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 201415 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 These tables list the year-on-year score changes, 2014 v 2013, for Asia & Pacific in the overall index and across the three categories (Affordability, Availability and Quality & Safety). Overall Ranking Affordability Country Y-o-Y change Country Y-o-Y change Azerbaijan 4.6 Azerbaijan 9.0 Nepal 3.4 Uzbekistan 6.5 Singapore 2.7 India 6.4 Uzbekistan 2.5 Nepal 4.9 India 2.4 Pakistan 4.3 Malaysia 2.0 Tajikistan 4.1 South Korea 1.5 Australia 4.0 Pakistan 1.5 Malaysia 3.8 Sri Lanka 1.3 Thailand 3.0 Tajikistan 1.3 Sri Lanka 3.0 China 1.2 Japan 2.8 Australia 0.8 South Korea 2.6 Thailand 0.5 New Zealand 2.3 New Zealand 0.3 Indonesia 1.1 Philippines 0.3 Kazakhstan 0.6 Japan 0.0 Philippines 0.6 Kazakhstan 0.0 Cambodia 0.6 Indonesia 0.0 China 0.4 Cambodia 0.0 Singapore 0.1 Vietnam -0.2 Vietnam -2.1 Bangladesh -1.0 Bangladesh -2.1 Myanmar -4.1 Myanmar -6.9 Availability Quality & Safety Country Y-o-Y change Country Y-o-Y change Singapore 4.7 Cambodia 6.0 Myanmar 3.4 Singapore 4.2 Nepal 3.3 Vietnam 2.3 Azerbaijan 2.1 China 0.9 China 1.8 Tajikistan 0.7 South Korea 1.3 Sri Lanka 0.5 Malaysia 0.9 Azerbaijan 0.5 Vietnam 0.6 Kazakhstan 0.4 Philippines 0.2 Bangladesh 0.3 Sri Lanka 0.1 New Zealand 0.1 Pakistan -0.2 Malaysia 0.0 India -0.3 Uzbekistan -0.1 Uzbekistan -0.3 Indonesia -0.1 Bangladesh -0.3 Philippines -0.2 Kazakhstan -0.7 Nepal -0.2 Tajikistan -0.9 Japan -0.3 Indonesia -1.1 India -0.5 New Zealand -1.3 Thailand -0.6 Thailand -1.3 Australia -0.6 Australia -1.6 Pakistan -0.8 Japan -2.6 South Korea -1.0 Cambodia -2.7 Myanmar -17.6 Appendix
  17. 17. © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 201416 Food security in focus: Asia & Pacific 2014 Whilst every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy of this information, neither The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd. nor the sponsor of this report can accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this white paper or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the white paper. Cover:Getty
  18. 18. London 20 Cabot Square London E14 4QW United Kingdom Tel: (44.20) 7576 8000 Fax: (44.20) 7576 8476 E-mail: NewYork 750 Third Avenue 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 United States Tel: (1.212) 554 0600 Fax: (1.212) 586 0248 E-mail: HongKong 6001, Central Plaza 18 Harbour Road Wanchai Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2585 3888 Fax: (852) 2802 7638 E-mail: Geneva Boulevard des Tranchées 16 1206 Geneva Switzerland Tel: (41) 22 566 2470 Fax: (41) 22 346 93 47 E-mail: