1. BEYOND HUNGER
Monitoring food insecurity in the SDG era
Carlo Cafiero, PhD, Project Manager, Statistics Division FAO, 30 November 2018, Bangkok

2. From MDG-1 to SDG-2: much more than
continuation of an advocacy campaign
 MDG-1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
o Target 1.C: To halve the proportion of individuals suffering from hunger in the
period between 1990 and 2015
o Indicator 1.8 Prevalence of underweight children under-five years of age
o Indicator 1.9 Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary
energy consumption
 SDG-2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition
and promote sustainable agriculture
o Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in
particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to
safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round
o Indicator 2.1.1 Prevalence of undernourishment
o Indicator 2.1.2 Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the
population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)

3. The SDG monitoring framework
 Broader, more ambitious, and potentially more effective
o242 indicators, many targets aim at “zero” or “100%”, leaving no one
behind, with national authorities in the driving seat
But…
 More demanding in terms of methods, standards and tools
oMany new areas of interest, that are still not part of national statistical
systems
oComparability of the indicators across countries is essential, to ensure
meaningful aggregation
oIndicators must be timely, relevant, scalable and reliable

4. Measuring food insecurity in a relevant, timely,
reliable, cross-country comparable way
 Existing indicators for MDGs did not fulfil the need created by the
new demands
o E.g., malnutrition: Children underweight largely insufficient as it confounds
acute and chronic malnutrition, therefore many new indicators: stunting,
wasting+overweight in children, anaemia in WRA, low-birthweight, exclusive
breastfeeding, adolescent and adult overweight
 Food access:
o PoU: only national level, 2-3 years delay, insufficiently precise to capture very
low levels (< 5%)
o FCS, HDDS: lacking a basis for ensuring cross-country comparability
o CSI, rCSI: measures of resilience to shock/intensity of shocks
o HFIAS/HHS: lack cross-country comparability; relevant for acute f.i.
 New indicator: FIES-based prevalence of food insecurity

5. A critical review of food insecurity measures
 Food security as a ‘complex’ phenomenon
oAvailability, Access, Utilization, Stability … useful conceptual
framework, but not conducive to operational definitions of a
measurable attribute
 Whose food security? (The object)
oGlobal? A country? A population group? An individual?
 What to measure? (The measurand)
oAdequacy of food consumption? In quantity? Quality? Security of
access?
oNutritional consequences of food consumption? Psychological
implications of the inability to access food? Social status?
oAll of the above?

6. A critical review of food insecurity measures
(continued)
 In defining indicators, with one notable exception, there has
never been a discussion of the probabilistic model that links the
“data” to the “measure”
 Attempts at quantification have led to either deny the possibility
to measure (“there is no ‘gold standard’ ”) or arbitrarily define
numeric “scores” or “indexes”, assumed – without proof – that
they “measure”something
oEx-post validation has been attempted by combining (confusing?)
issues of validity (e.g., definition of the attribute being measured and
relevance of the data uses) with those of reliability (that is, whether the
measures obtained were good enough for the purpose at hand)

7. The severity of the food insecurity condition
as a latent trait
 Through ethnographic research, Radimer and colleagues (Radimer et al 1990,
1992) established consistency of typical experiences associated with food
insecurity
 In 1995, using Rasch model, USDA proposed creating a measurement scale
using 18 survey items that were included in the Current Population Survey,
creating the HFSSM, used officially in the US since 1997
 Other scales (HFIAS, ELCSA, EBIA, EMSA) have been derived as adaptations of
the HFSSM
 In 2014, FAO established the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) as a
global reference standard, to measure the severity of food insecurity of
households and individuals in a consistent, cross-country comparable, valid
manner

8. Household
Food Insecurity
Access Scale
HFIAS
ELCSA
Guatemala, 2011
EMSA
Mexico, 2008
EBIA
Brazil, 2004
FIES
A global reference
standard
Colombia Venezuela
U.S. Household Food Security
Survey Module
USA, 1995; Canada, 2004
FIES genealogy
HHS

9. The Food Insecurity Experience Scale survey
module
During the last 12 MONTHS, was there a time when, because of a
lack of money or other resources:
1. You (or others in the hh) were worried you would run out of food?
2. You (or others in the hh) were unable to eat healthy and nutritious
food?
3. You (or others in the hh) ate only a few kinds of foods?
4. You (or others in the hh) had to skip a meal?
5. You (or others in the hh) ate less than you thought you should?
6. Your household ran out of food?
7. You (or others in the hh) were hungry but did not eat?
8. You (or others in the hh) went without eating for a whole day?

10. Added value of the FIES
 The FIES is easy to implement and at a very low cost
oCan be included in virtually any population survey
oIt takes less than 5 minutes of survey time
 It permits timely assessments of the food insecurity situation in
a population group, from sub-national to the global level
 When available from integrated surveys, FIES data can be used
to study the specific determinants of food insecurity and the
potential role of food insecurity in determining nutrition
outcomes, in different contexts

11. Promoting country ownership of FIES
methodology
 The ideal sources of FIES data are large population surveys
 For SDG monitoring, the goal is to have many countries
reporting food insecurity prevalence estimates based on FIES
data collected by national institutions, every year
 Thus far (as of November 2018):
o11 countries are using a comparable tool
o42 countries have already included the FIES in national surveys
o17 countries have concrete plans to do so

12. Promoting country ownership of FIES
methodology
Stage of FIES adoption N Countries
Using their own FIES-
compatible national EBFS
Scale
12 Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Malaysia,
Mexico, Philippines*, South Korea, Sri Lanka, USA
FIES has been included in
national surveys and
government plans to collect
FIES data regularly
6 Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Pakistan, Seychelles, Vietnam
FIES has been included in
national surveys
36 Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde,
Chile, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana,
Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Israel, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Marshall
Islands, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Palestine,
Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, St. Lucia, Samoa, Sudan, South
Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, Zimbabwe
Plans are in place to include
FIES in national surveys
17 Afghanistan, Chad, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Kiribati, Mauritania,
Micronesia (Federal State of), Nepal, Nicaragua, Panama, Solomon
Islands, South Africa, Tokelau, Tonga, Vanuatu

13. Challenges
 Statistical capacity
oIntegrating the FIES module in national surveys
 Analytic capacity
oCalibrating measures of food insecurity against the FIES global
reference scale
oRecognizing the differences between the “old” and the “new” indicators
 Broadening the scope
oFood insecurity at moderate levels has significant implications for
various forms of malnutrition, relevant for emerging and medium-high
income economies too.

14. Thanks
Carlo.Cafiero@fao.org