Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security

Abstract

The United States leads efforts to improve global food security, providing about half of global food aid. Global food security has improved over the past 15 years, but challenges and opportunities remain. ERS researchers analyze the roles of trade, agricultural productivity, safety nets, and better data and measurement in achieving these gains.

Full text

Economic
Research
Service
Economic
Information
Bulletin
Number 175
July 2017
United States Department of Agriculture
Progress and Challenges in
Global Food Security
Sharad Tandon, Maurice Landes, Cheryl
Christensen, Steven LeGrand, Nzinga Broussard,
Katie Farrin, and Karen Thome

Economic Research Service
www.ers.usda.gov
United States Department of Agriculture
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies,
the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are pro-
hibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression),
sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program,
political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA
(not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large
print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at
(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally,
program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found
online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA
and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866)
632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assis-
tant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442;
or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Download the charts contained in this report:
• Gotothereport’sindex page.
• Clickonthebulleteditem“Downloadeib175.zip”
• Openthechartyouwant,thensaveittoyourcomputer
Recommended citation format for this publication:
Sharad Tandon, Maurice Landes, Cheryl Christensen, Steven LeGrand, Nzinga Broussard,
Katie Farrin, and Karen Thome. Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, July 2017.
Cover images: iStock
Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA.
To ensure the quality of its research reports and satisfy government-wide standards, ERS requires that all research
reports with substantively new material be reviewed by qualified technical research peers. This technical peer review
process, coordinated by ERS' Peer Review Coordinating Council, allows experts who possess the technical background,
perspective, and expertise to provide an objective and meaningful assessment of the output’s substantive content and
clarity of communication during the publication’s review.

United States Department of Agriculture
Economic
Research
Service
Economic
Information
Bulletin
Number 175
July 2017
Abstract
The United States leads efforts to improve global food security, providing about
half of global food aid and supporting agricultural development. Global food
security has improved over the past 15 years, but challenges and opportunities
remain. This report analyzes the roles of trade, agricultural productivity, safety
nets, and better data and measurement in achieving these gains. It also identifies
emerging challenges. Global population growth, rapid urbanization, and weather
and climate variability increase the need for agricultural productivity growth and
new risk management tools. More emphasis on nutrition calls for new food secu-
rity measures; heightens the importance of developing nutritionally sound, cost-
effective safety nets; and highlights the role trade can play in supporting safe and
diverse diets.
Keywords : Global food security, food security measurement, agricultural produc-
tivity, food aid, agricultural trade, nutrition, safety nets, agricultural development,
urbanization, risk management, Global Food Security Act of 2016.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Stacey Rosen (formerly of U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS)), for data and advice. They
also thank the following individuals for technical peer reviews: Birgit Meade, USDA,
ERS; Anna D’Souza, Baruch College, City University of New York; Alex McCalla,
University of California, Davis; Paul Trupo, USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service;
and a reviewer who requested anonymity. Thanks also to Maria Williams and
Lori A. Fields, USDA, ERS, for editorial and design services.
Sharad Tandon, Maurice Landes, Cheryl
Christensen, Steven LeGrand, Nzinga Broussard,
Katie Farrin, and Karen Thome
Progress and Challenges in
Global Food Security

ii
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Contents
Summary .....................................................................iii
Introduction ....................................................................1
Food Security Progress .........................................................4
Five Key Global Food Security Issues ..............................................6
Measurement of Food Security ....................................................9
The Sensitivity of Individual Metrics to Changes in Methodology .......................13
Interpreting a Range of Food Security Metrics ......................................14
Emerging Issues in Food Security Measurement .....................................16
Agricultural Productivity and Food Security ........................................18
Sources of Productivity Growth in Agriculture ......................................20
Changes in Agricultural Total Factor Productivity (TFP) ..............................20
Emerging Issues in Agricultural Productivity and Food Security ........................23
Trade in Agriculture and Its Contribution to Food Security ...........................29
How Food Imports Affect Food Security ..........................................30
Changes in Food Trade by Food-Insecure Countries .................................33
Evidence of Trade Contributions to Food Security ...................................34
The Link Between Feed Demand, Cereal Trade, and Food Security .....................37
Trade Policy and Cereal Imports .................................................38
Commercial Import Capacity and Cereal Imports ....................................39
Emerging Issues in Food Trade and Food Security ..................................45
Consumer Safety Nets and Food Security ..........................................46
Background .................................................................46
Types of Safety Net Programs ...................................................47
Food Safety Net Programs in India ...............................................50
Social Safety Nets in Zambia ....................................................51
Effects of Safety Net Programs on Food Security ....................................52
Emerging Issues in Food Safety Nets .............................................53
Nutrition and Health:
Broadening the Focus of Food Security ............................................61
Diet Diversity Varies by Region ..................................................62
Gains in Nutrition Also Vary by Income ..........................................64
Measures to Improve Nutrition and Health .........................................68
Emerging Issues in Nutrition and Food Security .....................................69
Findings and Emerging Issues ....................................................70
References ....................................................................73

United States Department of Agriculture
A report summary from the Economic Research Service
ERS is a primary source
of economic research and
analysis from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture,
providing timely informa-
tion on economic and policy
issues related to agriculture,
food, the environment, and
rural America. www.ers.usda.gov
Economic
Research
Service
Economic
Information
Bulletin
Number 175
July 2017
United States Department of Agriculture
Progress and Challenges in
Global Food Security
Sharad Tandon, Maurice Landes, Cheryl
Christensen, Steven LeGrand, Nzinga Broussard,
Katie Farrin, and Karen Thome
July 2017
What Is the Issue?
For almost six decades, the United States has led global efforts to alleviate food insecurity,
providing about half of global food aid and bilateral and multilateral support for agricultural
development and trade. Global food security has improved over the past 15 years, but chal-
lenges and opportunities persist as U.S. food security decisionmakers continue to prioritize and
refine the global food security agenda. The Global Food Security Act of 2016 (GFSA) provides
for continued U.S. commitment to reducing food insecurity and poverty through agricultural-
led growth, increased resilience, and a broad commitment to improved nutrition. In order to
feed a world that will have over 9 billion people by 2050, it is necessary to investigate the
drivers of global food security and options for improving it. In this report, we analyze factors
contributing to improvements in food security and highlight emerging issues and challenges.
What Did the Study Find?
There have been some improvements in food security measurement, agricultural productivity,
food trade, food security safety net programs, and nutrition; however, some challenges persist:
Food Security Measurement
•Better data and ways of measuring progress are key for evaluating evidence-based
programs, including those under GFSA. To identify food-insecure populations, researchers
must rely on multiple indicators to measure the four dimensions of food security—avail-
ability, access, utilization, and stability. Available measures include national-level indica-
tors of availability and access, household-level indicators of access and utilization, physical
measures of nutritional and health outcomes, and newer experiential measures of food secu-
rity. Results differ across measurement techniques, and further development is underway to
improve their accuracy and reliability.
Sharad Tandon, Maurice Landes, Cheryl
Christensen, Steven LeGrand, Nzinga Broussard,
Katie Farrin, and Karen Thome
Progress and Challenges in
Global Food Security
Summary

Agricultural Productivity
• In most of the low-income countries studied, domestic production supplies the bulk of those countries’
food staples. Production and yield growth have greatly improved food security in the majority of countries
over the past few decades. In many developing countries, increased agricultural productivity—producing
the same or more output with fewer inputs—has significantly improved food security.
• On average, the faster the growth in agricultural productivity, the larger the reductions in food insecurity.
Gains through productivity research and technology adoption—via extension, market access, and risk-
management tools—have contributed to improvements in food security in many countries.
Food Trade
• In countries where climate or a lack of land or water resources limits the potential for local production, food
imports have played a primary role in improvements in food insecurity. In other countries, food imports
have played an important complementary role.
• Some countries limit their reliance on imports because of concerns about the effect on local food produc-
tion and employment, as well as inadequate foreign currency reserves and insufficient infrastructure. Over
the long term, however, a number of developing countries have found effective food security strategies by
competing in world markets for goods and services and opening food markets to international trade.
Food Security Safety Net Programs
• Countries implement different types of domestic food safety net programs, ranging from in-kind food
assistance to newer methods that provide conditional and unconditional cash transfers.
• Cash transfer programs can be more cost effective than older methods, but not all countries have suffi-
cient food markets and administrative capacity to broadly implement them. However, advances in infor-
mation technology, personal identification, banking, and mobile phones support the expansion of targeted
cash transfer programs. These innovations can make the programs more effective, as well as reduce the
market distortions associated with acquiring, distributing, and storing commodities found in traditional
in-kind programs.
Nutrition
• Nutrition is a major focus of GFSA. Nutrition challenges persist even when food availability and access
have improved. Dietary diversity is key to improved nutrition, and while average diets have become more
diverse, this is not broadly the case for lower income groups or vulnerable subgroups, such as mothers
and young children. Non-food factors, such as clean water and effective sanitation, are also key factors in
improving food utilization and nutrition among these groups.
How Was the Study Conducted?
The report focused on the 76 low- and middle-income countries regularly tracked by USDA in its annual
International Food Security Assessments (IFSA). ERS researchers compared and analyzed alternative indica-
tors of food security using ERS databases on international food security and international agricultural produc-
tivity and data available from international organizations, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization and
the World Health Organization. ERS researchers also examined linkages among agricultural productivity, agri-
cultural trade, food safety net programs, and food security.
www.ers.usda.gov

1
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Progress and Challenges in
Global Food Security
Introduction
The most widely used definition of food security originates from the 1996 Food Summit at the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO):
Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy life.
The definition encompasses issues of food availability, economic and social access, individua ls’
ability to translate the food they eat into good health outcomes (commonly referred to as the
utilization dimension), and their ability to maintain stability in each of these dimensions over
time (Coates, 2013). This is also the definition used by the U.S. Global Food Security Act of
2016 (GFSA). Both transitory and chronic food insecurity can have lasting effects on health
and economic outcomes. Food insecurity can adversely affect physical development and mental
capacity (Jyoti et al., 2005) and can also have lasting physical and economic effects over the
course of a lifetime (Glewwe and Miguel, 2008). For society as a whole, food insecurity can
contribute to political and social unrest (Bellemare, 2015), and economic losses are estimated
at 2-3 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) or $1.4-2.1 trillion annually (FAO, 2013).
The United States has played a leading role in global efforts to alleviate food insecurity through
international food aid, development programs, and bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.
Most assistance has taken the form of direct donations of U.S. agricultural commodities through
the Food for Peace, Food for Progress, and McGovern-Dole programs (table 1), as well as addi-
tional contributions through support of the World Food Program.
The U.S. share of global food aid has averaged roughly 50 percent since 2010. In addition to food
assistance, prior to the GFSA, the U.S. Government enacted the Feed the Future initiative in
2010, which aimed to reduce hunger and poverty in 19 developing countries. The United States
also contributes to international food security through programs and institutions such as the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, International Fund for Agricultural
Development, United Nations’ (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and World Bank.

2
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Table 1
Selected U.S. Government outlays for programs related to international food security
Outlays
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$ million
USDA 366 239 541 430 385 432 448 344 481 341 375
Food for Peace 60 10 10 13 13 13 10 10 15 na na
Title I 50 ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne
Title V (Farmer-to-farmer) 10 10 10 13 13 13 10 10 15 na na
Food for Progress 220 130 166 238 16 6 190 246 150 127 149 153
McGovern-Dole IFECN1 86 99 99 16 8 174 206 192 184 165 192 202
Local and Regional
Procurement (LRP) ne ne 0 5 24 23 0 0 0 0 0
Section 416 (b) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BEHT20 0 266 6 8 0 0 0 174 0 20
USAID 1,83 9 1,870 2,351 2,552 3,803 3,829 3,929 3,847 4,146 4,436 3,697
Food for Peace 1,8 39 1,870 2,3 51 2,552 2,74 6 2,628 2,583 2,312 2,302 2,446 2,697
Title II 1,8 39 1,870 2,3 51 2,552 1,933 1,6 60 1,610 1,355 1,324 1,466 1,6 96
Title III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Feed the Future3ne ne ne ne 813 968 973 957 978 980 1,001
Emergency Food Security
Program ne ne ne ne 244 232 374 578 866 1,009 na
World Food Program
(WFP)
U.S. contribution 1,12 3 1,184 2,070 1,767 1,553 1,243 1,460 1,4 94 2,227 2,006 1,778
International Fund for
Agricultural
Devel op me nt (IFAD)
U.S. contribution na na na na 90 29 30 28 30 30 32
Consultative Group on
International
Agricultural Research
(CGIAR)
U.S. contribution 61 60 58 79 86 34 123 52 132 164 na
Global Agriculture and
Food Security Program
(GAFSP)
U.S. contribution ne ne ne ne 67 100 135 143 0 123 0
Tot a l 3,389 3,353 5,020 4,827 5,984 5,666 6,126 5,908 7, 0 16 7, 0 99 5,882
na = not available. ne = not available because the program was nonexistent.
1IFECN = International Food for Education and Child Nutrition.
2Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
3Omits Feed the Future funding provided through the Millenium Challenge Corporation, U.S. African Development Fund,
Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, and Peace Corps.
Sources: Schnepf, R. (2016), U.S. International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues, Congressional Research Service, R41072, 45pp;
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); World Food Program; Global Agriculture and Food Security Program; International Fund for
Agricultural Development; and Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.

3
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
The United States has made commitments to end global food insecurity by 2030 as part of the
2015 global Sustainable Development Goals.1 In 2016, the United States enacted the Global Food
Security Act (GFSA), which provides for reducing food insecurity and poverty through agricultural-
led growth, increased resilience, and a broad commitment to improved nutrition. (See box 1, “The
Global Food Security Act of 2016.”) Because both past and current initiatives to address interna-
tional food insecurity are evidence driven, advances in measuring food security remain critical to
monitoring and evaluating progress.
1The UN Sustainable Development Goals established in 2015 are intended as a “universal call to action to end poverty,
protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity." A number of the 17 goals are related to food
security, including those calling for no poverty, zero hunger, and good health and well-being.
Box 1
The Global Food Security Act of 2016
In 2016, Congress passed and the President signed the Global Food Security Act (GFSA). The
legislation creates a comprehensive approach to sustainable food and nutrition security that
addresses both emergency food shortages and factors affecting long-term improvements in food
security. The legislation mandates the creation of a “whole-of-government” global food security
strategy that will set specific and measurable goals, with benchmarks, timetables, performance
metrics, and monitoring and evaluation that reflect international best practices.
The GFSA also amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to make emergency assistance avail-
able through a wider range of mechanisms than those used in previous food aid programs. These
mechanisms—including funds, transfers, vouchers, agricultural commodities, and products
derived from agricultural commodities—are procured locally or regionally to meet emergency
food needs arising from manmade and natural disasters.
A comprehensive U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) organizes the
specific mandates of the GFSA into an overarching goal—to sustainably reduce global hunger,
malnutrition, and poverty—through three interrelated objectives:
• Inclusive and sustainable agricultural-led economic growth
– Strengthen inclusive agricultural systems that are productive and profitable
– Strengthen and expand access to markets and trade
– Increase employment and entrepreneurship
• Strengthened resilience among people and systems
– Increased sustainable productivity particularly through climate-smart approaches
– Improved proactive risk reduction, mitigation, and management
– Improved adaptation to and recovery from shocks and stresses
• A well-nourished population, especially among women and children
– Increased consumption of nutritious and safe diets
– Increased use of direct nutrition interventions and services
– More hygienic household and community environments

4
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Food Security Progress
Assessments using metrics that primarily capture availability and access dimensions of food secu-
rity confirm significant improvements in global food security over the past few decades (fig. 1) .
According to FAO, the prevalence of undernourished people in the developing world declined from
23.3 percent to 12.9 percent between 1990 and 2015 (UN, 2015). The USDA international food secu-
rity assessment finds that the prevalence of undernourishment has more than halved between 1990
and 2015 for the 76 low- and middle-income countries USDA regularly tracks (Rosen et al., 2015).2
2The 76 countries tracked by USDA are divided into regions as follows: Latin America and Caribbean (Bolivia,
Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Peru); North
Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia); Other Asia (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan); South and Southeast Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos,
Mongolia, Nepal, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Yemen); Sub-
Saharan Africa (Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo,
Côte d'Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi,
Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland,
Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zaire/Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Zimbabwe).
Figure 1
Global food security/undernourishment indicators
Percent of popul ation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
WHO children < 5 stunted (world)
WHO children < 5 underweight (world)
FAO undernourished (developing)
USDA undernourished (76 countries)
Note: WHO Children < 5 stunted = chil dren under 5 years old who have low height for their ages, per the World
Health Organiza tion (WHO). WHO chil dren < 5 underweight = chil dren under 5 years old who ha ve low weight for
their a ges, per WHO. FAO undernouri shed (developi ng) = general popul ation in developi ng countri es at ris k of
undernouris hment, per Uni ted Nati ons, Food and Agric ulture Organi zation (FAO). USDA undernouri shed (76
countri es) = general population in 76 low-andSS middle-income c ountri es cons uming food stapl es below levels
needed to reach minimum a dail y cal oric target, per USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS).
Sources: ERS, FAO, WHO.

5
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Metrics that are able to assess progress in the food utilization dimension of food security, as
reflected in nutritional and health outcomes, likewise indicate significant progress, but also suggest
that progress in nutritional and health outcomes has been more difficult to achieve. While the World
Health Organization's (WHO) estimated share of children under 5 years old who are underweight
(by more than 2 standard deviations from the WHO Child Growth Standard) has closely paralleled
FAO's share of the population who are undernourished, WHO's estimated share of children under 5
years old who are stunted (height-for-age less than 2 standard deviations of the WHO Child Growth
Standard) has remained relatively high. This, and other evidence, suggests the rationale for empha-
sizing improvement of nutritional outcomes in the GFSA.
Improvements in food security metrics have varied significantly across global regions, with progress
particularly strong in Asia and Latin America. Although Sub-Saharan Africa has also made signifi-
cant progress, its gains have generally been slower, and food insecurity remains more prevalent there
(UN, 2015; Rosen et al., 2015). Regional differences in food insecurity will be discussed more in the
following chapters.
Although national achievements in improving food security are associated with economic growth
and improvements in per capita incomes, evidence suggests that higher incomes do not necessarily
suffice to ensure high levels of food security. A number of metrics of “food access”—defined
as access to a diet that can make an active and healthy lifestyle possible—by themselves, only
weakly correlate with per capita income levels (fig. 2). In contrast, indicators of “food utiliza-
tion”— the ability to convert adequate access to food into good health outcomes—correlate much
more highly with per capita income. However, the correlations between food security indicators
and per capita income suggest that other factors aside from income help determine both short- and
long-term food security outcomes.
Figure 2
Correlation coefficients between 2012-14 average GDP per capita
and food security indicators
Correlation coefficient (percent)
Note : USDA undernourished = ge neral population consuming food staples below the leve ls needed to reach minimum
daily caloric target in 76 low- a nd middle-income countries, per 2015 US DA estimates. FAO FIES moderately food
insecure = population who ha ve compromised food quality or reduced food quantity in the United Nations, Food a nd
Agriculture Organization (FAO) Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) survey of de veloping countries. FAO FIES
severely food insecure = population who have hunger in the FAO FIES survey of developing countries. WHO children <
5 stunted = children under 5 years old who have low height for their ages, p er the World He a lth Organization (WHO).
Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) calculations using the 2015 ERS International Food Security
Database, 2015 FAO data, a nd WHO data from the most rece nt year available for each country, which ranged from
2007 to 2014.
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
USDA
undernourished
FAO FIES
moderately food
insecure
FAO FIES
severely food
insecure
WHO children
< 5 stunted

6
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Five Key Global Food Security Issues
Despite the improvement in food security over the past two decades, significant challenges and
opportunities confront U.S. food security decisionmakers. We face the challenge of feeding a world
that will have over 9 billion people by 2050, building on what has currently been accomplished to
develop new options for achieving global food security. This report highlights the current state of
food security research, focusing on five core topics: the measurement of food security, the role of
agricultural productivity growth in combating food insecurity, the role of trade in improving food
security, advances in the design of domestic and international safety net programs to strengthen food
security, and the increased focus on nutrition outcomes in advancing food security. Emerging issues
are identified in each chapter and in accompanying boxes. (For helpful terminology that is used
throughout, see box 2, “Food Security Terminology.”)
Box 2
Food Security Terminology
Food security: The most commonly used definition is the one adopted by the 1996 FAO World
Food Summit: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and
economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food
preferences for an active and healthy life.” (FAO)
Undernourishment: An inability to acquire enough food to meet the daily minimum dietary
energy requirements over a period of one year. (FAO)
Malnutrition: Refers to deficiencies, excesses, or imbalances in a person’s intake of energy and/
or nutrients. It includes “undernutrition,” arising from nutrient or micronutrient deficiencies, as
well as overweight and obesity, which may contribute to diet-related noncommunicable diseases
(such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer). (WHO)
Stunting: Low height for age—an indicator of malnutrition measured as a percentage of chil-
dren under 5 whose height for age is more than 2 standard deviations below the median for the
WHO Child Growth Standards. (WHO)
Wasting: Low weight for height—an indicator of malnutrition measured as the proportion of
children under 5 whose weight for height is more than 2 standard deviations below the median
for the international reference population for the WHO Child Growth Standards. (WHO)
Underweight: Low weight for age—an indicator of malnutrition measured as the percentage of
children under 5 whose weight for age is more than 2 standard deviations below the median for
WHO Child Growth Standards. (WHO)
FAO Food Insecurity Experience Scale: An experience-based metric of the severity of food
insecurity based on people’s direct responses developed by the FAO Voices of the Hungry
project. These responses are collected through an eight-question survey regarding people’s
access to adequate food. (FAO)
continued—

7
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Measurement. The multiple dimensions of food security—availability, access, utilization, and
stability—increase the complexity of accurately measuring food security status. Indicators for each
of the four dimensions of food security typically challenge available data and require a number of
assumptions. As a result, policymakers and researchers need to understand a number of metrics
and their limitations to fully characterize the food-insecure population (Coates, 2013; Tandon and
Landes, 2011a). “Macro-level” indicators, such as those released in the annual USDA Global Food
Assessment, rely on national-level data and forecasts to provide current indicators that pertain
primarily to availability and access. “Micro-level” measures draw on available household-level
survey data to provide more information on temporal and cross-section differences in availability,
access, utilization, and stability, but are generally slower and more costly to implement. Recently,
a number of researchers and policymakers have placed more emphasis on experiential measures of
food security—a micro-level indicator that relies on a battery of survey questions that is quicker
and cheaper to implement than more traditional household expenditure surveys (Ballard et al., 2013;
Upton et al., 2016). Still, there are substantial differences between the experiential indicators and
other measures that are currently not fully understood or reconciled (Coates, 2013; Broussard and
Tandon, 2016). For example, an ERS comparison of intake-based and experiential measures for
Ethiopia, India, and Bangladesh found that between 65 and 83 percent of individuals who reported
food-intake levels qualifying them as undernourished in calories did not report experiencing food
insecurity (Broussard and Tandon, 2016).
Agricultural productivity. For the 76 low-income countries USDA regularly tracks, gains in
domestic food production have been the most common contributor to changes in food security status.
Box 2
Food Security Terminology—continued
USDA Prevalence of Undernourishment: Food insecurity is estimated based on the gap
between projected domestic food consumption (domestic production plus imports minus
nonfood uses) converted to calorie terms and a daily per capita consumption target of 2,100
calories. Available calories are allocated across the population based on income distribution
data. (USDA, ERS)
FAO Prevalence of Undernourishment: Food insecurity is estimated based on the gap
between projected domestic food consumption (domestic production plus imports minus
nonfood uses) converted to calorie terms and a country-specific daily per capita consumption
target. Available calories are allocated across the population based on coefficients derived from
available household survey data. (FAO)
IFPRI Global Hunger Index: Country indices constructed from the most recent available data
on undernourishment, child wasting, child stunting, and child mortality in each country. (IFPRI)
Household expenditure survey: Estimates of household food consumption derived from data
collected in consumer expenditure surveys that are then used to calculate food-insecurity indica-
tors. In some countries, these surveys are typically conducted only occasionally.
Resilience: In the context of food security, this refers to the ability of households, communi-
ties, and agricultural and economic systems to anticipate, absorb, and recover from the negative
effects of the human-made and natural changes and events.

8
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
On average, in low-income countries where strong growth in agricultural productivity has occurred,
it has led to reduced prevalence of food insecurity, as has agricultural development (Minten and
Barrett, 2008). Evidence indicates that agricultural productivity growth can lead to growth in
agricultural labor and rural and urban nonfarm employment (McCorriston et al., 2013). However,
evidence also suggests that migrants do not necessarily obtain better opportunities in urban areas,
and food insecurity is higher in some places where there have been larger increases in urbanization.
Although investments in agricultural productivity do not necessarily result in improved food secu-
rity in all cases, the evidence suggests that policy can enable productivity growth. Investments in
agricultural research and technology development, as well as improvements in infrastructure, market
access, and governance to enhance technology adoption are likely key to continued improvements in
food security in many countries. More recent efforts to design and implement new index-based crop
insurance programs suitable for implementing in developing country contexts may likewise prove
valuable to strengthen resilience and promote adoption of new technologies.
Food trade. In addition to agricultural productivity gains, increased food trade has also contributed
to food security gains in the past few decades. Food imports have complemented productivity gains
in many countries, and served a more primary role in countries where climate and resources limit
the potential for efficient gains in domestic production. Although food imports often contribute
significantly to improved food availability, access, and stability, concerns with the effect of imports
on local production and employment are often used to attenuate strategies involving heavy reli-
ance on food imports. Practical limitations—such as insufficient infrastructure and (in the context
of declining supplies of international food aid) constraints on financial capacities to import food
commercially—can also limit reliance on trade by low-income countries. Concerns that increased
trade may expose domestic producers and consumers to volatility in world markets also figure into
decisions about how much to rely on food trade. However, although many countries felt effects from
recent spikes in world food prices, evidence examined here suggests that world and domestic prices
have not become significantly more volatile in recent years.
Domestic and international safety nets. Despite significant improvements in global food security,
due in part to increased agricultural productivity and increased agricultural trade, the estimated size
of the food-insecure population in 2015 was still about 800 million individuals (FAO, 2015a). Some
programs designed to improve food security, such as those aimed at improving domestic agricultural
productivity and increasing trade in food, do not necessarily improve access to affordable food and
nutritionally adequate diets for all population segments (Minten and Barrett, 2008; McCorriston
et al., 2013; Tandon and Landes, 2011b). As a result, many countries operate safety net programs,
often with international support, to strengthen resilience to food security threats by improving food
availability and access for populations not served adequately by food markets. Traditionally, in low-
income countries, the most common types of programs have been in-kind assistance, such as subsi-
dized food grains, while more recent program designs have involved cash transfers.
Nutrition. Nutrition is a major focus of GFSA, whose overarching goal is to reduce not only hunger
and poverty but also malnutrition. Nutrition challenges persist even when food availability and
access have improved. Dietary diversity improves availability of essential macro- and micro-nutri-
ents, and our analysis finds that diets have become somewhat more diverse over the past 20 years.
Although most regions meet minimum nutritional requirements for calories, fat, and protein, results
differ by income groups. Vulnerable subgroups of the population, such as mothers and young chil-
dren, face special challenges, which have become a major focus of the GFSA. Some nonfood factors,
such as clean water and effective sanitation, affect food utilization and have strong consequences for
childhood nutrition.

9
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Measurement of Food Security
• Accurately measuring each dimension of food security—availability, access, utilization, and
stability—remains a challenge, and it is necessary to employ different types of metrics to fully
characterize the food-insecure population.
• New experiential measures of food security help to cost-effectively estimate more dimen-
sions of food security, but often differ from traditional indicators in ways that are not yet fully
understood.
• Traditional measures of food security—including “macro-level” indicators of availability and
“micro-level” household consumption and anthropometric surveys—will continue to have a role
in informing policymakers.
According to the 1996 Food Summit at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), food
security exists if and only if “all people at all times have physical, social, and economic access
to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an
active and healthy life.” Based on the outcomes of the 1996 and 2009 World Food Summits, poli-
cymakers and researchers have focused on achieving the four dimensions of food security:
• Availability: there is a sufficient quantity of food available for the entire population.
• Access: each person has economic and physical access to these available calories.
• Utilization: each person is able to translate a proper diet into healthy outcomes, which further
requires adequate sanitation and proper food preparation.
• Stability: each of these conditions are met at each point in time.
These dimensions build on each other, where food availability is necessary for food access, and food
access is necessary for food utilization. Stability is the ability to sustain each of the other dimen-
sions over time (Webb et al., 2006; Upton et al., 2016). Given all these dimensions, the concept of
food security is not easy to measure or describe in a single indicator. Rather, a number of different
metrics that help to describe the prevalence of food insecurity can combine to provide a more
complete assessment of food security (Coates, 2013).
Table 2 presents a list of common food security metrics, as well as the dimension of food security
that the metric directly measures. For example, the prevalence of undernourishment and the preva-
lence of child stunting are indicators of two dimensions of food security (access and utilization). It is
possible that a country could have a lower prevalence of undernourishment but a higher prevalence
of child wasting and stunting, or vice versa, depending on the intra-household distribution of calories
and the prevalence of proper sanitation practices.

10
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Table 2
Commonly cited metrics of food security
Type of
metric Metric list Construction Dimensions
addressed
Macro-level
metrics
Prevalence of under-
nourishment reported
annually in FAO’s State
of Food Insecurity
Calculates total food availability for the
country—total production less net imports—
and then allocates these calories across
the population to calculate the share of the
population consuming below their minimum daily
energy requirement
Availability
and access
Prevalence of
undernourishment
reported annually in
USDA’s International
Food Security
Assessment
Prior to 2016, calculated total food availability for
the country—total production less net imports—
and then allocated these calories across the
population based on income distribution data to
calculate the share of the population consum-
ing below their daily energy requirement. Since
2016, demand is estimated for the whole income
distribution, incorporating changes in both in-
comes and food prices.
Availability
and access
Global Hunger Index
reported annually
by the International
Food Policy Research
Institute
Creates an index based on weighting separate
available indicators of food security—the
prevalence of undernourishment, child wasting,
child stunting, and child mortality. Uses a mix
of current and lagged indicators, depending on
data availability.
Availability,
access, and
utilization
Micro-level
metrics
Food consumption
indicators derived from
household consumer
expenditure
survey estimates of
calorie consumption,
micro- and macro-
nutrient consumption,
diet diversity, coping
strategies index, etc.
Estimates of household (and sometimes intra-
household) consumption are obtained from
consumer expenditure surveys. These data are
used to calculate household or intra-household
macro- and micro-nutrient consumption, the
number of times a particular food group is
consumed, the number of times a household
is forced to exhibit a coping behavior, etc.
These indicators can be used to construct
metrics of prevalence of undernourishment and
micronutrient consumption.
Access
Anthropometric—body
mass index (BMI),
stunting, wasting, etc.
Simple measurements based on age, height,
weight, and other readily measurable individual
characteristics are compared to the distribution
of scores from a geographically representative
sample.
Utilization
Experiential measures
of food security
Households respond to yes-no questions
on whether the household or individuals
experienced a problem with food access.
A number of different types of experiential
measures can be constructed from these
questions. Responses to individual questions
may not be robust indicators of food access,
but responses to the group of questions can
be used to construct a scale such as the one
used in ERS’s U.S. domestic food security
assessment (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2016).
Can
address all
dimensions
Notes: FAO = United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. ERS = USDA, Economic Research Service.
Source: The definitions of each metric and the dimension of food security each metric identifies are based on ERS
researchers’ interpretation of each individual measure.

11
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
It is also important to note possible differences between similar indicators of food security based on
the method used to derive the estimates. For example, estimates of the undernourished population
based on “macro-level” national food availability balances (FAO and USDA estimates) capture food
availability based on supply and use balances and then make assumptions regarding the access to
food across the population; whereas “micro-level” estimates of undernourishment based on house-
hold expenditure and consumption surveys directly measure each household’s access to food. Thus,
if improved national food availability is not accompanied by improved food access by vulnerable
groups, then macro-level indicators that rely on a formula to estimate food distribution may indicate
improved food security status while those derived from household surveys might not significantly
change (Barrett, 2007).
Only a few metrics are able to provide comparable cross-national estimates of food security over
time. Three such metrics are the USDA and FAO prevalence of undernourishment estimates and
the WHO estimates of anthropometric indicators of children under age 5. Figure 3 shows the
prevalence of undernourishment and stunting in the most recent years available (2015 for under-
nourishment, 2007-14 for stunting) for the 65 countries for which all estimates exist. Based on
these metrics, Sub-Saharan Africa tends to have the highest prevalence of food insecurity of all
the developing regions.
continued—
Note: The figure plots the three indicators in the 65 countries for which there are estimates of all three indicators. All
indicators are expressed as shares of the total population. The regions that are not shaded (i.e., white) are countries
USDA does not track or for which at least one of the measures does not exist. The FAO and WHO measures are
continuous, while the ERS prevalence rate is measured in deciles.
FAO prevalence of moderate food insecurity = shares of population who have compromised food quality or reduced food
quantity in United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Food Insecurity Experience Scale survey of
developing countries. ERS prevalence of undernourishment = shares of population consuming food staples below the
levels needed to reach minimum daily caloric target in 76 low- and middle-income countries, per USDA, Economic
Research Service (ERS) estimates. WHO prevalence of stunting in children under 5 = shares of children under 5 years
old who have low height for their ages, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Source: Compiled by ERS from 2015 ERS data, 2015 FAO data, and WHO data from the most recent year available for
each country (which ranged from 2007 to 2014).
FAO prevalence
of moderate
food insecurity
(percent)
Less than 15
15 - 30
30 - 50
50 - 65
Greater than 65
WHO prevalence
of stunting in
children under 5
(percent)
Less than 15
15 - 25
25 - 35
35 - 45
Greater than 45
ERS prevalence
of undernourishment
(percent)
0 - 10
20 - 30
40 - 50
60 - 70
Greater than 70
Figure 3
Selected food insecurity indicators for the 76 low- and middle-income
countries tracked by USDA, FAO, and WHO
Figure 3
Selected food insecurity indicators for the 76 low- and middle-income
countries tracked by USDA, FAO, and WHO—continued

12
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Note: The figure plots the three indicators in the 65 countries for which there are estimates of all three indicators. All
indicators are expressed as shares of the total population. The regions that are not shaded (i.e., white) are countries
USDA does not track or for which at least one of the measures does not exist. The FAO and WHO measures are
continuous, while the ERS prevalence rate is measured in deciles.
FAO prevalence of moderate food insecurity = shares of population who have compromised food quality or reduced food
quantity in United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Food Insecurity Experience Scale survey of
developing countries. ERS prevalence of undernourishment = shares of population consuming food staples below the
levels needed to reach minimum daily caloric target in 76 low- and middle-income countries, per USDA, Economic
Research Service (ERS) estimates. WHO prevalence of stunting in children under 5 = shares of children under 5 years
old who have low height for their ages, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Source: Compiled by ERS from 2015 ERS data, 2015 FAO data, and WHO data from the most recent year available for
each country (which ranged from 2007 to 2014).
FAO prevalence
of moderate
food insecurity
(percent)
Less than 15
15 - 30
30 - 50
50 - 65
Greater than 65
WHO prevalence
of stunting in
children under 5
(percent)
Less than 15
15 - 25
25 - 35
35 - 45
Greater than 45
ERS prevalence
of undernourishment
(percent)
0 - 10
20 - 30
40 - 50
60 - 70
Greater than 70
Figure 3
Selected food insecurity indicators for the 76 low- and middle-income
countries tracked by USDA, FAO, and WHO
Figure 3
Selected food insecurity indicators for the 76 low- and middle-income
countries tracked by USDA, FAO, and WHO—continued

13
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
However, it is important to note that even metrics measuring the same dimensions of food secu-
rity—such as USDA’s and FAO’s measures for prevalence of undernourishment—show significant
differences. (Using similar data, the USDA estimates of undernourishment are lower than FAO’s on
average and for 53 of the 65 countries displayed.3) For a number of countries, the difference between
the two measures is pronounced—24 of the 65 countries have over a 30-percentage-point differ-
ence in the prevalence of undernourishment. However, these differences arise in part because FAO
uses UN sources for population and GDP growth, and the ERS assessment uses USDA estimates of
macroeconomic conditions and census data from each individual country.
Additionally, significant differences exist among regions in the prevalence of undernourishment
and children-under-5 stunting (fig. 3). For example, rates of stunting are higher in South Asia than
in Sub-Saharan Africa, even though a smaller share of South Asia’s population is undernourished,
according to both USDA and FAO estimates.
The Sensitivity of Individual Metrics to Changes in Methodology
Policymakers and researchers face the difficult task of combining a number of different metrics
to better understand the size and the characteristics of the food-insecure population. However, a
potentially important rationale for using so many metrics is to corroborate estimates using multiple
methods. Each individual indicator contains measurement error, making it undesirable to rely on any
individual metric without corroboration of others.
Looking at the macro-level indicators, for example, both FAO’s and USDA’s estimates of the preva-
lence of undernourishment face the challenge of estimating how available calories are split across
the population. However, continually improving metrics and methodological revisions have led to
significant changes in the estimates of prevalence of undernourishment. When utilizing the same
underlying data, FAO estimates of the undernourished population for a given year have changed over
time; current estimates of the undernourished population in 1990 have been adjusted upward with
each methodological review and data update (Caparros, 2014). Likewise, when USDA changed its
methodology to allocate available calories across the population in 2016, the number of undernour-
ished people changed from 12 percent of the population to 17 percent in 2016 (Rosen et al., 2016).
Similarly, using household-level surveys to estimate household consumption also requires strong
assumptions to estimate the number of undernourished individuals. In particular, the results are
quite sensitive to the assumptions made in estimating the nutritional content of food consumed
outside the house and the nutritional content of processed foods. ERS research has demonstrated
that adjusting these estimates slightly can result in a significant change in the assessment of the
undernourished population by 173 million individuals (or 16 percent of the population) in India
alone in 2004 (Tandon and Landes, 2011a; Tandon and Landes, 2012). Furthermore, these sources
of calories are becoming more prevalent as incomes grow, and better methods of estimating calories
from processed foods and food taken outside the home will be increasingly important to improve the
precision of undernourishment estimates using Household Consumer Expenditure Surveys (Tandon
and Landes, 2014).
Another significant measurement issue is that, while food insecurity occurs at the individual level,
most surveys collect data at a higher level—either at the household- or an even more aggregated
3We cannot compare the raw numbers of undernourished individuals in each estimate because the FAO estimates cover
more countries than the ERS estimates.

14
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
level. ERS research has demonstrated that when survey data permit estimates at the individual level,
both the number of food-insecure individuals change, and the identity of the food-insecure popula-
tion changes significantly because of inequities in food consumption within households (D’Souza
and Tandon, 2015; D’Souza and Tandon, 2016). When collecting consumption data, the method most
preferred by nutritionists is to create a food diary in which participants weigh and record consump-
tion on 2 nonconsecutive days, but this method is more time-consuming and expensive than tradi-
tional household consumer expenditure surveys (Fiedler et al., 2012).
Additionally, a growing body of literature demonstrates that other aspects of household survey
design—such as the length of the food menu list in the survey instrument and the definition of
the household—significantly influence estimates of food consumption and insecurity (Beaman
and Dillon, 2012; Beegle et al., 2012b; Caeyers et al., 2012; Ravallion et al., 2016). Overall, the
differences between assessments resulting from use of different methodologies can be signifi-
cant, with variations in the incidence of food insecurity of nearly 20 percent of the population
(Beegle et al., 2012a).
Although all of the measurement issues discussed so far have focused on the estimation of food
consumption, additional measurement issues exist in estimating individual caloric and nutrient
requirements. Recommended daily allowances (RDAs) vary based on the age, gender, and activity
level of the individual (FAO, 2001). Unfortunately, activity levels are not directly observed in most
cases, and are crudely estimated, often based on whether individuals live in rural or urban areas
(India National Sample Survey, 2007).
Combined, these findings demonstrate that each estimate of food security is only one of a range of
possible values. These findings further demonstrate the importance of using a range of metrics of the
same dimension of food security to help identify estimates of particular dimensions of food security.
Interpreting a Range of Food Security Metrics
Comparing commonly used food security indicators for three large countries with significant rates
of food insecurity—Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and India—demonstrates how a suite of metrics helps to
paint a more complete picture of food insecurity in each country (table 3). Based on these estimates,
each country has a significant share of population who do not have sufficient access to food. Despite
FAO’s and USDA’s differing methods, both organizations' metrics rank food insecurity being most
prevalent in Ethiopia and the least prevalent in India. This ranking continues to hold in the IFPRI
Global Hunger Index when child health outcomes are explicitly brought into the comparison.
However, the picture regarding the share of the population that lacks sufficient access to food across
the countries varies significantly between micro-level and macro-level indicators. Micro-level indica-
tors can add more detail and precision on the characteristics of the food-insecure populations in each
country. Based on the prevalence of severe food insecurity as measured by FAO’s Food Insecurity
Experience Scale, each country has approximately equal shares of individuals who resort to extreme
behaviors such as skipping meals or going entire days without food. (See “prevalence of severe food
insecurity” under “Micro-level metrics, table 3.) Based on prevalence moderate food insecurity using
the same FAO scale, however, we see that Ethiopia has roughly twice as large a share of the popula-
tion with problems accessing a healthy diet as India.

15
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
In contrast to the USDA and FAO macro indicators, the estimates of undernourishment based
on household expenditure survey data in table 3 are reported for only the rural population. The
estimates suggest that food security is a larger problem in rural India than in rural Bangladesh
or Ethiopia.4 However, these household-level estimates of access to food in India do not appear
to be consistent with the other macro- and micro-level estimates, highlighting the importance of
measurement issues.
4Survey data for urban households are available only for India and indicate that the prevalence of undernourishment
in India is lower in urban areas than in rural areas. FAO reports that urban areas of India, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia have
less food insecurity than rural areas. (FAO, 2013).
Table 3
Comparing measures of food security
Food security measure
Prevalence in
Bangladesh
Prevalence in
Ethiopia
Prevalence in
India
Percent
Macro-level
metrics
United Nations, Food and Agriculture
Organization’s (FAO) prevalence of
undernourishment (2014)
16.7 35.0 15 .2
USDA, Economic Research
Service (ERS) prevalence of
undernourishment (2014)
29.5 40.3 10.1
International Food Policy
Research Institute’s (IFPRI) Global
Hunger Index prevalence of
undernourishment (2014)
19.1 24.4 17. 8
Micro-level
metrics
FAO’s Food Insecurity Experience
Scale (FIES) —prevalence of severe
food insecurity (2014) 10.8 12.1 12.4
FAO’s Food Insecurity Experience
Scale—prevalence of moderate food
insecurity (2014) 33.5 48.4 24.8
Prevalence of undernourishment
in rural households derived from
household consumer expenditure
surveys (2010-12)
22.0 32.6 63.8
World Health Organization (WHO)
share of children under 5 who are
stunted (Global Nutrition Report,
2015 )
36.0 40.4 39.0
WHO share of children under 5 who
are wasted (Global Nutrition Report,
2015 )
14.0 8.7 2 0.1
Source: FAO's The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2014; ERS's International Food Security Database; IFPRI’s 2014
Global Hunger Index: the Challenge of Hidden Hunger; ERS researchers’ calculations using the FAO FIES; ERS researchers’
calculations using the Bangladesh Integrated Household Survey 2012; 2011/2012 Ethiopian Rural Socioeconomic Survey;
and ERS researchers’ calculations using the 66th Round (2009/2010) of the National Sample Survey Organization Consumer
Expenditure Survey for India; the 2015 Global Nutrition Report.

16
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Lastly, the measures of stunting and wasting further help to describe the food-insecure population
of each country by indicating the extent to which constrained food availability, access, and utiliza-
tion affect the development of children. The share of the child population that is stunted (low height
for age) in each country is essentially equal, but there is significantly more wasting (low weight for
height) in the South Asian countries than in Ethiopia.
There are a number of possible explanations for the relatively poor anthropometric outcomes in
South Asia, despite indications that South Asia has better access to food than a number of other
food-insecure regions. Lack of diet diversity may limit availability of some nutrients, or sanitary
food preparation or health conditions may lead to differences in nutrient absorption (Schmidt, 2014).
Stunting is also associated with the effects of open defecation, leading to diarrhea and environmental
enteropathy (Spears et al., 2013). Also, cultural behaviors, such as parents in South Asia favoring
male children, particularly first-born sons, may limit food access for other children (Dickinson et al.,
2015; IFPRI, 2015; Jayachandran and Pandhi, 2015).
Thus, while the macro-level indicators suggest that undernourishment and access to food is a bigger
problem in Ethiopia than in Bangladesh or India, the micro-level metrics expose other factors
present in South Asia that alter food security outcomes in that region. Taken together, the different
metrics suggest the possible need for different approaches for food security policy in each country.
For example, while it may be important to continue to improve food access in Ethiopia through addi-
tional food assistance programs, more concerted efforts may be needed to improve sanitation and
other aspects of utilization and nutrition in Bangladesh and India (IFPRI, 2015).
Emerging Issues in Food Security Measurement
• New experiential measures of food security are growing in popularity, in no small part due
to their low cost and ease of collection over time. However, more research is needed to better
understand the relationship of these metrics to other metrics that are better understood. (See box
3, “New Experiential Metrics of Food Security.”)
• Many measures of food security are not particularly robust to small changes in methodology.
Some of the sources of measurement error are relatively easy to address, such as through smaller
occasional surveys to better measure food consumed outside the household, consumption of
processed foods, and intra-household distribution of food.
• Some seemingly benign problems with survey-based indicators are harder to address, such as
changes to the menu list of food expenditure items between survey years or across different
surveys. More research needs to be done to better understand best practices, and then more
effort needs to be taken to better standardize data collection.

17
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 3
New Experiential Metrics of Food Security
One of the recent developments in the measurement of food insecurity is the genesis of experi-
ential measures based on surveys that inquire about people’s individual experiences with food
insecurity by using a battery of questions designed to capture the use of coping strategies. One
example of such a measure is the Food Insecurity Experiential Scale (FIES), developed by FAO
as a complement to its traditional estimate of the prevalence of undernourishment reported in the
State of Food Insecurity report. In its current form, the scale is based on eight separate yes-no
questions designed to measure food access, beginning with the most severe forms of food inse-
curity (going an entire day without food) to the mildest form of food insecurity (worrying about
having enough food to eat). The answers to these questions are used to estimate the probability
that the individual faced moderate or severe food insecurity over the past year.
A benefit of this approach is that it can be easily adapted to capture each of the four dimen-
sions of food insecurity. Although the FIES focuses primarily on access to food, other ques-
tions can be designed to better understand each of the other dimensions of food security as
well. Furthermore, the surveys are faster and less costly to implement than household consumer
expenditure surveys and, particularly, individual-level consumption surveys (Ballard et al.,
2013). Gallup has included the food security module in its existing worldwide surveys, which are
conducted both in person and by phone, depending on the country.
While experiential surveys are relatively adaptable, fast, and inexpensive, the indicators derived
from them can differ significantly from other metrics, raising questions about their reliability.
Although statistical models can help assess the consistency of the responses, the way indi-
viduals report their experiences in response to sometimes subjective questions can be affected
by a number of factors that have little to do with the respondents’ actual welfare. These factors
include the ordering and wording of questions, the implicit scales used in the questions (i.e.,
defining what is normal consumption, etc.), and different interpretations of the questions by
respondents (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2001). Some studies have investigated the significance
of biases in responses to similar subjective welfare questions in other contexts (Beegle et al.,
2012b; Ravallion et al., 2016). Less research has been done on how experiential measures of
food security compare with other measures (Maxwell et al., 2014). More research is needed to
investigate how far these findings can be generalized to better understand the reliability of food
security assessments that use these types of measures. ERS research has demonstrated that, in
three large surveys conducted in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and India, a large number of individuals
are classified as undernourished based on their reported consumption from household consumer
expenditure surveys, but some of these same people do not respond affirmatively to any of the
food-insecurity questions in the experiential surveys conducted in the same survey (Broussard
and Tandon, 2016).

18
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Agricultural Productivity and Food Security
• Productivity growth in agriculture—producing the same or more output with fewer inputs—can
improve food security directly by increasing the food availability and indirectly by improving
food access, utilization, and stability.
• On average, countries that have achieved higher growth in agricultural productivity have also
experienced larger reductions in the prevalence of food insecurity.
• Investments in agricultural research and technology development, paired with improvements in
the broader “enabling environment” (e.g., infrastructure, market access, institutions, and risk-
management measures), are key to sustaining long-term productivity growth.
By allowing more food to be produced from a given set of inputs, increased agricultural total factor
productivity (TFP) facilitates the expansion of food output at declining real costs. TFP is defined as
the ratio of total output to total aggregate inputs, and growth in TFP reflects gains from new tech-
nologies and improvements in the efficiency of the production process.
By plotting average global TFP growth and an aggregate index of real food prices and each series’
trendline (fig. 4), we see the long-term relationship between agricultural productivity and food
prices. From the 1960s through the early 2000s, prior to the surge in world food prices during 2008-
12, an overall pattern showed rising TFP to be associated with falling real food prices, even as
growing population and rising incomes increased food demand (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012;
Garnett et al., 2013; Godfray et al., 2010). Although the 2008-12 spike in world prices interrupted
this pattern, current projections call for a return of more stable real prices under current policies,
anticipated macroeconomic conditions, and assuming normal weather (USDA, 2016).
Depending on the farm output mix chosen, growth in agricultural productivity can also improve
the income of agricultural producers, which improves food access (FAO, 2015b; IFAD, 2015, WFP,
2015; Schneider and Gugerty, 2011). Additionally, agricultural productivity growth can improve
economic access to food through its effects on labor markets. For example, improvements in the
supply chain might lead farmers to invest in hiring more labor, which would provide more work
opportunities for agricultural laborers (OECD, 2006; Schneider and Gugerty, 2011). Productivity
gains on the farm can make more time available to farmers, allowing them to pursue off-farm work
that provides another, often higher paying source of income (Barrett et al., 2010). Alternatively, it is
possible that the source of agricultural productivity growth actually reduces the amount of agricul-
tural labor needed and the drop in wages outweighs any positive effect that lower food prices may
have on food access for a segment of the population (Gollin, 2003).
In addition to its effects on real food prices, producer income, and agricultural labor market
outcomes, productivity growth can have additional indirect effects, such as reducing the impact
that agricultural production has on the environment. TFP growth means fewer inputs are required
to achieve the same output over time. TFP gains that result, for example, from greater efficiency
in fertilizer or pesticide use can reduce the runoff of fertilizers and pesticides that pollute water
supplies (FAO, 2012). Also, gains in water use efficiency can conserve groundwater for other uses
and, in some cases, reduce saltwater intrusion that renders groundwater unfit for irrigation or house-
hold use (Williams, 2010). Each of these effects can potentially lead to improved water quality and
food utilization.

19
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Aside from the beneficial effects agricultural productivity growth has on current food security
outcomes, research suggests that nonagricultural sectors and off-farm labor outcomes can improve
along with agricultural productivity growth over time. These activities tend to be in segments of the
commercial, manufacturing, or service sectors that are related in some way to agriculture and are
often informal (Reardon, 1997). As an economy undergoes a structural transformation away from
agriculture and toward secondary and tertiary sectors—a process that is often driven by growth in
agricultural productivity—people tend to engage in increasingly formal work outside of agriculture
(Johnston and Mellor, 1961). These opportunities can further improve food access, utilization, and
stability. However, growth in rural farm and nonfarm employment is not necessarily sufficient to
prevent significant rural to urban migration that can expose migrants to urban food security prob-
lems associated with food access and purchasing power. Identifying new opportunities to extend
agricultural productivity growth to the wider agri-food system is an important emphasis of GFSA.
So is finding ways to address the challenge urbanization poses to food security, particularly in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Figure 4
Agricultural Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and inflation-adjusted food prices
FAO Food Price Index (2002-04=100) TFP Index (1961=100)
Note: R = right-hand axis.
Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service, International Agricultural Productivity database and United Nations,
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Food Price Index.
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
1961
196 4
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
FAO Food Price Index (inflation-adjusted)
TFP-World (R)
Exponential (FAO Food Price Index (inflation-adjusted))
Exponential (TFP-World (R))

20
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Sources of Productivity Growth in Agriculture
TFP growth comes in many forms—new technology (e.g., new varieties or tools), new processes,
new institutions (e.g., new forms of contracts or policy mechanisms), and new markets (e.g., creating
a market for a value-added product) (Wang et al., 2015). An innovation can come as part of a
“package” of several innovations that need to be adopted by multiple actors in conjunction with each
other (Feder et al., 1985). For example, the semi-dwarf, high-yielding rice and wheat varieties from
the Green Revolution depended on fertilizer inputs and irrigation, which in turn were contingent on
farmer access to credit and markets (Hounkonnou et al., 2012).
It is well established that productivity growth depends on long-term investments in agricultural
research, which accrue into a stock of “knowledge capital” (Alston et al., 2000; Alston et al., 2009).
Countries that have research and extension systems that are effectively able to develop and transfer
new technologies tend to experience greater advances in productivity over the long run (Rada and
Schimmelpfennig, 2015; Rada and Valdes, 2012; Fuglie et al., 2012). National research systems
often work with international researchers, such as CGIAR centers, to translate and adapt externally
produced research products to domestic production systems (Fuglie et al., 2012). Many advance-
ments in TFP in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) since the 1980s are partly due to collaboration between
CGIAR centers and national agricultural research systems, which have a return of $6 for every $1
invested in CGIAR research (Fuglie and Rada, 2013b).
Beyond agricultural research, there is increasing recognition of how enabling environments
contribute to fostering productivity growth in agriculture (Diaz-Bonilla et al., 2014; Fuglie et al.,
2012; FAO, 2012). Ultimately, the adoption of productivity-enhancing innovations is a matter
of individuals making the decision to adopt new technologies. The factors that affect innova-
tion decisions can be broadly split into individual characteristics and the wider external enabling
environment (Diaz-Bonilla et al., 2014; Konig et al., 2013). Individual characteristics include
the willingness to take risks, actions of peers, and human capital such as health and education
(Benhabib and Spiegel, 2005). Factors in the external enabling environment that affect innovation
decisions include prices, macroeconomic stability, governance, the rule of law, access to finan-
cial services, and the consequences of taking risks (e.g., social and legal consequences of bank-
ruptcy) (Pinstrup-Andersen et al., 2008). There is evidence that countries that enacted economic
reforms and removed market distortions have experienced improved productivity growth (Fuglie
and Rada, 2013b; Rada and Fuglie, 2012; Rada et al., 2011). Public investment in infrastructure
has also been key. New or improved roads and electricity boost farm productivity by enhancing
access to inputs (Ahemed and Hossain, 1990) and also make it easier, faster, and cheaper for food
products to reach market (OECD, 2006). Increased efficiency across the food value chain has the
potential to decrease the real price of food paid by consumers and directly contribute to improve-
ments in food access (Pinstrup-Anderson et al., 2008).
Changes in Agricultural Total Factor Productivity (TFP)
Global agricultural TFP grew by an annual average of 1.7 percent a year between 2001 and 2013
(table 4). However, that growth was generally uneven across time and regions (Fuglie and Rada,
2013a). For developing countries, TFP grew by an average of 1.9 percent annually between 2001 and
2013, which is about the same as it grew during 1991-2000, but faster than during 1981-90. Among
developing regions in recent years, annual TFP growth has been fastest in Asia, Central America,
North Africa, and Southern Africa. TFP growth has generally been slowest in the Caribbean and in
most regions of Sub-Saharan Africa.

21
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Based on data for the 76 low- and middle-income countries tracked by USDA, a significant positive
correlation exists between changes in productivity and changes in the share of the population esti-
mated to be food secure. On average, those countries with improved TFP growth also experienced
improved food security (fig. 5). However, it is not possible to establish causation. Other determinants
of food security, besides TFP, could be changing at the same time; events may be causing both food
security and agricultural productivity to move together; and some TFP improvements could actu-
ally be driven by improvements in food security—where, for example, better nourished agricultural
laborers could be more efficient.
The cases of Vietnam, Chad, and Zambia illustrate the linkages between food security and changes
in agricultural productivity in more detail. Vietnam has increased TFP by 61 percent while raising
its food-secure population share by 87 percent since 1990 (fig. 5). A number of programs that helped
improve TFP were instituted during this time period, such as programs that invested in research and
extension systems and in irrigation infrastructure (World Bank, 2003). Other measures also contrib-
uted to agricultural productivity, such as redistributing and securing land rights, reforming the
procedures for starting businesses, increasing access to credit, decentralizing local decisionmaking,
and integrating agriculture into the market economy in an environment of sound macroeconomic
management (World Bank, 2003). Nonagricultural policies played an important role in creating off-
farm employment and improving living standards and household food security (World Bank, 2003),
but gains in agricultural productivity were also likely an important factor.
Table 4
Average annual percent changes in Total Factor Productivity by region
Region 1981- 90 1991-2000 20 01-13
Average annual percent change
World 0.6 1.5 1.7
Developing countries 1.1 2.0 1.9
Asia
South Asia 1.2 1. 0 1.9
Southeast Asia 0.5 1.3 2.4
West Asia 0.7 1.5 1.9
Latin America and Caribbean
Caribbean -0.6 -0.3 0.8
Central America -1.7 2.7 2.0
Andes region 0.5 1.7 1.6
Africa
North Africa 2.5 1.6 2.6
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.9 1.1 0.6
Central 0.6 -1.0 1.6
Eastern 0.5 0 .1 0.2
Horn -0.5 1.0 0.6
Southern 0.2 1.1 2.5
Sahel 0.9 1.2 0.6
Western 1.6 1.1 0.6
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, International Agricultural Productivity database.

22
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Chad, on the other hand, has had a different experience. TFP is nearly unchanged since 1990, while
the share of the population that is food secure has shrunk by 44 percent. There are a number of
factors that contribute to this situation. Agricultural productivity is impeded by natural resource
degradation, particularly desertification and soil loss, combined with highly variable rainfall in the
central Sahel region. These problems are exacerbated by ongoing strife and conflict between ethnic
groups, as well as between pastoralists and settled farmers as people migrate and compete over ever
scarcer natural resources (IFAD, 2015; World Bank, 2016). The country’s severe lack of marketing
infrastructure is reflected in the large discrepancy between the relatively low prices received by
farmers and high food prices paid by consumers—an implicit tax on both producers and consumers
that dampens technology investment and food consumption (World Bank, 1997). There is also a
dearth of financial services and research and extension support for agriculture (World Bank, 2016).
In Chad, the lack of improvement in productivity in the agricultural supply chain is associated with
relatively high food prices and a decrease in the share of the population that is food secure.
In Zambia, the food-secure population decreased by an estimated 25 percent since 1990 despite a
71-percent increase in TFP, highlighting a case where productivity gains alone are not sufficient
to strengthen food security. Nearly all of the productivity gains have been due to increased use of
inputs by the small share (3.8 percent) of farms that are larger than 5 hectares (Siegel, 2008; Tembo
and Sitko, 2013). Overall food availability and access is limited by the fact that 72 percent of farms
are 2 hectares or less, with most producing at a subsistence level with minimal inputs (Tembo and
Sitko, 2013). As a result, both output and income gains are confined to a small segment of the
rural population. Food availability and access are also limited by poor infrastructure that increases
marketing costs and limits access to and utilization of nutritious foods (Siegel, 2008). There is a
Figure 5
Changes in food security and Total Factor Productivity (TFP) for selected
low- and middle-income countries1
Percent change in TFP, 1990-2012
Percent change in food secure population, 1990-2014
1Changes in food security are based on USDA estimates of the shares of population who were undernourished.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS), International Food Security database; USDA/ERS, International
Agricultural Productivity Database.
y = 0.1728x + 24.368
R² = 0.1617
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Senegal
Chad
Zambia
Vietnam

23
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
relatively high prevalence of malnutrition in children, with 53 percent of children having vitamin A
deficiencies and 47 percent being stunted (WFP, 2016). Also, 12.7 percent of the population is HIV
positive, one of the highest rates in the world, which also impedes broader gains in productivity
growth and food security (Fuglie and Rada, 2013a; WFP, 2016).
Emerging Issues in Agricultural Productivity and Food Security
The role of agricultural research. There is strong evidence that agricultural productivity growth
over the long run depends on well-funded and effective research systems that can supply research
products that fit the needs of local production systems (Fuglie et al., 2012). In recent years, a slow-
down in public agricultural research and development (R&D) investments has raised concern about
a corresponding slowdown in agricultural productivity growth (Wang et al., 2015). So far, there has
been little indication of productivity growth slowing, but this could be due to the long lag between
R&D expenditures and TFP growth (Wang et al., 2015).
For small countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, it can be difficult to fund effective research
and extension systems because of the fixed costs associated with setting up research facilities rela-
tive to the size of the population served. This can make it difficult for national research and exten-
sion systems in small countries to take advantage of economies of scale, making well-functioning
systems prohibitively costly (Fuglie and Rada, 2013b). Yet there are examples of small countries
that achieved returns on agricultural research investments sufficiently high to justify the invest-
ments. Critical to those accomplishments seems to be tying into regional and international research
networks and maintaining a policy environment that is receptive to technologies developed else-
where (Fuglie and Rada, 2016).
Productivity for the wider agri-food system. Much of the research on agricultural productivity
has focused on the farm level. Under the new GFSA and the associated U.S. Government Global
Food Security Strategy, there is a new emphasis on the importance of increasing the productivity
of the wider agri-food system. In addition, there is increased interest in examining the potential for
enhanced productivity to support employment growth in rural areas through meeting the growing
demand for food in urban areas.
The productivity-resilience link. The productivity gains from agricultural research at all levels
require the ideas produced to be actually adopted and brought into use, which is aided by a condu-
cive enabling environment that creates incentives for technology adoption (Hall et al., 2007). In
some instances, the technology already exists, but it has not been widely or fully adopted because
socioeconomic conditions, including marketing institutions and policies, do not make adoption
feasible (Gollin et al., 2016). Support mechanisms can be important policy tools for innovation
and productivity growth in agriculture, given that adopting a new tool or practice can add signifi-
cant risk (Fleisher, 1990). Safety nets—such as new weather-index-based crop insurance programs
suited to implementation in developing country markets—hold promise for protecting growers from
risks associated with adoption of new technology. Other safety nets, such as food or income assis-
tance, can also provide the support and backstopping needed for adoption (FAO, 2014; FAO, 2015b;
Kuyvenhoven, 2004).

24
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Risks associated with climate change. Climate change assessments indicate that many of the
low-income, food-insecure countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the
Caribbean will be faced with challenges to each of the four dimensions of food security policy.
Based on the critical role of productivity gains in achieving past improvements in food security
of many countries, successful development and adoption of new technologies for adequate and
stable food production is likely to remain important in the context of climate change. (See box 4,
“Climate Change and Food Security.”)
Box 4
Climate Change and Food Security1
Climate change refers to the long-term change in the average level and variability of rainfall,
temperature, and humidity. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison Improvement Project,
supported by the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, takes an integrated approach to
modeling the effects that climate change will have on agriculture. Using 50-to-70-year yield
forecasts (box 4, fig. 1) derived from biophysical crop and livestock production models, the
project links climate models with socioeconomic models to explore how a changing climate may
affect food security. Climate change is expected to affect all four pillars of food security and to
have the greatest global effects on the poor, especially in tropical regions.
Climate change will likely affect food availability by disrupting production and processing.
Temperature and precipitation changes—as well as shifts in the timing of rains, such as the
Asian monsoon—can have consequences for crop and livestock production. USDA estimates
that climate change will lower crop yields by 2.5 percent per decade, in contrast to the 9-percent
growth seen over last decade. Heat stress can also have negative effects on livestock health and
reduce feed conversion efficiency, putting downward pressure on milk, meat, and egg produc-
tion. Higher temperatures are expected to lead to more spoilage along the supply chain, requiring
improvements to storage, processing, and packaging and creating additional costs. Extremes in
temperatures and rainfall, as well as sea-level rise, could affect transportation infrastructure.
Depending on the severity and spread of the disruptions to production, local availability, and
transport, increased trade between regions may compensate for intra-regional disruptions.
Climate-change disruptions to production are expected to affect food access. Lower and more
variable production, coupled with disruptions to distribution and degraded transport infra-
structure, will likely mean higher and more variable prices. Higher or more volatile prices and
marketing costs will likely have the largest effect on lower income households because they
spend relatively high income shares on food. In a low-emissions scenario, the estimated costs
add up to a 5- to 10-percent increase in food prices, with a high-emissions scenario resulting in a
20- to 30-percent increase. In each scenario, more open trade keeps price increases in the
1All findings reported in this box are drawn from Climate Change, Global Food Securit y, and the U.S. Food
System, published by USDA in 2015 (Brown et al., 2015).
continued—

25
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 4
Climate Change and Food Security—continued
lower bound of the estimates. The extent to which open trade can affect food access depends on
whether transportation infrastructure and markets in both exporting and importing regions can
deliver food at affordable prices.
Climate change is expected to negatively affect food utilization in several ways. Food safety issues
will be a concern as higher temperatures and humidity lead to a greater incidence of food-borne
diseases and fungal toxins such as aflatoxin. Researchers anticipate increased human disease pres-
sure that is likely to adversely affect the utilization of nutrients, leading, for example, to higher
incidence of diarrheal diseases and mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria. Also, global or
regional shifts in production zones can mean that traditional or culturally acceptable foods may
not be locally available or affordable. Climate change is also likely to affect the nutritional content
of food. For example, higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reduce the iron and zinc in staple
foods, and higher temperatures and humidity reduce the protein content of milk.
Maintaining the stability of food availability and prices is expected to be a focus of adaptation
to climate change. Effective risk management mechanisms (see box 5, “New Risk Management
Support Programs and Agricultural Productivity”), including food aid, can help people contend
with the instability associated with producing and accessing food. Insurance schemes, such
as weather-indexed crop insurance, can help producers manage weather risk. Information and
communication technology can be used to share crop or market information and link people
and services together. Trade can help make food available and accessible to regions affected
by weather disruptions, but can also expose the importing country to the risks and variability
in production and prices in exporting regions. Research and development can adapt culturally
preferred varieties to a changing local production zone, as well as develop varieties with improved
nutritional content. Research efforts can focus on improving yields because regions that are
currently producing below potential yields will be further challenged as the climate changes.
Box 4 figure 1
Median yield changes (percent) between 1980-2010 baseline and
2070-2099 for four major cereal crops
Note: Composite results from all seven (six for rice) Global Gridded Crop Models (GGCMs) that are part of the
Agricultural Model Intercomparison Improvement Project (Ag-MIP). Simulations assume representative concentration
path 8.5 (RCP8.5) with CO2 effects.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service. Adapted from Rosenzweig et al. (2014), “Assessing Agricultural Risks of
Climate Change in the 21st Century in a Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison,” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 111(9): 3,268-73.
Wheat
Soy
Rice
Maize
<-50 <50
%
0

26
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 5
New Risk Management Support Programs and
Agricultural Productivity
In addition to improving the “enabling environment,” further specific innovations help both
to improve agricultural productivity growth and enhance resilience in developing countries.
Smallholder farmers are largely responsible for crop production that feeds them and others in
the region, but because of the risk of catastrophic loss, many farmers are unwilling to fully
invest in farming inputs, even if more investment will increase their average production and
income (Hazell et al., 1986). Index insurance—agricultural insurance based on a transparent
and independent measure of weather that is highly correlated with farm-level losses, such as
rainfall in regions where agriculture is rain fed—is a possible solution to help increase agri-
cultural investments, as it can potentially offer coverage against catastrophic loss in places
where traditional insurance might not be offered (Karlan et al., 2014). The increased agricul-
tural production from higher levels of agricultural investments can improve food availability,
and the potential increases in income from more agricultural investments can then lead to
improvements in food access.
In a developing country context, relatively successful agricultural insurance programs have
included insurance as just one part of a holistic approach to farm risk management (box 5,
ta ble 1). One example is the R4 program, a World Food Program (WFP) and Oxfam America
initiative that began in Ethiopia and Senegal and has recently expanded to Malawi and
Zambia. R4 combines savings, insurance, risk mitigation, and risk-taking activities as a means
to make farmers more resilient. Agriculture and Climate Risk Enterprise (ACRE Africa) has
also seen growth in its insurance programs in Rwanda, Tanzania, and Kenya (box 5, fig. 1).
ACRE—a for-profit company that evolved from the 2009 “Kilimo Salama” project funded
by the Syngenta Foundation and the World Bank Global Index Insurance Facility (GIIF)—
bundles insurance with agricultural advisory services, weather data, and local access to
high-quality inputs and input credit. The program also uses mobile technology to quickly and
cost-effectively provide information and transmit payments to farmers.
There is evidence that index insurance is improving farmer productivity and well-being in
some developing country cases. An impact evaluation of the Horn of Africa Risk Transfer
for Adaptation(HARITA) project in Ethiopia (the precursor to R4) finds that farmers insured
through the program increased their savings and the number of oxen they owned, as well
as increased productive investments in agriculture. The program also had a larger effect on
insured women than on insured men and the uninsured (Oxfam, 2014). In Senegal, insured R4
study participants increased rice production at 10 times the rate of uninsured control group
farmers from 2013-15. While both insured and uninsured farmers saw a decrease in food
security during a drought, insured farmers experienced a much smaller decrease (-8.1 percent)
than the uninsured (-49.1 percent) (WFP, 2015).1 Farmers enrolled in the ACRE insurance
program earned 16 percent more and invested 19 percent more than the uninsured in their
communities (IFC, 2014). In Kenya, livestock index insurance is expected to reduce vulner-
ability and poverty over time (Janzen et al., 2012).
1In this study, “food security” is defined by a WFP measure known as the Food Consumption Score (FCS). The
FCS scores are a weighted frequency of consumption of eight different food types; scores reflect both the quality
and quantity aspects of food security, and can be broadly categorized into three groups: poor, limited/borderline,
and acceptable food consumption.
continued—

27
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 5
New Risk Management Support Programs and
Agricultural Productivity—continued
Box 5 table 1
Sub-Saharan African index insurance programs and potential outcomes
Program Countries affected Program aims
ACRE Africa Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania Increase farm income
Increase farm investment
R4 Rural Resilience
Initiative (WFP/Oxfam)
Ethiopia, Senegal, Malawi,
Zambia
Mitigate food insecurity after a shock
Increase agricultural investment
Increase stock of oxen (form of savings/asset
holding)
IBLI (Index-based
Livestock Insurance) Kenya, Ethiopia Reduce poverty
Increase average asset levels
African Risk Capacity
(African Union)
Kenya, Mauritania, Niger,
Senegal, Burkina, The
Gambia, Malawi, Mali,
Zimbabwe
Improve capacity of government response to
extreme weather events and natural disasters
Notes: Agriculture and Climate Risk Enterprise (ACRE Africa) a for-profit company that evolved from the 2009 “Kilimo
Salama” project funded by the Syngenta Foundation and the World Bank Global Index Insurance Facility (GIIF).
R4 Rural Resilience Initiative was launched by the World Food Program (WFP) and Oxfam.
Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service using information from ACRE Africa, R4, IBLI, and African Risk Capacity.
Box 5 figure 1
Growth of index insurance programs in Sub-Saharan Africa
Note: The R4 program is an initiative of the World Food Program (WFP) and Oxfam America. Agriculture and Climate
Risk Enterprise (ACRE Africa) is a for-profit company that evolved from the 2009 Kilimo Salama project funded by the
Syngenta Foundation and the World Bank Global Index Insurance Facility (GIIF). Index-Based Livestock Insurance
(IBLI Kenya) is an index insurance research and implementation program run by the International Livestock Research
Institute (ILRI). ACRE Africa program information for 2016 is approximate.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations using data from Oxfam, ACRE Africa, Kilimo Salama, and ILRI.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
R4 program
ACRE Africa
IBLI Kenya
Farmers insured (1,000)
continued—

28
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 5
New Risk Management Support Programs and
Agricultural Productivity—continued
Despite the relative successes of some index insurance pilots and full-scale programs, challenges
remain for both implementation and sustainability of these types of supply-side safety net proj-
ects. The lack of sufficiently detailed data on agricultural production and weather increases the
chance that a farmer suffers a loss that is not covered under the insurance contract (basis risk),
and thus impedes both the supply of and farm-level demand for innovative insurance products.
In addition, farmer education on how insurance works is a critical component of uptake—but
one that is costly.
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are one channel for sharing expenses that would otherwise
make private index insurance too costly for farmers in developing countries. For example, the
Mongolian Government would cover only extremely large losses of an insurance product for its
livestock herders. Similarly, India’s National Agricultural Insurance Scheme subsidizes farmer
premiums, and its State governments provide yield data from crop-cutting experiments. The
Kenya National Agricultural Insurance Program was recently launched as a PPP that will insure
livestock, maize, and wheat and ease the financial burden on the Kenyan Government after
natural disasters. Index insurance PPPs can serve as de facto supply-side safety nets for farmers,
even helping governments finance disaster aid.

29
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Trade in Agriculture and Its Contribution to Food Security
• Trade can contribute to multiple dimensions of food security, including food availability, access,
utilization, and stability. Increased reliance on trade also presents potential challenges to devel-
oping domestic agriculture and, under some market conditions, may expose domestic markets to
more price volatility.
• While many food-insecure countries export agricultural products, most are net food
importers. Imports have been a major contributor to improved food security in countries with
limited production potential. But, for most of the 76 low- and middle-income food-insecure
countries regularly tracked by USDA, domestic production has been the primary source of
gains in food security.
• Commercial imports, as opposed to food aid, have accounted for all of the growth in cereal
and cereal-equivalent food imports by the 76 countries studied. The share of food aid in cereal
imports has declined globally and in all lower income regions since the mid-1990s.
• For some countries, the abilities to generate the financial capacity to import food through
export earnings and other foreign receipts and to make tradeoffs between imports of food and
outlays for investments in areas such as agriculture and infrastructure are considerations for
food import policy.
In addition to creating the potential for efficient domestic production, countries can also improve
food availability through trade in agriculture. Overall, developing countries have increased their
role in world markets for cereals and roots and tubers, which account for the bulk of food staple
consumption in most developing countries (Trostle and Seeley, 2013). Cereal imports by devel-
oping countries have grown about 140 percent since 1990 and about 75 percent since 2000 (fig. 6).
By 2013-15, developing countries accounted for about 75 percent of global cereal imports and had
contributed about 87 percent of the expansion of global cereal import demand since 2000. Clearly,
developing countries as a whole are taking advantage of world markets to meet some of their
expanding demand for both food and feed (Trostle and Seeley, 2013).
For much of the period between 1990 and the mid-2000s, the growth in cereal imports was
supported by relatively stable real prices in global markets. Since the mid-2000s, however, world
prices have tended to be less stable, with significant spikes in 2008, 2011, and 2012, followed by a
sharp downturn in 2014 and 2015 (fig. 6). Although other factors, including supply disruptions and
demand for biofuel feed stocks, influenced the recent price instability, higher demand in developing
country markets was a key underlying factor (Trostle et al., 2011; Cooke et al., 2016). Although
low-cost cereal imports provided an opportunity for developing countries, including low-income,
food-insecure countries, to boost consumption, an environment of higher or less-stable prices may
increase the perceived costs and risks of increasing reliance on food trade (D’Souza and Joliffe,
2012; Tandon and Landes, 2014).

30
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
In aggregate, for the 76 low- and middle-income, food-insecure countries regularly tracked by
USDA, commercial imports of cereals and the cereal equivalent of roots and tubers increased 151
percent, from 53 million tons during 1990-92 to 134 million tons during 2012-14, while food aid
imports of these commodities dropped 50 percent, from 11.9 million tons during 1990-92 to 5.9
million during 2010-12, the latest period of available data. The share of imports in total supplies of
these food staples in these countries increased from about 12 percent during 1990-92 to about 16
percent in 2012-14. There is, however, wide dispersion in both import growth and import shares of
food availability across regions and countries. In general, imports now account for relatively large
shares of food availability in North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Other Asia, and
smaller shares in South and Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
This chapter describes the roles food imports and food trade in general can play in improving
food security. We then examine changes in food imports and food security indicators since 1990,
focusing on developments in the 76 low- and middle-income, food-insecure countries tracked in the
annual USDA International Food Security Assessment. Finally, we analyze the role of food imports,
together with other factors, in driving changes in country-level food security indicators since 1990.
How Food Imports Affect Food Security
The most obvious way that imports can enhance food security is by increasing food availability
above what is supplied from domestic production and stock adjustments, although these benefits
can be diminished if imports have significant adverse effects on domestic production (FAO, 2015b).
Imports can also improve physical and economic access to food and better nutrients, with this effect
Figure 6
World cereal trade
Notes: L = left vertical axis. R = right vertical axis.
Source:
USDA, Economic Research Service. United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
FAOSTAT database and FAO, Food Price Index.
Million tons
Food price index
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
50
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
World cereal imports (L)
Developing country cereal imports (L)
FAO cereal price index (R)

31
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
dependent on whether domestic logistics, markets, and programs can distribute imports in a timely
way to deficit areas and households at an affordable price. Imports can contribute to the utilization
dimension of food security through the increased availability of food and access to higher quality
diets (Smith and Haddad, 2000; Diaz-Bonilla, 2015). Finally, in cases where financial capacity and
logistical and marketing systems are up to the task, food trade can contribute to food security by
smoothing seasonal and climate-induced variability in domestic food supplies and food security.
Openness to trade in general, including food trade, can yield the potential longrun economic advan-
tage of promoting specialization in production and exports of products in which a country has a
comparative advantage, and consumers benefit from lower cost imports of products that can only
be produced domestically at a relatively high price. Many developed and developing countries have
achieved relatively high levels of income by pursuing more open trade policies (Yanikkaya, 2003),
which also help to improve food security apart from trade in agriculture. While openness to trade
exposes domestic producers and consumers to the price fluctuations and cycles of global markets,
it also provides the mechanism for establishing competitive industries that generate sustainable
employment and economic growth.
Low-income, food-insecure countries do, however, face potential economic tradeoffs when estab-
lishing food trade policies. Open food-import policies, while potentially increasing availability of
lower cost food, may affect growth in the domestic agriculture sector and could create significant
adjustment costs borne by the rural sector. In low-income countries, agriculture often accounts for
larger shares of employment and income than in more developed economies, and a majority of those
living in poverty reside in rural areas. In general, research indicates that growth in the farm sector
tends to have more advantageous developmental and equity benefits than growth in many other
sectors of the economy (World Bank, 2007; Christiaensen et al., 2010; FAO, 2015b). Also, even if
there are positive longer term gains from liberalizing food imports, there might be significant adjust-
ment costs borne by the rural sector (Topalova, 2010).
A second important economic consideration is that increased reliance on food imports hinges on
the sustainability of a country’s export earnings and import purchasing power in fluctuating inter-
national markets. There are also potential tradeoffs between using scarce financial resources for
imports of food as opposed to investment goods that may have longer term payoffs (Diaz-Bonilla,
2015; FAO, 2015b).
In addition to possible developmental or financial concerns with increasing reliance on food imports,
some countries face significant logistical, regulatory, and market constraints to expanding their
participation in international food markets. These issues are most commonly noted in Sub-Saharan
Africa, where the prevalence of informal, small-scale trading and relatively high logistical costs of
cross-border movements raise costs and limit trade growth, particularly within the region (Keyser,
2015). Additionally, imbalances between supply and demand for traditional foods—such as white
corn and roots and tuber crops in the case of Sub-Saharan Africa—in local and international
markets can also impede reliance on food trade (Keyser, 2015).
In practice, when we look at the 76 low- and middle-income countries regularly tracked by
USDA, no significant statistical relationship exists between changes in the share of the popula-
tion that is food insecure (as measured by USDA) and changes in the degree of trade openness
(represented by the share of cereal availability that is imported) (fig. 7).5 The lack of a clear
5There is little evidence of a robust relationship between openness to trade and ERS estimates of the prevalence of
undernourishment, using a wide variety of measures of openness to trade.

32
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
relationship in part reflects the differences between countries in capacities to produce and
import food, as well as the roles of other economic, social, and institutional factors that shape
food access, utilization, and stability outcomes (Smith and Haddad, 2000; Magrini et al., 2014).
Most of the 76 countries either remained food secure or reduced the food-insecure shares of
their populations between 1990-92 and 2012-14. Within this group, the majority of countries
increased the share of imports in their cereal supplies, suggesting the benefits of trade open-
ness, but there are also many countries that reduced the import share. Also, among the coun-
tries where the food-insecure share of the population increased over the period, this adverse
outcome correlated with an increased role for imports in some cases and a reduced role in
others, suggesting the relevance of factors other than openness to trade.
While most of the 76 countries examined are net food importers, 8 were net cereal exporters during
2012-14: Cambodia, Chad, Ethiopia, India, Laos, Pakistan, Vietnam, and Zambia. Net exports signal
a comparative productive advantage, supporting growth in employment and farm-sector income and
associated improvements in economic access to food, as well as enhanced commercial food import
capacity. In all but one of the net cereal-exporting countries (Zambia), the food-insecure share of the
population declined between 1990-92 and 2012-14.
Figure 7
Change in food-insecure share of population vs. change in import share of cereal availability
Note: “Difference” (in axis label) refers to changes between the 1990-92 averages and 2012-14 averages. Changes in the
food-insecure population shares are based on USDA estimates of undernourished population shares. Countries in orange
were net exporters in 2012-14.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations from USDA/ERS International Food Security database.
Difference in import share of cereal availability
Afghanistan
Algeria
Angola
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Benin
Bolivia
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
CAR
Chad
Colombia
Congo
Cote d'Ivoire
Dominican R.
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Georgia
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Hai�
Honduras
Indonesia
Jamaica
Kenya
DPR Korea
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Swaziland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam
Yemen
Zaire /DR Congo
Zambia
Zimbabwe
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-1.25 -0.75 -0.25 0.25 0.75 1.25
Difference in % of population food insecure
Larger import share
of cereal supply and
smaller population
share food insecure
Larger import share
of cereal supply and
larger population
share food insecure
Smaller import share
of cereal supply and
smaller population
share food insecure
Smaller import share
of cereal supply and
larger population
share food insecure
India

33
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Changes in Food Trade by Food-Insecure Countries
Since 1990, there has been an upward trend in per capita imports and import shares of availability
for cereals (including the cereal equivalent of roots and tubers) by the 76 low- and middle-income
countries USDA tracks, but with significant variation across regions (fig. 8). Imports and import
shares have been relatively low in South and Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, regions where
many countries have significant agricultural sectors with the land and water resources to grow food.
Imports and import shares are higher in North Africa, where agricultural resources and erratic
rainfall limit production potential (Nigatu and Motamed, 2015). Limited potential to produce
food staples also contributes to high dependence on cereal imports in the low- and middle-
income Latin America and Caribbean countries (Krivonos and De Paixao, 2015). The Other
Asia region, composed of former Soviet republics, initially reduced imports during its economic
and political transition in the 1990s, but production growth has slowed, and imports have
trended upward since 2000.
A significant feature of the trend in cereal imports by lower income countries since 1990 has been
the declining role of food aid and increasing role of commercial imports (fig. 9). Overall, the share
of food aid in cereal imports by the 76 countries tracked by USDA declined from an average of 27
percent during 1990-92 to 5 percent during 2010-12. The Sub-Saharan Africa region now accounts
for the bulk of concessional cereal imports (food sold at below market rates), but the share of
concessional imports in total imports is also declining in that region. For the low-income countries
in the North Africa, Other Asia, and Latin America and Caribbean regions, aid now accounts for
negligible shares of cereal imports. The shrinking role of concessional cereal supplies in each region
means that most countries rely increasingly on their own financial import capacity—export earnings
and capital inflows—to purchase cereal imports.
Figure 8
Total cereal imports1 per capita in 76 low- and middle-income countries
1Includes the cereal equivalent of roots and tubers.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, International Food Security database.
Kilograms per capita
0
50
100
150
200
250
300 All countries South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa North Africa
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

34
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Evidence of Trade Contributions to Food Security
Most of the 76 low- and middle-income countries tracked by USDA have made significant progress
in reducing their food-insecure populations since 2000, but with differing contributions from gains
in trade and domestic production. Overall, for the 76 countries studied, domestic production has
remained, by far, the primary source of per capita cereal supplies and of cereal-equivalent roots and
tubers (table 5 and fig. 10). Per capita production has accelerated since 2000, growing at 1.3 percent
(compared with a decline of 0.1 percent from 1990 to 2000). However, per capita production has
grown less than per capita imports, which grew 2.2 percent from 1990 to 2000 and 2.1 percent after
2000. Since 2000, growth in imports has outpaced growth in production, both in aggregate and in
each region. However, the data reveal significant differences in the roles of domestic production and
trade across regions. The role of imports in cereal availability is substantially larger in North Africa,
Latin America and Caribbean, and Other Asia, than in the two most populous regions, South and
Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Examining the country-level data for the 76 countries tracked by USDA (table 6), we see that
countries vary considerably in the extent to which they emphasize production or import food
security strategies. A total of 36 countries achieved reductions in their food-insecure populations
primarily through gains in domestic production rather than gains in imports, and another 31 did
so with gains in imports larger than gains in production. In general, the group of countries that
expanded production more than imports are the countries that have achieved the largest reductions
in their food-insecure populations. However, the 31 countries that reduced their food-insecure
populations primarily by expanding imports include a number of countries that had low levels of
food insecurity in the first period.
Figure 9
Food aid share of total cereal imports for 76 low- and middle-income countries
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, International Food Security database.
Percent
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
All countries
South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
North Africa

35
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Table 5
Trends in food-insecure population and per capita production and imports in
76 low- and middle-income countries
% change % change
199 0-9 2 2000-02 2012-14 1991-2001 2001-13
Food-insecure share of the population
Percent
76 countries 38 26 14 -3.6 - 5 .1
South and Southeast Asia 36 20 11 -5.9 -4.9
Other Asia162 66 90.8 -15.7
Latin America and Caribbean 69 43 24 -4.6 -4.8
Sub-Saharan Africa 47 45 24 -0.5 -5.2
North Africa 1 0 0 -100. 0 0.0
Per capita production
Kilograms
76 countries 189.2 188.1 219.4 -0.1 1.3
South and Southeast Asia 195.3 19 4.7 230.4 0.0 1.4
Other Asia1 154.6 2 3 7. 4 2 81.4 4.4 1.4
Latin America and Caribbean 115 . 3 116 . 6 134.5 0.1 1.2
Sub-Saharan Africa 183.2 17 9.9 2 01.3 -0.2 0.9
North Africa 210.4 188.3 228.8 -1.1 1. 6
Per capita imports
Kilograms
76 countries 24.3 30.2 38.9 2.2 2 .1
South and Southeast Asia 9.4 13.0 17. 3 3.2 2.4
Other Asia1 129.2 56.3 101.4 -8.0 5.0
Latin America and Caribbean 56.8 86.6 112.8 4.3 2.2
Sub-Saharan Africa 23.9 31.1 36.7 2.7 1.4
North Africa 135.9 18 5.3 233.6 3.1 1. 9
1Reported for 1992-94 in place of 1990-92.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) calculations based on ERS's International Food
Security database.
There are also eight countries, some of which relied primarily on domestic production and some
primarily on imports, where the food-insecure share of the population increased between 1990-92
and 2012-14 (table 6). A number of these countries can be classified as highly food-insecure and
politically unstable. In this set of countries, neither a production- nor import-led strategy was able to
improve food security.

36
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Table 6
Country changes in food-insecure population, per capita cereal production, and per capita
cereal imports between 1990-92 and 2012-14; 76 countries
Reduction in %
food insecure
Production change > import change /
capita Import change > production change/capita
75-100% decline
Laos, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Angola,
Vietnam, Tajikistan, Ethiopia,
Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Peru (10)
Georgia (1)
50-74% decline
Cambodia, Ghana, Cameroon, Togo,
Mozambique, Pakistan, Nicaragua,
Niger (8)
Namibia, Kyrgyzstan, Honduras (3)
25-49% decline Moldova, Guinea, Bolivia, Chad, Nepal,
Ecuador (6)
Philippines, Congo, Liberia, Zimbabwe,
Dominican Republic, Kenya, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Sudan, Colombia (10)
0-24% decline
Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Mali,
Rwanda, Benin, Cape Verde,
Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Sri Lanka,
India, Indonesia, Eritrea (12)
Afghanistan, Tanzania, Haiti, Gambia,
Jamaica, Zaire/Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Somalia, Yemen, Egypt,
Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Uganda, Senegal,
Morocco, Mongolia, Algeria, Tunisia (17)
Increase Zambia, Lesotho (2)
Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau,
Burundi, Madagascar, Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, Swaziland (6)
Notes: 1. Changes in food-insecure population are based on USDA estimates of population shares that were undernourished.
2. Underlined countries were at least 95-percent food secure in both periods.
3. Italicized countries were at least 75-percent food insecure in 2012-14.
4. Each number in parentheses denotes the number of countries in each box.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) calculations based on ERS's International Food Security database.
Figure 10
Food insecurity, production, and imports in 76 low- and middle-income countries
Note: Food-insecure population shares are based on USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates of
undernourished population shares. L = left-hand vertical axis. R = right-hand vertical axis.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, International Food Security database.
K
ilograms per capita Population share (percent)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
50
1
00
1
50
2
00
2
50
Per capita production (L)
Per capita imports (L)
Food insecure share of population (R)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

37
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
The Link Between Feed Demand, Cereal Trade, and Food Security
Among the 76 countries studied here, the data reveal a strong linkage between the levels of cereal
imports and feed demand in the importing countries. The three regions with the most per capita
cereal imports—North Africa, Latin America and Caribbean, and Other Asia—also have substan-
tially higher per capita feed use, which signal greater demand for product and commercial feed
(fig. 11). This pattern parallels the generally higher per capita incomes in these three regions,
compared with South and Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.6 For many of the countries in
North Africa, Latin America and Caribbean, and Other Asia, the link between increased cereal
trade and improved food security relates to not only enhancing the availability of cereal for food
use, but also to improving the availability of animal products to enhance diet diversity.
FAO food balance data confirm the strong relationship between the level of animal protein supply
and the alternative food security indicators (fig. 12). Although the correlation is lower for the USDA
measure, which only evaluates the adequacy of food staples, it is high for the FAO Food Insecurity
Experience Scale (FIES) and WHO child-stunting indicators, which are better able to account for
the effects of overall diet diversity and quality. This finding shows the importance of dietary diver-
sity, and specifically animal product consumption, in improving food security.
6USDA ERS International Macroeconomic data set.
Figure 11
Per capita feed use in 76 low- and middle-income countries
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, International Food Security database.
Kilograms per capita
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180 All countries South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa North Africa

38
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Trade Policy and Cereal Imports
The role of imports in national food security strategies is partly evident in tariff and non-tariff
policies that define how open the economy is to food trade. Data on Most Favored Nation (MFN)
tariffs for wheat, rice, and corn—available for 67 of the 76 low- and middle-income countries
followed by USDA—indicate a wide range of tariffs on cereal imports.7 While average cereal
tariffs are lowest (3.7 percent) in the Other Asia region, average tariffs for the other four regions are
very similar, ranging from 11.4 percent to 14.6 percent. Examining MFN tariffs and import shares
of cereal supplies does not reveal any strong relationship between the role of imports and trade
openness, at least as captured in MFN tariffs (fig. 13).
The lack of a strong relationship between tariffs and the role of imports likely reflects an array
of other policy and cost factors that influence the extent to which imports are feasible. Nontariff
barriers—including phytosanitary measures or restrictions on imports of genetically modified
crops—can be more restrictive than tariffs. Cost factors can include high logistical costs and limited
availability of appropriate commodities in some regions (i.e., white corn in Sub-Saharan Africa), as
well as financial constraints on national capacities to import food commercially.
7Simple average MFN tariffs for wheat, rice, and corn as reported by the World Trade Organization. MFN tariff data
were not available from this source for Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan.
Figure 12
Correlation coefficients between per capita supply of animal protein and
food security indicators1
1Per capita protein supply is 2009-11 average. USDA percent undernourished is 2012-14 averages. United Nations,
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) indicators are for 2014. World Health
Organization (WHO) child stunting indicators are most recent available since 2010.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations from ERS International Food Security database;
UN/FAO; and WHO data.
Kilograms per capita
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
USDA %
undernourished
FAO FIES %
moderately
food insecure
FAO FIES %
severely
food insecure
WHO children
< 5 % stunted
Higher per capita
supply of animal
protein = smaller
share food insecure

39
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Commercial Import Capacity and Cereal Imports
Commercial imports, rather than concessional supplies, account for all of the growth in the cereal
and roots and tubers imports by the 76 low- and middle-income countries studied between 1990-92
and 2012-14. As a result, national capacities to expand and/or sustain food imports as an element of
food security strategy for lower income countries hinges primarily on the adequacy of commercial
import capacity. This capacity is determined largely by macroeconomic factors that affect economy-
wide merchandise export earnings and import costs, as well as flows of capital, such as foreign
direct investment and inward remittances, all of which are subject to domestic and global market
conditions. In addition to the adequacy and stability of commercial import capacity, the use of such
capacity to import food for current consumption may involve tradeoffs with imports of inputs and/or
investment goods, including goods to support agricultural production, which may have longer term
employment and income benefits (Christiaensen et al., 2010; Diaz-Bonilla, 2015).
Figure 13
Cereal tariffs versus cereal import shares of total cereal availability, 2010-14,
in 76 low- and middle-income countries
Note: Each point represents one country. MFN = Most favored nation.
Sources: World Trade Organization and USDA, Economic Research Service, International Food Security database.
Cereal import percent of availability
y = -0.4542x + 35.759
R² = 0.0353
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Average MFN cereal tariff (percent)
South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
North Africa

40
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
One indicator of the level and sustainability of the cost of food imports is the ratio of the cost of
agricultural imports to an economy’s total export earnings. This ratio has the benefit of accounting
for the sometimes offsetting effects of fluctuations in world commodity prices on merchandise
export earnings, food import costs, and import capacity, but does not account for the sometimes
significant effects of capital flows (Diaz-Bonilla, 2015).
Overall and for most of the regions under study, the food import shares of export earnings, while
variable, have tended to decline since the early 1990s (fig. 14) . Reflecting their low reliance on
cereal imports, South and Southeast Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, and Other Asia use the lowest
shares of export earnings on food imports. Latin America and Caribbean, despite increasing
food imports, also uses a low and declining share of export earnings on cereal imports. North
Africa, in contrast, applies a large share of its export earnings to food imports, a share that has
now been rising since the mid-2000s. All of the regions, with a possible exception of South and
Southeast Asia, show substantial year-to-year variability in the shares of export earnings used for
food imports, suggesting likely variability in the foreign exchange available for imports of other
consumption and investment goods.
Examination of country-level data on agricultural import shares of export earnings again
reveals considerably more variation between countries than is seen in the regional aggregate
data (table 7). While more than a third (28) of the 76 countries studied spend less than 20
percent of export earnings on agricultural imports, about 22 percent (17) spend more than 50
percent, and 41 percent (31) spend between 20 and 50 percent. However, the current food secu-
rity status, represented by the share of the population assessed as food insecure by USDA, does
not appear to relate strongly to the share of export earnings spent on agricultural imports.
Figure 14
Agricultural import share of merchandise export earnings,
76 low- and middle-income countries
Source: United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, FAOSTAT database.
Percent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
All countries
South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
North Africa
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

41
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Although there is a tendency for smaller food-insecure population shares to be associated with
smaller (less than 50 percent) shares of export earnings spent on agricultural imports, a number
of countries spending larger shares of export earnings on food imports are also relatively food
secure. For the countries with the highest incidence of food insecurity, there is no clear pattern;
for some, the share of agricultural imports in export earnings is fairly small and for others it is
fairly large.
The findings suggest that countries can pursue food security with a mix of strategies for spending
foreign exchange earnings. A significant number of the 76 countries studied spend large enough
shares of export earnings on agricultural imports that there may be tradeoffs with other imports,
including inputs and investment goods that might support gains in domestic food production or
economic growth more broadly. Additionally, while overall ratios of agricultural imports costs to
total export earnings have generally remained stable—indicating stability in the ability to pay for
imports—the high ratios in a large number of countries, including those in North Africa, suggest
vulnerability to price volatility. Additional discussion of the nature and effects of price volatility for
food security is provided in Food Price Volatility and Food Security (See box, “Food Security and
International Price Volatility.”)
Table 7
Food-insecure population and agricultural import share of total export earnings, 2011-13
% food
insecure
Agricultural imports share of total export earnings
<10% 10-20 % 20-50% 50 -10 0 % >100%
<10%
Turkmenistan,
Angola,
Nigeria,
Indonesia,
Peru (5)
Colombia,
Vietnam,
Algeria, Coete
d’Ivoire,
Tunisia,
Sudan, Ghana,
Cameroon (8)
Mali, Laos, Pakistan,
Morocco, Mauritania,
Bangladesh, Guinea,
Malawi, Kyrgystan,
Burkina Faso, Niger,
El Salvador, Uganda,
Moldova, Egypt, Benin,
Nicaragua (17)
Jamaica,
Georgia, Nepal,
Senegal,
Armenia, Sierra
Leone (6)
Liberia,
Cape Verde
(2)
10-20 %
Azerbaijan,
India,
Uzbekistan (3)
Philippines,
Mongolia (2)
Tanzania, Sri Lanka,
Togo, Dominican
Republic, Mozambique,
Tajikistan (6)
Ethiopia (1)
20-50% Congo,
Namibia (2)
Cambodia,
Honduras (2)
Guatemala, Kenya,
Zimbabwe (3)
Guinea-Bissau
(1)
Afghanistan,
Gambia (2)
50-90%
Chad, Zambia,
Bolivia,
Ecuador,
Swaziland (5)
Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea (1)
Lesotho, Madagascar,
Yemen (3) Rwanda (1) Haiti (1)
90-100%
Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Central
African Republic (2)
Burundi (1) Somalia,
Eritrea (2)
Notes:
1. Underlined countries are at least 95 percent food secure in both periods.
2. Each number in parentheses denotes the number of countries in each box.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, International Food Security database and United Nations,
Food and Agriculture Organization, FAOSTAT database.

42
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 6
Food Security and International Price Volatility
The implications for food security of price volatility in domestic and international food markets
has been an important topic of analysis, both in the context of recent global commodity price
spikes (Trostle, 2008; Trostle et al., 2011) and longer term concerns with the effects expected
to be associated with climate change (USDA, 2014). Price volatility, or large swings in prices
over short periods of time, can limit food access, particularly for lower income consumers when
prices rise, and can also dampen incentives for producers when their returns become too low or
uncertain. While swings in food prices in both directions can have food security implications,
analysts and policymakers focus primarily on the frequency and effects of food price spikes.
The overall food security effects of food price spikes include the adverse impacts to rural and
urban households that are net buyers of food, as well as the potential gains experienced by
mostly rural households that are net sellers of food.
The evidence on the implications of high versus low prices for food security is mixed, and
analysis of effects is complicated by country-specific differences in characteristics such as
the shares of net food buyers and sellers and the degree to which world prices are transmitted
into domestic markets. Policy advice has shifted from concern with the adverse effects of
persistently low prices on rural incomes and welfare during historical periods to more recent
concern with the effects of high prices on low-income households (Swinnen and Squicciarini,
2012). In general, the evidence tends to confirm that high food prices reduce food security in
the short run (D’Souza and Joliffe, 2012, 2014; Daidone and Mane, 2013; Tandon and Landes,
2014), with effects varying across household types. There is less evidence about the long run,
during which wages and production can adjust upward in response to higher prices. Here,
somewhat thinner evidence suggests that higher prices can reduce poverty in the long run,
although this may not be the case if persistent price volatility limits upward shifts in produc-
tion and labor demand (Ivanic and Martin, 2015).
When we look at the volatility conditions facing the 76 low- and middle-income countries tracked
by USDA, world production of major cereals was not significantly more variable during 2007-14
than during 1995-06, but world trade in wheat and corn did become more variable in the recent
period (box 6, table 1). For the low- and middle-income countries, however, both production and
net imports, while remaining more variable than for the world as a whole, generally became less
volatile during 2007-14. The notable exception was the high and increasing variability of net
imports in South and Southeast Asia, associated primarily with large changes in rice exports by
India and Vietnam. Overall, although world cereal trade became somewhat more variable during
2007-14, food availability in the low- and middle-income countries, as represented by the cereal
production and trade, tended to become less volatile during this recent period.
Changes in the variability of world and, particularly, domestic cereal prices are somewhat more
difficult to evaluate with available data. Increases in world cereal prices faced by the low- and
middle-income countries were higher during 2007-14, but price volatility was about the same in the
two periods (box 6, table 2, and box 6, fig. 1). However, based on consumer price indices (proxy
indicators that likely include heavily weighted food staple items), price increases declined in all
low-income regions, and price volatility declined in all but one region during 2007-14. Between
1995-2006 and 2007-15, CPI inflation slowed in 64 (82 percent) of the 76 countries tracked by
USDA, and CPI volatility (as measured by the coefficient of variation) declined in 59 (78 percent).
continued—

43
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 6
Food Security and International Price Volatility—continued
Box 6 table 1
Coefficients of variation of cereal production and trade for the world and
76 low- and middle-income countries
Production Net imports1
1995-2006 2 0 07-14 1995-2006 20 07-14
Percent
World
Wheat 4.1 5.2 5.1 10 .1
Rice 3.7 3.6 14.8 13.8
Corn 9.4 8.9 10 .1 14.3
Tot a l 5.6 6 .1 7. 2 11.1
76 countries, total cereals
South and Southeast Asia 6.5 6.6 39.6 200.0
Other Asia 21.9 5.9 19.8 16.1
Latin America and Caribbean 9.0 4.5 18.5 9.4
Sub-Saharan Africa 10.7 8.7 22.7 10.2
North Africa 18.2 10.4 11.4 12. 9
Tot a l 8 .1 6.7 11. 2 12.7
1Total impor ts for the world and net imports for the 76 low-income countries.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, Production,
Supply, and Distribution online database and USDA, Economic Research Service data.
Box 6 table 2
Inflation and variability of world food prices and consumer prices for
76 low- and middle-income countries
Average percent change Coefficient of variation
1995-2006 20 07-15 1995-2006 20 07-15
FAO world price indices
Food 1.6 4.4 13.4 12.4
Cereals 1.9 6.2 14. 2 15.4
Domestic consumer price indices
76 countries 11. 4 6.7 22.6 14.8
South and Southeast Asia 10.0 8.2 22.6 17. 2
Other Asia 21.1 7. 2 2 7.3 15.0
Latin America and Caribbean 11. 3 5.6 31. 6 12.8
North Africa 4.5 5.4 10.9 13.1
Sub-Saharan Africa 10.2 7.1 20.8 16 .1
Notes: Angola, Congo, and Zimbabwe were removed from the dataset because of hyperinflation.
FAO = United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) calculations based on USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service,
Production, Supply, and Distribution online database and ERS data.
continued—

44
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 6
Food Security and International Price Volatility—continued
Although the lower volatility of consumer prices is an indicator of stability in food access, it
may disguise upward price swings—particularly within-season swings—in key food staples
that have significant food security implications. A study of domestic food staple price changes
in 46 countries during 2006-10 (the period around the 2008 global food price spike) found peak
increases in real prices from 40 to 60 percent for major cereals and roots and tubers (Dawe and
Morales-Opazo, 2009). Another study focusing on Sub-Saharan Africa markets found that—
while domestic food staple prices in the region were relatively volatile—there was little evidence
that domestic prices became more volatile during 2007-10 (Minot, 2012).
Although the recent aggregate-level data for the 76 low- and middle-income countries tracked by
USDA do not indicate an increase in volatility in domestic food staple supplies and prices since
2007, the 2008 and 2011-12 spikes in global cereal prices and the recent increased variability of
global cereal trade potentially threaten food security for low-income food-importing countries.
Box 6 figure 1
Percent changes in world-food-price and consumer-price indexes in 76 low- and
middle-income countries, 1996-20151
2014
2015
2013
1Angola, Congo, and Zimbabwe were removed from the data set because of hyperinflation.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations using United Nations, Food and Agriculture
Organization and World Bank data.
Percent change
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
FAO food price index
FAO cereal price index
76-country consumer price index

45
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Emerging Issues in Food Trade and Food Security
Trade policy responses to international market volatility. Global market conditions for major
food commodities, along with the capacity for efficient local production, can be expected to
shape policies regarding the role of trade in developing more efficient and resilient national agri-
food systems. After global market prices spiked in the 2008-12 period, many countries sought
to achieve greater self-sufficiency. Although the analysis of recent world food trade and price
data does not indicate that either trade or prices have become more volatile (see box, “Food
Security and International Price Volatility”), the recent spikes in world food prices in 2008 and
2011/12 were clearly felt in many low- and middle-income countries and households (D’Souza
and Joliffe, 2012; Tandon and Landes, 2014). Further, the ensuing declines in world prices of
food and nonfood commodities during 2014-16 have dealt setbacks to commodity production and
export earnings by exporting countries, as well as to households dependent on these sectors. In
the context of continued sharp market movements, policies designed to insulate sensitive domestic
food markets from price fluctuations or macro-economic effects may continue to be important in
addressing near-term food security imperatives, despite longer term effects of reducing gains from
trade and contributing to price volatility in world markets.
Multilateral trade policies and food security. Domestic and trade policies used to achieve national
food security goals may conflict with multilateral policies, as well as those of the Global Food
Security Act, for reducing trade barriers and improving access to and participation in global and
regional markets. Similarly, some national safety net programs have also raised food security issues
to be addressed in global and regional trade negotiations. The ongoing Doha Round multilateral
negotiations have raised issues regarding provisions that address food security policies in both devel-
oped and developing countries (Diaz-Bonilla, 2015). Similarly, food security policies can be impor-
tant in regional trade agreements—including the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the
Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and Asia-Pacific Cooperation (APEC)—that play
major roles in achieving both income growth and food security in their respective regions.
Climate change effects on trade patterns. Climate change is projected to reduce food production
potential in many low- and middle-income countries and potentially increase volatility in world
market. (See box, “Climate Change and Food Security.”) Mitigation and adaptation are key to
the resilience of production systems, but less attention has been given to the role of markets and
trade in addressing these issues. Trade could help countries adapt to reduced food production, but
national and multilateral measures to expand food trade could be difficult to achieve if market vola-
tility creates incentives for Governments to insulate their markets in an effort to avoid changes to
domestic food security.

46
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Consumer Safety Nets and Food Security
• Low-income countries use a number of different types of social support programs that are
designed to help improve food access, utilization, and stability and develop more resilience to
food security threats. The most common types of programs include conditional and uncondi-
tional cash transfers and in-kind assistance such as subsidized food grains.
• While it is difficult to estimate the effects support programs have on food security, evidence
suggests that a number of social support programs across the world do, depending on design and
context, improve various aspects of food security, including access, nutrition, and stability.
• International evidence suggests that conditional and unconditional cash transfers are less costly
than in-kind food aid but that equivalent cash and in-kind transfers have similar positive effects
on food security. These results suggest that cash transfers are preferable to in-kind food aid.
However, it is unlikely that all countries can feasibly implement cash transfers, and in-kind food
aid is still likely to play a role in domestic social support programs.
Background
Despite significant progress in improving food security in the past few decades, a significant share
of the population of low-income countries remains food insecure (FAO, 2015a; Rosen et al., 2015).
Given the continued prevalence of food insecurity, a number of countries implement domestic
support programs designed to improve some or all dimensions of food security: availability, access,
nutrition, and stability. India, for example, operates the world’s largest domestic food safety net
program and has recently ratified a National Food Security Act to expand eligibility for its food aid
program (Krishnamurthy et al., 2014).
Safety nets generally respond to multiple needs. Long-term strategies to reduce the incidence of
food insecurity might not affect the entire food-insecure population or might affect a portion of the
population adversely (Tandon and Landes, 2011b). In many countries, the food-insecure population
is generally very poor, socially or geographically isolated, or particularly vulnerable to structural or
idiosyncratic economic changes. The needs of this population may be difficult to address through
increases in agricultural productivity and greater openness to food trade. For example, trade can
have potentially adverse effects on those employed in import-competing industries (Topalova, 2010;
Edmonds et al., 2010). Price shocks, whether domestic or international, can affect food security
of some households (D’Souza and Joliffe, 2014; Tandon and Landes, 2014). Similarly, increases in
agricultural productivity can have either positive or negative effects on some agricultural laborers
and some farm incomes, depending on whether labor use rises or falls and whether households are
net sellers or buyers of agricultural goods (Datt and Ravallion, 1998; Foster and Rosenzweig, 2004;
Minten and Barrett, 2008).
Safety net programs provide a way of responding to such food security challenges. This chapter
details a number of different programs implemented by national governments that help to improve
the food security of the most vulnerable populations.

47
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Types of Safety Net Programs
Governments implement a number of different types of domestic safety net programs that address
different dimensions of food security. Some programs—termed unconditional transfers—provide
monetary assistance that recipients are allowed to use however they please. Others—termed
conditional transfers—provide assistance in a way that requires recipients to use the funds to
purchase certain types of goods or to engage in certain behaviors, such as schooling or health care.
Alternatively, support programs can provide in-kind assistance by distributing food commodities,
typically at a subsidized price, or they can provide cash. Each of these programs can be further
tailored to affect particular dimensions of food security—for example, by targeting specific popula-
tions (e.g., those not earning a sufficient income or those not owning a certain threshold of assets).
Programs might also provide different types of in-kind aid, such as certain foods or health care. In
addition, many countries implement temporary emergency safety nets to provide either cash or food
aid in droughts and other emergencies, which are aimed specifically at improving stability of food
secur ity. Table 8 provides examples of some common types of safety programs across the world,
categorized by program type, and table 9 gives specific examples of each program type implemented
in individual countries.
Table 8
Types of safety net programs
Unconditional transfers Conditional transfers
Cash Recipients decide how to
spend benefits.
Recipients must engage in specified behaviors, such as
participation in health schemes, school attendance, or public
works projects to receive cash.
Food Recipients receive free or
subsidized food.
School Feeding: students who attend school receive food.
Public Works: Recipients receive food for participating in
public works projects.
Source: World Bank (2014) The State of Social Safety Nets: 2014, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Table 9
Selected long-standing consumer safety net programs in low-income countries
Country Program Type Description
Conditional transfer: cash
Brazil Bolsa Familia Health and
education
Cash is transferred to families if children
go to school and get vaccinated.
Mexico Oportunidades/Prospera Health, nutrition,
and education
Cash is transferred to incentivize improved
education, health care and nutrition status
of children.
Conditional transfer: in-kind
Brazil
Program Nacional
De Alimentacao Escola
(PNAE)
School meals
Food is purchased from small farmers to
supply school meals and provide a steady
source of income for farmers. About 47.2
million children benefited in 2013.
India Midday Meal School meals
Food procured in price-support operations
is provided to State governments for school
meals. About 130 million children benefit.
Honduras Vaso de Leche (“Glass of
Milk”) School meals
The program reaches about 638,000 chil-
dren in preschool and primary school with
the aim of increasing protein and calcium
intake. Products are sourced from local
small-scale dairy producers.
continued—

48
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Country Program Type Description
Unconditional transfer: cash
India
Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural
Employment Guarantee
Scheme (NREGS)
Public works
The rural population is guaranteed 100
days per year of paid (unskilled, minimum
wage) work on public works projects.
Bangladesh
Employment Generation
Program for the Poorest
(Food for Work)
Public works
The program combats seasonal
undernutrition by employing people to
build community assets and infrastructure
in return for food (cash). Eligibility is
limited to households that have less than
half an acre of land and whose head
of household is employed as a manual
laborer. Wages are set below market rate,
and men and women receive same wage.
Lesotho Child Grant Program Health, nutrition,
and education
Aid is unconditional, but with strong
messaging to spend the funds to improve
health and nutrition outcomes and school
enrollment for vulnerable children. As of
March 2014, the program had reached
65,000 children.
Kenya
Cash Transfer for
Orphans and Vulnerable
Children (CT-OVC)
Food assistance
Transfers aimed at increasing food
consumption are given to very poor
families with vulnerable children.
Ethiopia Productive Safety Net
Program (PSNP)
Public works,
food assistance
This program is part of the government’s
shift away from emergency food
distribution and transfers food and cash to
food-insecure households. It emphasizes
“graduation” from the program when
families can meet their own food needs.
Botswana Multiple programs
Public works;
health, nutrition,
and education
Botswana’s public works program scales
up during drought years, providing cash
and food transfers for the very poor. A
school feeding program and vulnerable-
group feeding program distribute food
through health clinics to malnourished
children under 6 years old and to pregnant
and lactating women.
Table 9
Selected long-standing consumer safety net programs in low-income countries—continued
continued—

49
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Country Program Type Description
Unconditional transfer: in-kind
India Targeted Public
Distribution Program
Unconditional
transfer: in-kind
Cereals purchased and stored in price-
support operations are distributed at
subsidized prices, with the largest
subsidies targeted to households below
the poverty line.
Integrated programs
Brazil Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) Food security
Launched in 2003, this comprehensive
food security strategy incorporates
programs in agricultural production,
nutrition, health, and education. It includes
Bolsa Familia cash transfer, food stamps,
and school meals, as well as support for
small holder agriculture.
Rwanda Vision 2020 Umurenge
Program Food security
Direct Support provides cash to people
who can’t work. Public works provides
cash wages to poor people who can work.
Ubedehe Credit Scheme provides loans to
poor farmers.
Source: Compiled by USDA, Economic Research Service from World Bank (2014) The State of Social Safety Nets: 2014,
World Bank, Washington, DC, and United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (2015) The State of Food and
Agriculture: Social Protection and Agriculture: Breaking the Cycle of Rural Poverty, Rome, Italy.
Each type of social support program can enhance food security. Cash transfers allow recipients to
purchase a variety of goods, including food items, which may enhance dietary diversity and support
local and regional markets. In-kind food aid, on the other hand, generally provides specific staple
food items, but may lead indirectly to greater flexibility to divert budgets to other items, including
improved diets. For example, an in-kind transfer of staple grains with limited nutritional quality
aside from calories can improve diet diversity if households choose to take their savings on the
amount of grains they would have bought at the market rate and spend them on more nutritious
foods (Currie and Gahvari, 2008). Alternatively, an in-kind transfer providing food over the amount
the household would have consumed without the transfer can promote more consumption of those
goods, such as in-kind distribution of primary health care for all household members or an in-kind
distribution of more healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables (Currie and Gahvari, 2008).
As can be seen by the array of programs described in table 9, each type of program also has poten-
tial effects beyond the direct contributions to food security. For example, public works programs
that offer cash or food in return for labor can potentially improve local infrastructure and services.
Examples of such programs include the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee in
India or the Food for Work program in Ethiopia. Alternatively, conditional cash transfer programs,
which offer cash in return for meeting certain conditions, can improve schooling and primary health
care when those are conditions for receiving assistance. Examples of such programs include the
Oportunidades/Prospera program in Mexico and the Bolsa programs in Brazil.
Table 9
Selected long-standing consumer safety net programs in low-income countries—continued

50
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
However, there are potential unintended consequences for social safety net programs as well. For
example, unconditional cash transfers allow households to use some or all of the transfer to purchase
goods that do not improve nutrition and have little public value. Furthermore, evidence indicates
waste and misdirection of benefits in the case of public distribution of food that involves providing
food for free or at subsidized rates. These programs can encounter significant costs in handling,
distributing, and storing food and, if volumes are large enough, can have the unintended conse-
quence of causing distortions in agricultural markets. For example, the Targeted Public Distribution
System in India requires the Government to acquire a large amount of rice and wheat from farmers,
which can distort planting decisions and potentially depress investments in the agricultural sector
(Parikh et al., 2003). Furthermore, the system substantially increases transportation and storage
costs (Rakshit, 2003).
Food Safety Net Programs in India
India, with the largest food-insecure population in the world, implements both in-kind and cash
transfer programs aimed at improving the food security of low-income households. The country’s
largest support program, as well as the largest in-kind food distribution program in the world, is the
Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS), which provides aid to various categories of house-
holds. The TPDS distributes rations of a number of essential commodities—primarily rice, wheat,
and kerosene—to households across India at significantly subsidized rates. The ration is less than
the average household would purchase without the ration, and the largest subsidies and rations are
targeted to households that are below the poverty line (BPL). In addition to the direct benefit, the
program enables households to use the savings on the grain they would have purchased at market
rates to purchase other goods, including more and better quality foods.
State governments are responsible for identifying BPL households and distributing subsidized
commodities from Fair Price Shops (FPSs). The central Government procures rice and wheat
through the Food Corporation of India (FCI), which pays a Government-mandated Minimum
Support Price (MSP) to farmers, and these commodities are supplied to State governments for
sale to beneficiaries at the centrally subsidized rates (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, 2002). State
governments may provide TPDS commodities at below the centrally subsidized rates at their own
cost. For example, the States of Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh offer the larger subsidies to
a larger share of households than is supported by the central government (Tarozzi, 2005; Dreze
and Khera, 2011; Krishnamurthy et al., 2014). Under the National Food Security Act, enacted in
2013 and now implemented in most but not all States, the share of households receiving the largest
subsidies will expand to nearly 75 percent of the rural population and 50 percent of the urban
population (Krishnamurthy et al., 2014).
In addition to the TPDS, a number of other social support programs help maintain a minimum
standard of living for the most vulnerable populations. The Midday Meal Scheme uses food
staples provided from the central pool that supplies the TPDS to provide meals of sufficient nutri-
tion to all school children in government-aided primary and upper primary schools (approxi-
mately ages 6-12). The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) provides food and primary
health care to children under age 6 and their mothers (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, 2002).
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) guarantees at
least 100 days of wage employment in a year to every household whose adult members volunteer
to work. Beneficiaries of the Midday Meal Scheme and ICDS can use money they would have
spent on low-quality food to purchase a better quality diet (Singh et al., 2014), and beneficia-

51
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
ries of MNREGA can use the cash transfer for any purpose (without any restrictions), including
purchasing a better quality diet for the household.
Together, these programs help improve food access, utilization, and stability of hundreds of millions
of poor Indian households. However, there is vigorous debate about whether India should seek to
replace its costly in-kind aid programs (like the TPDS) with conditional and unconditional cash
transfer programs that might potentially cost less, better target vulnerable segments of the popula-
tion, and distort domestic commodity markets less (Kapur et al., 2008). Pilot programs of cash
transfers have begun in a number of States and union territories (e.g., Delhi and Chhattisgarh), and
political parties have even campaigned on such programs. The central Government is currently
making large investments in creating the technical and institutional capacity to effectively imple-
ment cash transfer programs. This initiative includes three interrelated programs that are issuing
unique biometric ID cards to all Indians, providing all households with bank accounts, and
exploiting the rapid penetration of mobile phone-based technologies in order to provide the capacity
to effectively implement cash transfer-based safety nets. Although pilot programs are being imple-
mented, there is still considerable debate about whether the technology will work effectively across
the country, and whether the benefits will keep up with inflation or be diluted during times of rising
local food and health care prices.8
Social Safety Nets in Zambia
Zambia, a country with a persistently high rates of poverty and food insecurity, implements a variety
of targeted safety net programs to support food security in vulnerable populations, including in-kind
assistance via school feeding, farming input provision, and unconditional cash transfers. The Home
Grown School Feeding Program (HGSFP) provided daily meals to approximately 850,000 children
in grades 1 through 9 in 2012. The HGSFP targets schools in high-poverty and low-enrollment
districts, with aims to improve both school attendance and food security.
Administered by the Ministry of Community Development, the Food Security Pack (FSP) program
began in 2000 to provide packages of seed and fertilizer to “vulnerable but able” households,
including those with elderly- or child-heads, or with orphans or ill members (Mason et al., 2013).
Unlike the much larger Fertilizer Input Subsidy Program (FISP) administered by the department of
agriculture, which requires an outlay by the recipient, FSP is a grant and also reaches households
with fewer assets than FISP (Mason et al., 2013). The FSP program had a large initial enrollment,
but because of funding difficulties, the number of beneficiaries dropped to only about 15,000 house-
holds in 2012 (Tesliuc et al., 2013).
While FSP coverage is low, Zambia has cash transfer (CT) schemes that reach 151,000 households
(per Zambian Government). As in much of Africa, the cash transfers are unconditional and arose
in part as a response to the growing numbers of AIDS orphans (van Ufford et al., 2016). Zambia’s
current CT scheme began in the early 2000s with donor-funded pilots, and a shift to self-funded
programming has solidified the CT role in development strategy and allowed rapid expansion
of the program. The two largest targeting schemes are the Child Grant Program (CGP) and the
Multiple Categorical Targeting Grant (MCTG). Both programs are geographically targeted—CGP
8For example, see Kotwal et al. (2011) for a summary of critiques of replacing TPDS with cash transfers.

52
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
operates in districts with the highest levels of child morbidity and stunting and provides benefits to
households with children under age 5, and MCTG operates in the districts with the highest levels
of extreme poverty, targeting households similar to those FSP targets. Evaluations have shown that
the CGP has positive effects on consumption and food security, as well as on productive activi-
ties such as livestock ownership (Handa et al., 2015). Based on these results, the country began to
increase the scale of the program (van Ufford et al., 2016).
Although the social safety net in Zambia is much less extensive than the variety of programs oper-
ating in India, the country is much further along in implementing a program of cash transfers. Based
on the success of the pilot programs in Zambia and their subsequent scaling up, the case study offers
a potential model for India to follow. Interestingly, the cash transfer program (as well as the school
feeding program) in Zambia targets particular disadvantaged regions, unlike India’s larger safety net
programs, which operate across the entire country and base targeting on criteria set at the national
and state levels (e.g., TPDS). Although there is significant debate about whether India should estab-
lish a national cash transfer program, continued implementation of smaller and geographically
targeted programs at the state and sub-state level, such as those in Zambia, could reach a large share
of the population.
Effects of Safety Net Programs on Food Security
Research findings indicate that each of the types of safety nets can have positive effects on
measures of food security (Aker, 2015; Gilligan et al., 2016; Hidrobo et al., 2014; Hoddinott et
al., 2015). A World Bank (2011) meta-review of evaluations of safety net programs found posi-
tive effects on food consumption in 17 of 20 conditional cash transfer programs (World Bank,
2011). Additionally, in summarizing the results of 12 separate evaluations of social safety net
programs, Gentilini (2014) demonstrated that both in-kind food aid, conditional cash transfers,
and unconditional cash transfers all improve at least one measure of food security (e.g., food
consumption, calorie intake, dietary diversity, and anemia). The evidence of the effect of uncon-
ditional cash transfers on food security is beginning to build as well, with research indicating that
unconditional cash transfers in seven countries in Sub-Saharan Africa positively affected at least
one measure of food security (e.g., calories consumed, food expenditures, dietary quality, dietary
diversity, coping strategies, seasonality, and production) (Hjelm, 2016).
However, the evidence is not all positive. Some studies find that, in certain contexts, in-kind food
aid has limited effects on overall calorie consumption and on more severe problems with access
to food (Tarozzi, 2005; Jensen and Miller, 2011). Similarly, a number of evaluations highlighted
in World Bank (2011), Gentilini (2014) and Hjelm (2016) find positive food security outcomes for
only one food security measure and not necessarily the same one across programs. Thus, because
household behaviors in spending cash transfers vary with circumstances, it is possible that the
programs’ effects are context dependent and might vary by country or by the populations targeted
(Hjelm, 2016).
Gentilini (2014) analyzes 12 evaluations that directly compare the effects of cash transfers and
in-kind food aid on food security. Aided and control households were given a variety of cash trans-
fers and in-kind aid, and food security outcomes were compared to better understand the effects
of each on food security outcomes. The findings suggest that, in most cases, the effects of cash

53
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
and in-kind aid on food security may be identical. In the small number of cases where a difference
between the effects of each type of program was certain, that difference was small. Although the
results suggest variations across countries, cash transfers and in-kind aid programs potentially have
similar effects on food security.
However, Gentilini (2014) found that in-kind aid was more expensive than cash transfers. The high
cost of in-kind aid programs is corroborated by the experience of other national programs. For
example, ignoring the possible undesirable distortion of India’s agricultural markets, India spends
nearly 1 percent of GDP on its TPDS despite some studies finding no significant effect on food-
security outcomes in some areas (Kochar, 2005; Tarozzi, 2005) and only moderately positive effects
in other areas. Given the lack of a significantly better outcome for in-kind aid and its higher cost, the
evidence suggests that cash transfers might be a more cost-effective manner to maintain food secu-
rity of the most vulnerable populations.
While the evidence suggests that cash transfers have similar effects and are cheaper to implement on
average than in-kind aid, there may be circumstances when in-kind aid might be preferable to cash
transfers. For example, cash transfers may be less effective in situations where rapidly rising food
prices erode their purchasing power, in areas where food markets cannot efficiently deliver neces-
sary supplies, or where the necessary banking and administrative systems are not present.
Emerging Issues in Food Safety Nets
Greater focus on nutrition and healthier diets. Most safety net programs have focused primarily
on improving access to calories with little emphasis on the nutritional quality of those calories. For
example, the TPDS in India provides a portion of a household’s grains at a subsidized rate and does
little to further incentivize choices that might have a stronger effect on healthy and successful house-
hold outcomes. However, improving nutrition and health is a major emerging policy and research
focus. (See chapter, “Nutrition and Health: Broadening the Focus of Food Security.”) As can be seen
in table 9, many conditional in-kind aid programs and conditional cash transfer programs incentivize
behaviors other than good nutrition, such as increased schooling and improved primary health care.
However, using these programs to incentivize better nutrition, such as providing additional in-kind
aid in the form of pulses, vegetables, and fruits can further improve dimensions of food security that
many large-scale programs cannot influence in the same way.
New targeting challenges. Programs across the world are experimenting with different targeting
schemes for domestic support programs. Targeting itself is difficult because determining who is
eligible for aid is both costly and time consuming. Additionally, even after investing in identifying
beneficiaries, it is possible that those who do not need the support receive benefits, and those who
do need support do not receive adequate support. Some countries, such as India, are moving toward
more universal targeting based on more readily observable characteristics, and some countries,
such as Zambia, leave targeting to local communities that observe hard-to-measure characteristics
of food-insecure households. Thoughtful targeting strategies can improve the efficacy of domestic
support programs and further enhance food security. Additionally, designing social safety net
programs that can effectively and efficiently target households undergoing sudden distress remains
a problem. Given the suddenness of many adverse economic changes, and also given the potential
rapid changes to food prices (to which the urban poor are especially susceptible), it is a challenge
for existing targeting mechanisms to immediately identify and reach those who need the most assis-
tance. (See box 7, “Urbanization and Food Insecurity.”)

54
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 7
Urbanization and Food Insecurity
In 2014, over 50 percent of the world’s population resided in urban areas. By 2050, over 60
percent of the world’s population is projected to reside in urban areas, with most of the growth
occurring in Africa and Asia (United Nations, 2014). Historically, urbanization—such as that in
Malaysia, China, and South Africa—has been explained by industrialization, which contributed
to a strong positive relationship between urbanization and growth in income per capita (Gollin
et al., 2016). Although urbanization is still positively associated with income growth, recent
research has shown that many countries with high rates of urbanization have a relatively small
industrial sector (e.g., Angola and Nigeria). Urbanization in these countries has been explained
by lack of opportunity in the rural sector (Gollin et al., 2016) and by “urban natural increase,”
which is caused by high fertility combined with improved mortality rates due to medical
advances (Jedwab et al., 2015).
More attention is now being given to the food needs of the urban poor and how the rapid urban-
ization that is taking place within many developing countries will affect global food insecurity.
Although urban centers generally offer a greater variety of foods, limitations on food access
(e.g., income and food prices) remain a main determinant of urban food insecurity (Maxwell,
1999). Unlike farmers and laborers in rural areas who may gain from higher food prices, urban
residents tend to be net buyers whose food security is vulnerable to rising food prices. The
combination of real price increases and low-wage employment can adversely affect the urban
poor. In the wake of the global food crisis, a number of studies found that the urban poor were
especially susceptible to real price changes (Alem and Soderbom, 2012; Avalos, 2015).
If urbanization is not accompanied by improvements in economic development, then urban
dwellers may find themselves unemployed, making the urban poor particularly susceptible to
food insecurity. Inequality in income growth can also contribute to an unequal distribution of
food access. ERS research shows that per capita income in the capital city of Tanzania, Dar es
Salaam, was twice that in rural parts of the country in 2011, resulting in a lower likelihood of
households in Dar es Salaam being food insecure than in other parts of the country. However,
the cost of the food basket was also 50 percent higher, implying that some households in the
bottom income quintiles in Dar es Salaam were food insecure (Cochrane and D’Souza, 2015).
Box 7, figure 1 plots urban food insecurity in 2014 against the annual rate of urban population
growth, 2010-15. The strong positive relationship between urban food insecurity and urban
population growth suggests that much urbanization is not associated with growth in urban
employment and incomes. The figure also highlights the differences in urban food insecurity
and urban population growth across regions. The countries in Sub-Saharan Africa exhibit high
rates of urban food insecurity and high rates of urban population growth, whereas the countries
in Asia show relatively low rates of food insecurity along with modest rates of urban population
growth. The countries of Latin America and Caribbean and North Africa exhibit modest rates of
both urban food insecurity and urban population growth.
continued—

55
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Using technology to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness. Technological innovations
can help to improve the delivery of domestic aid programs. For example, in India, technology has
already helped reduce corruption of the existing TPDS system of individual States by increasing
transparency of deliveries of food, computerizing records of beneficiaries, and using electronic
weighing machines to ensure individuals receive the proper rations (Khera, 2011). Further tech-
nology changes increase access to bank accounts and enable aid recipients to receive cash transfers
across the country (Mathew and Goswami, 2016). The degree to which technology can improve the
delivery of aid in the next few years remains to be seen.
Box 7
Urbanization and Food Insecurity—continued
Although many of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have witnessed high-income growth
over the past two decades, box 8 figure 1 suggests that that many African countries may have to
confront urban food insecurity. Structural transformation and exports of natural resources have
contributed to Africa’s rapid and sustained income growth (Gollin et al., 2016), but demographic
factors (like high urban fertility rates) and high rates of unemployment and underemployment
may also play roles in the relatively high rates of urban food insecurity (Jedwab et al., 2015).
Additional research is needed to understand the effect that urban population growth will have on
urban food insecurity and the types of measures required to meet urban food security needs.
Box 7 figure 1
Urban food insecurity and rate of urbanization1
1Urban food insecurity is estimated based on United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, Food Insecurity
Experience Scale indicators and includes regions with moderate and severe food insecurity. This chart includes
59 low- and middle-income countries for which urbanization and urban food insecurity data are available. Two overlapping
dots result an apparent total count of 58 dots.
Source: World Bank Development Indicators and United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization.
Urban food insecurity rate 2015 (percent)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
01234567
Urban population growth rate 2010-15 (percent)
South and Southeast Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
North Africa

56
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
National and international coordination. Domestic safety net programs sometimes operate in
addition to international assistance being provided by the United States and other foreign govern-
ments. (See box 8, “International Food Aid.”) Both types of assistance are currently evolving.
Finding effective mechanisms for coordinating between them and integrating both domestic and
international safety net programs into evolving international markets is an emerging challenge.
Box 8
International Food Aid
The United States and other countries contribute significant resources to global food aid through
many programs, with a wide variety of purposes and strategies (box 8, table 1). Additionally,
box 8, figure 1 presents the amount of in-kind assistance of cereals donated by the United States
and other donor countries to the 76 countries tracked by USDA’s International Food Security
Assessment, broken down by region. The United States supplies about half of this in-kind
assistance, primarily through the Food for Peace, the McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program, and Food for Progress programs.
Food for Peace provides emergency assistance to regions affected by conflict and natural
disasters, as well as nonemergency food aid to address underlying causes of food insecu-
rity. Emergency food assistance can take the form of in-kind food aid, locally or regionally
procured food, cash transfers, or food vouchers, depending on which of those interventions
might be more effective. In addition to direct food assistance, the program also institutes
nonemergency food aid, which primarily takes the form of in-kind food aid shipped from
the United States.
Additionally, USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) implements two large programs aimed
at supporting food-insecure countries: the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
and Child Nutrition Program and Food for Progress. McGovern-Dole provides donations of U.S.
agricultural commodities for use in school feeding programs, as well as other sorts of assistance
to improve literacy and provide education. Food for Progress also provides assistance to food-
insecure countries by donating U.S. agricultural commodities to recipient countries to be sold
on the open market. The proceeds from these sales are then used to support a wide variety of
development programs aimed at improving agricultural productivity in recipient countries. For
each program, FAS announces a list of priority countries, and then selects proposed projects
submitted by nonprofit organizations, the World Food Program, and other international organi-
zations, which then implement the projects.
In addition to programs that involve food aid, the U.S. Government also contributes signifi-
cant resources to better understand how to improve global food security. Most prominently,
the Global Food Security Act is designed to help alleviate food insecurity and poverty through
improving agricultural productivity, boosting rural incomes, improving agricultural research and
development, empowering women, improving the resilience of households and communities to
economic and agricultural changes, and maximizing cost-effective results such that U.S. assis-
tance is no longer needed.
continued—

57
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 8
International Food Aid—continued
Box 8 table 1
Selected international food aid programs
Program name Type/target Description
United States
Food for Peace Emergency
Title 2-Emergency and Private Assistance Programs
provide in-kind food aid managed by USAID and
implemented by nongovernmental organizations
and World Food Program. Commodities address
emergency needs and development programs that
aim to reduce vulnerability to crises and improve
food and nutrition security. Title 1-Economic
Assistance and Food Security and Title 3-Food for
Development are not currently funded. Funding for
Title 2 in FY 2015 was $1.5 billion.
Bill Emerson
Humanitarian Trust Emergency
This special authority in the Agricultural Act of 2014
allows USAID Office of Food for Peace to respond
to unanticipated food crises abroad—when Food
for Peace-Title 2 funding is not available—from an
all-cash fund to purchase commodities for food
assistance. Funding for FY 2014 was $180 million.
There was no funding for FY 2015.
Box 8 figure 1
Cereal food aid imports by 76 low- and middle-income countries
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, International Food Security database.
Million of tons
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14 South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
North Africa
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
continued—

58
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 8 table 1
Selected international food aid programs
Program name Type/target Description
Emergency Food
Security Program Emergency
This USAID-administered program provides
grants for local and regional procurement of food
commodities and cash/vouchers for food in cases of
emergency. It is intended to complement Food For
Peace-Title 2 in responding to highest priority food
emergencies. Funding for FY 2015 was $1 billion.
McGovern-Dole
International Food for
Education and Child
Nutrition Program
Child nutrition
This USDA-administered program was authorized
in 2002 to support child nutrition and education
by donating U.S. commodities and providing
technical and financial assistance for school feeding
programs. FY 2015 funding was $244 million.
Food for Progress
Food
assistance and
agricultural
development
This USDA-administered program helps emerging
democracies expand free enterprise in the
agricultural sector. Commodities are donated and
then sold on local markets, with the proceeds used
to support development programs. FY 2015 funding
was $197 million.
International Food
Relief Partnership Nutrition
This subprogram of Food for Peace-Title 2 provides
small grants to primarily faith-based groups to
support nutritional programs that distribute ready-to-
use supplementary foods. (Funding of $10.4 million
for FY 2015 was included in the Food for Peace Title
2 funding above.)
European Union
General EU Budget Food
assistance
The EU budget allocates funds (EUR 349 million in
2014) for food assistance. Most funding supports
cash transfers and vouchers, so recipients can
purchase food on local markets supporting local
economic development and timely distribution rather
than food deliveries. The EU also funds the World
Food Program (which brings total annual spending
to about EUR 1 billion) and holds an annual Food
Assistance Convention.
Emergency Aid Reserve Emergency
This funding for emergency humanitarian
assistance includes food aid beyond what was
included in the budget.
Development
Cooperation Instrument
Poverty
reduction
This program allocated over EUR 19 billion for
2014-20 for development assistance—including
for agricultural and rural development and food
security—to combat poverty in developing countries.
Food Security
Thematic Program Food security
With an allocated budget for 2011-14 of EUR 749
million, this program addresses structural causes of
food insecurity.
Box 8
International Food Aid—continued
continued—

59
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 8 table 1
Selected international food aid programs
Program name Type/target Description
Canada
Emergency food
assistance Emergency
This program, focused on short-term response to
meeting immediate dietary and nutritional needs,
contributed $ 383 million to the World Food Program
in 2012. The program focuses on increasing use
of cash transfers and vouchers. It holds an annual
Food Assistance Convention.
Food assistance in
development contexts Food security
This program, focused on medium- to long-term
response, helps vulnerable people develop and
enhance their livelihoods and self-reliance.
Food security strategy Food security
This strategy focuses on: (1) sustainable agricultural
development (C $ 1.18 billion allocated over 3 years);
(2) food assistance and nutrition (C $ 330 million
over 2009-10 for 70 projects in 78 countries); and (3)
research and development funded by the Canadian
International Food Security Research Centre;
contributes to the CGIAR, Forum for Agricultural
Research in Africa, Pan-Africa Bean Research
Alliance, and Association for Strengthening
Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa
(ASARECA).
Japan
Grant Assistance for the
Food Aid Project Emergency
The program awards grants to developing countries
with food shortages to purchase grains, with
recipient countries setting aside local currency
for economic and social development projects
in consultation with the Japanese Government.
Allocation was Yen 13.1 billion ($120 million) in 2010,
with Japan also providing $156.3 million to the World
Food Program in 2016.
China
An overview
Food
assistance/
emergency
In 2005, China stopped receiving World Food
Program food aid and became the world’s third-
largest donor in the same year. In 2016, $156 million
in Chinese grain was given as emergency food aid to
African countries affected by El Niño. In 2015, China
gave $10.5 million to WFP, with $1 million earmarked
for Democratic People's Republic of Korea and $5
million for South Sudan.
Box 8
International Food Aid—continued
continued—

60
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Box 8 table 1
Selected international food aid programs
Program name Type/target Description
World Food Program
Food Assistance for
Assets
Food
assistance
This program pays people with food, cash, or
vouchers to build assets such as wells, irrigation
trenches, roads, and schools. Recipients get
immediate food assistance, and they benefit from
the infrastructure that is constructed.
Purchase for Progress Production
assistance
Through this program, grains are purchased from
farmers, and assistance is provided to help farmers
and other parts of the value chain to meet standards.
Cash transfers Food
assistance
Programming supports cash transfers to enable
more dietary choice and variety and support local
economies. Programs use new technologies, such
as scratch cards and mobile payments.
Notes: FY = fiscal year. WFP = World Food Program. EUR = euros. C$ = Canadian dollars.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. International Food
Assistance. F.Y. 15. USDA Foreign Agriculture Service, World Food Program, Global Affairs Canada, Japan International
Cooperation System, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, European Commission, Food Aid International.
Box 8
International Food Aid—continued

61
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Nutrition and Health:
Broadening the Focus of Food Security
• Nutrition and its relationship to food security and health are receiving more attention. The
Global Food Security Act’s (GFSA) overarching goal is to reduce global hunger, malnutrition,
and poverty.
• Dietary diversity supports more nutritionally adequate diets for both macro- and micro-nutri-
ents. Over the past 20 years, diets in the 76 countries covered in our research have become
somewhat more diverse, and all regions now meet, on average, minimal nutritional levels for per
capita calories, fats, and protein. This is not true for all income groups, however.
• Despite progress, significant nutritional challenges remain, including improved nutrition for
vulnerable subpopulations (such as pregnant women and young children).
• Emerging issues include better understanding of how nonfood factors (such as clean water
and adequate sanitation) affect nutrient utilization and health, as well as the emerging “triple
burden” of undernutrition, micro-nutrient deficiencies, and overnutrition even in developing,
food-insecure countries.
A prominent feature of the comprehensive U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS)
developed in accordance with GFSA is the inclusion of a focus on nutrition and health issues to meet
GFSA’s overarching goal to sustainably reduce global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. Underlining
the priority given to broadening the focus beyond the traditional emphasis on food availability and
access issues, the GFSS includes a specific objective to achieve a well-nourished population, with
particular emphasis on women and children. The strategy targets increased consumption of nutri-
tious diets, direct nutrition interventions and services, and achievement of more hygienic household
and community environments.
Many countries across all regions achieved the 1996 World Food Summit goal of reducing the
number of undernourished people by half by the year 2015, using total calorie availability as the
measure. Analysis of the 20-year period found major reductions, and the 50-percent-reduction goal
was achieved by 15 of the 19 Asian countries, 6 of the 10 Latin America and Caribbean countries,
and 18 of 38 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa regularly tracked by USDA during this period (ERS/
IFSA, 2015). The four North African countries included in this study were considered food secure
during the entire study period. When we base food-insecurity assessment on estimated caloric
intake, we find these achievements led to substantial reductions in the number of food-insecure
people across the 76 low- and middle-income countries studied by USDA (fig. 15).
While improvements in calorie availability are certainly key, more information about diets them-
selves is needed to evaluate improvements in overall nutrition embodied in the utilization dimension
of food security. Dietary diversity has been demonstrated to link to a wider supply of essential nutri-
ents and better nutrition (Ruel, 2003; Airmond and Ruel, 2004). An important series of analyses
in the medical journal The Lancet provided empirical evidence for nutrition’s role in maternal and
child health, and stimulated new programs to address maternal and child nutrition as a key compo-
nent of food security (Black et al., 2008). A followup Lancet study in 2013 furthered the evidence
base in this area (Black et al., 2013; Black, 2013).

62
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Although a thorough analysis of improvements in diet diversity and nutrition would include assess-
ment of micronutrient intake and other factors, ERS has analyzed changes in the availability of
macro-nutrients—including protein, fat, and sugar in addition to calories—for the 76 low- and
middle-income countries regularly tracked by USDA over the period 2000-13 (table 10; ERS, 2017,
with updates from the FAO food balance sheet 2016).
An analysis of macronutrient availability suggests improvements in the nutritional quality of
diets as well in calorie availability over much of this period. In terms of regional aggregates,
most regions significantly exceeded 2,100 calories per capita by 2013, with North Africa
exceeding that target by a large margin. In addition, per capita consumption of proteins and fats
increased faster than total calorie consumption, and by 2013, all regions had essentially met per
capita protein and fat requirements.
Diet Diversity Varies by Region
The macro-nutrients in table 10, in turn, reflect diversity in the consumption of major food groups.
Increasing income generally leads to the consumption of more animal source proteins, as well as
other high-value products such as fruits and vegetables and processed products. Different food pref-
erences also affect regional patterns, as do the presence and structure of food safety net programs.
For most of the low- and middle-income countries studied by USDA, cereals and roots and tubers
remain the major food staples and dominant source of dietary calories (fig. 16). Cereals account for
55-60 percent of available calories in all regions except Latin America and the Caribbean, where
average diets tend to be somewhat more diverse than in the other regions. On average, across the
regions, sugar and sweeteners and vegetable oils, followed by fruits and vegetables tend to be the key
sources of diet diversity, while pulses and meats tend to be relatively minor sources.
Figure 15
Index of number of undernourished people by region, 76 low- and middle-income countries1
1Based on USDA estimate of the number of people consuming below the targeted level of total calories.
According to this estimate, North Africa had no food-insecure population during this period.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, International Food Security database.
Index, 1999-2001 = 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa

63
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Table 10
Diet composition and ratios to nutritional target, 2000, 2009, and 2013
Consumption per capita per day1 Ratio of consumption to requirement
(per capita daily)
Energy Protein Fat Sugar 2,100 cal
energy
10 percent
protein2
20 percent
fat3
2000
76-country average 2,210 55 46 46 1.05 10.93
Sub-Saharan Africa 2 ,137 52 41 32 1. 02 0.97 0.86
South and Southeast Asia 2,251 54 43 42 1.07 0.96 0.86
Latin America and Caribbean 2,316 58 60 95 1.1 11.16
North Africa 3,13 3 86 69 84 1.49 1.1 0.99
2009
76-country average 2,393 62 55 49 1.11 1.04 1.03
Sub-Saharan Africa 2,297 57 50 35 1.09 0.99 0.98
South and Southeast Asia 2,420 64 52 40 1.15 1.06 0.97
Latin America and Caribbean 2,457 64 64 95 1.17 1.0 4 1.17
North Africa 3,292 94 68 92 1.57 1.14 0.93
2013
76-country average 2,532 67 58 57 1.21 1.05 1.03
Sub-Saharan Africa 2,402 61 52 48 1.14 1.01 0.98
South and Southeast Asia 2,581 71 60 49 1. 23 1.09 1.03
Latin America and Caribbean 2,530 65 68 92 1.2 1.03 1.22
North Africa 3,393 98 75 90 1.62 1.15 1
Note: cal = calories.
1Calculated based on United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization Food Balance Sheet.
2Based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s recommended threshold target—consuming at least 10 percent of caloric
intake as protein.
3Based on American Heart Association’s recommended threshold target—consuming 20 percent of caloric intake as fat.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
Changes in diet composition between 2000 and 2013 have been relatively gradual. The share of calo-
ries coming from cereals, roots, and tubers remained essentially unchanged for both Sub-Saharan
Africa, despite higher income growth in the last decade. Consumption of cereals, roots, and tubers
declined modestly for South and Southeast Asia, despite substantial growth for a number of coun-
tries in this region. Consumption of cereals, roots, and tubers declined most significantly for Other
Asia, which includes countries of the Former Soviet Union. North Africa has seen a slight decline
in the share of cereals in the diet, despite food security safety nets that have traditionally subsidized
cereal products, especially bread.
Over the same period, diet shares of other food groups have tended to increase, albeit slowly, in most
regions. For example, vegetable oil increased as a share of calories in all regions. Vegetable oil now
accounts for a significant share of calories: about 8 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa and 9 percent or
more in Latin America and Caribbean and North Africa. The exception is South and Southeast Asia,
where this growth has been very modest, and vegetable oil provides less than 6 percent of calories.

64
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Consumption of meat—an important potential source of protein and fat as well as calories—has
increased slowly across most regions, but remains a minor dietary component in most low- and
middle-income countries studied (fig. 17). Gains in meat consumption have been slowest in North
and Sub-Saharan Africa and somewhat faster in the other regions. Other Asia experienced the
most significant change, driven in part by increases in meat production. Dietary shares for fruits,
vegetables, and pulses have grown in each region, becoming relatively large shares of the diet in
Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean (fig. 18).
Gains in Nutrition Also Vary by Income
An aggregate analysis that indicates a gradual increase in the diversification of the macro-nutrient
content of average diets masks significant differences across income groups that are evident in all
regions studied. Calorie consumption remains markedly lower among the lowest income consumers,
and this disparity is more pronounced in the case of protein (fig. 19, fig 20).
Disparities in consumption between the lowest and highest income deciles becomes more pronounced
in consumption by individual food groups. The disparity between the highest and lowest deciles is
most pronounced for fruits and vegetables, a food group containing a wide range of nutrients that can
contribute to improved nutritional status (fig. 21). There are also significant differences between the
lowest and highest deciles in the consumption of sugar and sweeteners and vegetable oils—two food
groups that are high in calorie content but with fewer non-caloric nutrients (fig. 22, fig. 23).
Figure 16
Average calorie composition of diets by region in 2013, 76 low- and middle-income countries
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Cereals, roots,
and tubers
Sugar and
sweeteners
Vegetable oils Fruits and
vegetables
Meats Pulses
South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
North Africa
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on United Nations,
Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT data.
Percent of total calories

65
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Figure 18
Changes in calories from fruit, vegetables, and pulses in average diets by region,
76 low- and middle-income countries
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on United Nations,
Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT data.
Percent of total calories
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
South and
Southeast Asia
Other Asia Latin America
and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan
Africa
North Africa
2000 2009 2013
Figure 17
Changes in calories from meat in average diets by region, 76 low- and middle-income countries
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on United Nations,
Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT data.
Percent of total calories
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
South and
Southeast Asia
Other Asia Latin America and
Caribbean
Sub-Saharan
Africa
North Africa
2000 2009 2013

66
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Figure 19
Average calorie consumption by income decile and region in 2013,
72 low- and middle-income countries
Note: The four North African countries were not included.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on United Nations,
Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT data.
Daily calories per capita
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Lowest decile Average Highest decile
South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
Figure 20
Average protein consumption by income decile and region in 2013,
72 low- and middle-income countries
Note: The four North African countries were not included.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on United Nations,
Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT data.
Daily grams per capita
South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Lowest decile Average Highest decile

67
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Figure 21
Average fruit and vegetable consumption by income decile and region in 2013,
72 low- and middle-income countries
Note: The four North African countries were not included.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on United Nations,
Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT data.
Daily grams per capita
South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Lowest decile Average Highest decile
Figure 22
Average sugar and sweetener consumption by income decile and region in 2013,
72 low- and middle-income countries
Note: The four North African countries were not included.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on United Nations,
Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT data.
Daily grams per capita
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Lowest decile Average Highest decile
South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa

68
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Measures to Improve Nutrition and Health
While macro-nutrient trends are an important aspect of nutrition, they capture only part of nutri-
tion’s role in food security. There is a robust literature on international nutrition issues, often associ-
ated with international health programs. USAID’s longstanding Demographic and Health Survey
(DHS) has provided data to allow for monitoring of progress on some of its key health programs,
including maternal and child health and nutrition. Nutrition objectives targeting pregnant women
and young children are a key focus in GFSA. The United States developed the 1,000 Days program
to highlight the importance of nutrition during the first 1,000 days of a child’s life, including time in
utero (Black, 2013; USAID, 2014). A variety of U.S. Government programs have worked to trans-
late new research findings on nutrition into making better nutritional interventions, as well as into
providing more nutritionally adequate foods as food aid (USAID, 2015). The U.S. Government also
developed a global nutrition coordination plan to better align the work of 11 agencies and programs
dealing with international nutrition (USG, 2016a).
Although access to adequate nutrients is necessary, these nutrients often do not suffice to reduce
measures of chronic childhood undernutrition such as stunting. As the earlier discussion of food
security measurement demonstrates, food security assessments based on food availability and access
can differ considerably from those based on anthropometric measures such as stunting. Research
indicates that environmental factors, such as safe water and sanitation, affect nutrient utilization,
which is reflected in anthropometric outcomes. USAID’s most recent nutrition strategy, as well as
the GFSS, incorporates the increased integration of the WASH perspective—water, sanitation, and
hygiene—which recognizes these inter-relationships (USAID, 2014; USAID, 2015).
Figure 23
Average vegetable oil consumption by income decile and region in 2013,
72 low- and middle-income countries
Note: The four North African countries were not included.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on United Nations,
Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT data.
Daily grams per capita
South and Southeast Asia
Other Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Sub-Saharan Africa
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Lowest decile Average Highest decile

69
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
The literature on nutrition security also highlights the triple burden of malnutrition—the co-exis-
tence of both overnutrition and undernutrition in both developing and developed countries, often
accompanied by micro-nutrient deficiencies. Diets are now identified as a major contributor to, and
risk factor for, a range of noncommunicable diseases, which pose significant challenges to both
individual health and health institutions (Popkin, 2006). The GFSA explicitly references the broader
challenge of malnutrition, defining it as poor nutritional status caused by nutritional deficiency or
excess (GFSA, Sec 4(6)).
Each of these dimensions of nutrition are significant emerging challenges for global food secu-
rity. Recent assessments found that despite progress in many countries, the world is not on track to
meet goals for reducing stunting, reducing micro-nutrient deficiencies (so-called hidden hunger),
and avoiding increases in the prevalence of overnutrition (IFPRI, 2015; USG, 2016). Developing
measures to track nutritional progress is also challenging. Commonly used indicators for childhood
nutrition—stunting and underweight—are complicated by environmental influences such as water,
sanitation, and hygiene. It will require additional work to untangle these relationships and their
effects on nutritional outcomes and measures. Collecting data on micro-nutrients is often invasive
and requires direct access to individuals, which can sometimes be accomplished through better
coordination with medical clinics.
Emerging Issues in Nutrition and Food Security
• Nutritional outcomes and health are affected by a range of environmental and social elements—
such as water, sanitation, and hygiene. Attention to these nonfood factors adds additional
complexity to the utilization dimension of food security.
• Effective programs to improve health for vulnerable subpopulations (such as pregnant women
and young children) are necessary but there is still much to be done to define programs to avoid
life-long-impact nutritional inadequacy which impose high personal and social costs. (Bhutta et.
al, 2013; Black, 2013, Pinstrup-Anderson, 2013).
• The “triple burden” of malnutrition—undernutrition, micro-nutrient deficiency, and overnutri-
tion—now occurs in many food-insecure developing countries. Underconsumption in the lowest
income deciles can coincide with significant overnutrition in upper income deciles. Micro-
nutrient deficiencies can exist across the income spectrum. Targeting appropriate responses to
relevant income groups poses a new challenge for food security programs.

70
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Findings and Emerging Issues
An analysis of the 76 low- and middle-income countries regularly tracked by USDA and review of
recent food security research indicate that each of our five focus areas—food security measurement,
agricultural productivity, food trade, domestic and international food safety net programs, and nutri-
tion—are vital to effectively monitoring food security, understanding past gains in food security,
and unlocking future gains. Improving food security is a complex problem that requires addressing
constraints to food availability, access, utilization, and stability. However, research and experience
help to identify strategies and methods that can further extend the gains of the past 15 years, as
well as address emerging issues likely to be important topics of future food security research and
strategy. Some emerging issues tie back to the core issues of productivity, trade, and safety nets.
Others, however, will point in different directions and mark a sharper divergence between what we
have done in the past and the issues that arise for the future.
The multiple dimensions of food security create a challenge in developing a single metric of food
security status and require the use of multiple indicators to identify and fully characterize food-
insecure populations. Aggregate, national-level indicators, such as those published in USDA’s annual
International Food Security Assessment, are timely and low cost, but are less valuable for assessing
food access or nutritional status within populations. Household consumption surveys can provide
important food access and utilization detail, but are relatively costly and require new methods to
accurately account for all foods consumed. Survey-based anthropometric indicators supply unique
and valuable data on nutritional and health outcomes, but only address utilization problems and do
not necessarily identify recent or emerging problems with food access.
Newer experiential measures of food security offer the potential for timely and cost-effective
measurement of all dimensions of food security, but they often do not align with other, traditional
indicators, suggesting that additional work is needed to assess their accuracy. Important emerging
issues in food security measurement include continuing to evolve metrics that can address the
multiple dimensions of food security; evaluating the accuracy of new, relatively fast and low-cost
experiential measures of food security; and reconciling the differences between new and traditional
measures. The issue of evaluating experiential measures is especially high priority given the interest
in using these measures to monitor progress toward the sustainable development goals.
Domestic production accounts for the bulk of food staple supplies in most of the low- and middle-
income countries studied, and gains in food grain yields and production have been a primary
contributor to improved food security in the majority of these countries over the past few decades.
Research shows that focusing on productivity-based agricultural output gains can be an effec-
tive approach to improving food security in many low-income countries. On average, countries
with faster growth in agricultural productivity have also had larger reductions in food insecurity.
Although the potential for cost-effective growth in agricultural productivity is not equal in all
cases, achieving productivity gains through research and establishing enabling environments for
technology adoption—including extension, markets, and risk-management tools—are likely key to
continued food security improvements in many countries.
Important emerging issues in the relationship between agricultural productivity and food security
include the funding for public agricultural research to support agricultural innovation, particularly
in smaller countries unable to fund adequate national research systems. The use of index insurance
and other tools to reduce the risk of adopting new technology can help support further growth in

71
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
on-farm investment and productivity. Achieving efficiency gains in marketing and other components
of agricultural value chains can help boost incentives that can provide benefits for both producers
and consumers.
Food imports have played an important complementary role in improving food security in some
countries and a more primary role in countries where climate or a lack of resources limit the poten-
tial for local production. Concerns with the effect of imports on local food production and related
employment—as well as practical limitations, such as inadequate foreign currency reserves and
insufficient infrastructure—limit the extent to which many food-insecure countries rely on food
trade. Exposure to potential world market price volatility is a common concern of low-income food-
importing countries, although current evidence does not indicate an increase in the volatility of
world food staple trade or prices.
Over the longer term, developing the capacity to compete in world markets for goods and services
and opening food markets to international trade have been an effective food security strategy
for a number of developing countries. A key emerging issue is the interface among the domestic
food security policies of low-income countries, multilateral trade disciplines and global markets.
Uncertain world market conditions, including exposure to potential world market price volatility is a
key concern for low-income food-importing countries. Continued research on how best to help food-
insecure households cope with food price increases and help small farmers cope with food price
declines, is vital to global food security.
Food-insecure countries implement a number of types of domestic food safety net programs, ranging
from traditional in-kind food assistance, to more recent program designs that provide conditional
and unconditional cash transfers, rural employment, and school meals. Available evidence suggests
that the newer cash transfer programs are more cost effective at improving food security, but in-kind
aid can be valuable to promoting certain types of consumption (i.e., more healthy and diversi-
fied diets) and may be preferable to cash transfers during times of rapidly rising food prices. It is
unlikely, however, that all countries have sufficiently developed food markets and administrative
capacity to broadly implement cash transfers.
Advances in information technology and capacities in personal identification, banking, and mobile
phones are supporting the expansion of targeted, cash-transfer programs, with the potential to
improve their efficacy, lower costs, and reduce the market distortions associated with acquiring,
distributing, and storing commodities for traditional in-kind programs. Key emerging issues in the
development of effective food safety nets include the need for more research on the relative benefits
and costs of each type of program in various settings, greater program emphasis on nutrition and
health outcomes, response to increased urbanization, answers to the challenge of improved targeting
of vulnerable groups, and better use of technology to improve the efficacy of safety net programs.
Nutrition challenges persist even when food availability and access have improved. Adequate levels
of calorie consumption can co-exist with deficiencies in both macro- and micro-nutrients. These
deficiencies, in turn, weaken nutritional well-being and affect overall health status. Research shows
that more diverse diets provide better availability of essential nutrients, including both macro- and
micro-nutrients. Our analysis finds that diets have become somewhat more diverse over the past 20
years, with most regions, on average, meeting minimum nutritional requirements for calories, fat,
and protein, but that results differ by income groups. In addition, there are challenges to meeting the
nutritional needs of vulnerable subpopulations, such as mothers and young children, who are a major
focus of the Global Food Security Act of 2016 (GFSA). Other nonfood factors, such as clean water

72
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
and effective sanitation, affect food utilization. This is particularly true for key measures of child-
hood nutrition such as stunting and underweight. Growing recognition of the role of nutrition to food
security is reflected in GFSA, whose overarching goal is to reduce not only hunger and poverty, but
also malnutrition. It deals explicitly with maternal-childhood nutrition, the role of non-food factors
(water, sanitation, hygiene) in nutritional outcomes, and the “triple burden” of malnutrition—that is,
the co-existence of undernutrition, micro-nutrient deficiencies, and overnutrition within food-inse-
cure developing countries.

73
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
References
Ahmed, R., and M. Hossain. 1990. “Developmental Impact of Rural Infrastructure in Bangladesh,”
Research Report 83, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Airmond, M. and M.T. Ruel. 2004 “Dietary Diversity Is Associated With Child Nutritional
Status: Evidence from 11 Demographic and Health Surveys,” The Journal of Nutrition
20 (10):2,579-2,585.
Aker, J. 2015. “Comparing Cash and Voucher Transfers in a Humanitarian Context: Evidence From
the Democratic Republic of Congo,” World Bank Economic Review 29(2): 262-292.
Alem, Y., and M. Soderbom. 2012. “Household-Level Consumption in Urban Ethiopia: The Effects
of a Large Food Price Shock.” World Development 40 (1):146-162 .
Alexandratos, N. and J. Bruinsma. 2012. “World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: the 2012
Revision,” ESA Working paper No. 12-03, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
Alston, J. M., C. Chan-Kang, M.C. Marra, P.G. Pardey, and T.J. Wyatt. 2000. A Meta-Analysis
of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D: Ex Pede Herculem? IFPRI Research Report 113,
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Alston, J. M., J.M. Beddow, and P.G. Pardey. 2009. “Agricultural Research, Productivity, and Food
Prices in the Long Run,” Science 325(5945):1,209-1,210.
Anriquez, G., S. Diadone, and E. Mane. 2013. “Rising Food Prices and Undernourishment: A Cross-
Country Inquiry,” Food Policy 38:190-202.
Avalos, A. 2015. “Household Consumption Response to Food Price Shocks and the Vulnerability of
the Poor in Mexico,” Journal of International Development 28(8):1,294-1,312.
Ballard, T., A. Kepple, and C. Cafiero. 2013. “The Food Insecurity Experience Scale: Developing a
Global Standard for Monitoring Hunger Worldwide,” technical paper. United Nations, Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
Barrett, C. 2007. “Measuring Food Security,” Science 327(5,967):825-828.
Barrett, C., M. Carter, and C.P. Timmer. 2010. “A Century-Long Perspective on Agricultural
Development,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92(2):447-468.
Beaman, L., and A. Dillon. 2012. “Do Household Definitions Matter in Survey Design? Results from
a Randomized Survey Experiment in Mali,” Journal of Development Economics 98(1): 124-135.
Beegle, K., J. De Weerdt, J. Friedman, and J. Gibson. 2012a. “Methods of Household Consumption
Measurement Through Surveys: Experimental Results from Tanzania,” Journal of Development
Economics 98(1):3-18.
Beegle, K., K. Himelein, and M. Ravallion. 2012b. “Frame-of-Reference Bias in Subjective
Welfare,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 81(2):556-570.

74
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Bellemare, M.F. 2015. “Rising Food Prices, Food Price Volatility, and Social Unrest,” American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 97(1):1-21.
Benhabib, J., and M. Spiegel. 2005. “Human Capital and Technology Diffusion,” in Handbook
of Economic Growth, vol. 1, Philippe Aghion and Steven Durlauf, eds. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Bertrand, M., and S. Mullainathan. 2001. “Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for
Subjective Survey Data,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 91(2): 67-72.
Bhutta, Z.A., J.K. Das, A. Rizvi, M.F. Gaffey, N. Walker, S. Horton, P. Webb, A. Lartey, R.E. Black,
for the Lancet Nutrition Interventions Review Group, and the Maternal and Child Nutrition Study
Group. 2013. “Evidence-Based Interventions for Improvement of Maternal and Child Nutrition:
What Can Be Done and at What Cost?” Lancet 382(9,890):452-477.
Black, R.E. 2013. "Maternal and Child Nutrition: Executive Summary of The Lancet Maternal and
Child Nutrition Series," The Lancet.
Black R.E., L.H. Allen, Z.A. Bhutta, L.E. Caufield, M. de Onis, M. Ezzati, C. Mathers, and J.
Rivera, for the Maternal and Child Undernutrition Study Group. 2008. “Maternal and Child
Undernutrition: Global and Regional Exposures and Health Consequences,” Lancet 371(9,608):
243– 60.
Black R.E., C.G. Victora, S.P. Walker, and the Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group. 2013.
“Maternal and Child Undernutrition and Overweight in Low-Income and Middle-Income
Co untries ,” Lancet 382(9890):427-451.
Broussard, N., and S. Tandon. 2016. Food Insecurity Measures: Experience-Based Versus
Nutrition-Based Evidence From India, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia, ERR-220, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Brown, M.E., J.M. Antle, P. Backlund, E.R. Carr, W.E. Easterling, M.K. Walsh, C. Ammann, W.
Attavanich, C.B. Barrett, M.F. Bellemare, V. Dancheck, C. Funk, K. Grace, J.S.I. Ingram, H.
Jiang, H. Maletta, T. Mata, A. Murray, M. Ngugi, D. Ojima, B. O’Neill, and C. Tebaldi. 2015.
Climate Change, Global Food Security, and the U.S. Food System. 146 pages. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist.
Caeyers, B., N. Chalmers, and J. De Weerdt. 2012. “Improving Consumption Measurement and
Other Survey Data through CAPI: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment,” Journal of
Development Economics 98 (1):19-33.
Caparros, M. September 27, 2014. “Counting the Hungry,” New York Times Sunday Review.
Christiaensen, L., L. Demery, and J. Kuhl. 2010. “The (Evolving) Role of Agriculture in Poverty
Reduction,” Working Paper2010/36, United Nations University, World Institute for Development
Economics Research, Helsinki, Finland.
Coates, J. 2013. “Build it Back Better: Deconstructing Food Security for Improved Measurement and
Action,” Global Food Security 2 (3):188-194.

75
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Cochrane, N., and A. D’Souza. 2015. Measuring Access to Food in Tanzania: A Food Basket
Approach, EIB-135, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Cooke, B., G. Nigatu, K. Heerman, M. Landes, and R. Seeley. 2016. Global Macroeconomic
Developments Drive Downturn in U.S. Agricultural Exports, Outlook for U.S. Agricultural
Tra de, AES-94, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Currie, J., and F. Gahvari. 2008. “Transfers in Cash and In-Kind: Theory Meets the Data,” Journal
of Economic Literature 46(2):333-383.
Datt, G., and M. Ravallion. 1998. “Farm Productivity and Rural Poverty in India,” The Journal of
Development Studies 34(4):62-85.
Dawe, D. and C. Morales-Opazo. 2009. “How Much Did Developing Country Domestic Staple Food
Prices Increase During the World Food Crisis? How Much Have They Declined?” ESA Working
Paper No. 09-09, United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, Agricultural Development
Economics Division.
Diaz-Bonilla, E. 2015. Macroeconomics, Agriculture, and Food Security: A Guide to Policy
Analysis in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Diaz-Bonilla, E., D. Orden, and A. Kwieciński. 2014. “Enabling Environment for Agricultural
Growth and Competitiveness: Evaluation, Indicators and Indices,” OECD Food, Agriculture and
Fisheries Papers, No. 67, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Publishing, Paris, France.
Dickinson, K., S. Patil, S. Pattanayak, C. Poulos, and J. Yang. 2015. “Nature’s Call: Impacts of
Sanitation Choices in Orissa, India,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 64 (1):1-29.
Dreze, J., and R. Khera. August 12, 2011. “PDS Leakages: the Plot Thickens,” The Hindu.
D’Souza, A., and D. Joliffe. 2012. “Rising Food Prices and Coping Strategies: Household-level
Evidence from Afghanistan,” Journal of Development Studies 48(2):282-299.
D’Souza, A., and D. Joliffe. 2014. “Food Insecurity and Vulnerable Populations: Coping with Food
Price Shocks in Afghanistan,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96 (3) :790-812.
D’Souza, A., and S. Tandon. 2015. “Using Household and Intrahousehold Data to Assess Food
Insecurity: Evidence from Bangladesh,” ERR-190, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
D’Souza, A., and S. Tandon. 2016. “Intrahousehold Nutritional Inequities in Rural Bangladesh.”
Selected Paper, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meetings, Boston, July.
Edmonds, E., N. Pavcnik, and P. Topalova. 2010. “Trade Adjustment and Human Capital
Investments: Evidence from Indian Tariff Reform,” American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics 2(4):42-75.
FAO. 2001. “Human Energy Requirements—Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert
Consultation,” Food and Nutrition Technical Report Series. Rome, Italy: United Nations, Food
and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

76
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
FAO. 2012. “Sustainable Agricultural Productivity Growth and Bridging the Gap for Small-
Family Farms,” Interagency Report to the Mexican G20 Presidency, United Nations, Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2013. The State of Food Insecurity in the World, United Nations, Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2014. The State of Food Insecurity in the World, United Nations, Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2015a. The State of Food Insecurity in the World, United Nations, Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2015b. State of Food and Agriculture: Social Protection and Agriculture: Breaking the Cycle
of Rural Poverty, United Nations, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Feder, G., R.E. Just, and D. Zilberman. 1985. “Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing
Countries: A Survey,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(2):255-298.
Fiedler, J., C. Carletto, and O. Dupriez. 2012. “Still Waiting for Godot? Improving Household
Consumption and Expenditure Surveys (HCES) to Enable More Evidence-Based Nutrition
Policies,” Food Nutrition Bulletin 33(3):S242-S251.
Fleisher, Beverly. 1990. Agricultural Risk Management. USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Foster, A., and M. Rosenzweig. 2004. “Agricultural Productivity Growth, Rural Economic Diversity,
and Economic Reforms: India, 1970-2000,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 52
(3):509-542.
Fuglie, K.O., S. Wang, and E. Ball. 2012. Productivity Growth in Agriculture: An International
Perspective. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, England: Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience
International.
Fuglie, K., and N. Rada. 2013a. “Growth in Global Agricultural Productivity: An Update, Amber
Waves (Statistics), Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, November.
Fuglie, K., and N. Rada. 2013b. Resources, Policies, and Agricultural Productivity in Sub-Saharan
Africa, ERR-145, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Fuglie, K., and Rada, N. October 2015. International Agricultural Productivity (data product). U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Garnett, T., M.C. Appleby, A. Balmford, I.J. Bateman, T.G. Benton, P. Bloomer,
and M. Herrero. 2013. “Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and
Policies,” Science 3 41(6,141) :33-34.
Fuglie, K., and N. Rada. 2016. “Economies of Size in National Agricultural Research Systems,”
in Agricultural Research in Africa: Investing in Future Harvests, Lynam, J., N. Beintema, J.
Roseboom, and O. Badiane, eds. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI).

77
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Gentilini, U. 2014. “Our Daily Bread: What Is the Evidence on Comparing Cash Versus Food
Transfers?” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Gibson, J., K. Beegle, J. De Weerdt, and J. Friedman. 2015. “What Does Variation in Survey Design
Reveal About the Nature of Measurement Errors in Household Consumption? Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and Statistics 77(3):466-474.
Gillespie, S., J. Hodge, R. Pandya-Lorch, J.A. White and S. Josef. 2016. “New Horizons Nutrition in
the 21st century,” in Nourishing Millions: Stories of Change in Nutrition, S. Gillespie, J. Hodge,
S. Yosef, and R. Pandya-Lorch, eds. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Gilligan, D., A. Margolies, E. Quinones, and S. Roy. 2016. Impact Evaluation of Cash and Food
Transfers at Early Childhood Development Centers in Karamoja, Uganda: Endline Survey.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Glewwe, P., and E. Miguel. 2008. “The Impact of Child Health and Nutrition on Education in Less
Developed Countries,” in Handbook of Development Economics 4:5-56, P. Schultz and J. Strauss,
eds. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir,
J. F., and C. Toulmin. 2010. “Food Security: the Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion
Pe opl e,” Science 327(5,967): 812-818.
Gollin, D. 2003. “Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000,” Science 300
(5620):758-762.
Gollin, D., R. Jedwab, and D. Vollrath. 2016. “Urbanization with and without Industrialization,”
Journal of Economic Growth 21(1):35-70.
Hall, A., R. Sulaiman, and P. Bezkorowajnyj. 2007. “Reframing Technical Change: Livestock
Fodder Scarcity Revisited As Innovation Capacity Scarcity,” United Nations University,
Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Centre on Innovation and Technology,
Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Handa, S., D. Seidenfeld, B. Davis, and G. Tembo. 2015. “The Social and Productive Impacts of
Zambia’s Child Grant,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 35(2):357-387.
Hazell, P., C. Pomareda, and A. Valdes. 1986. Crop Insurance for Agricultural Development.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hidrobo, M., J. Hoddinott, A. Peterman, A. Margolies, and V. Moreira. 2014. “Cash, Food
or Vouchers? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Northern Ecuador,” Journal of
Development Economics 107:14 4 -156.
Hjelm, L. 2016. “The Impact of Cash Transfers on Food Security,” Research Brief, Transfer Project.
Hoddinott, J., S. Sandstrom, and J. Upton. 2014. Impact Evaluation of Cash and Food Transfers in
Zinder, Niger: Analytical Report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

78
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Hounkonnou, D., D. Kossou, T. Kuyper, C. Leeuwis, E. Nederlof, N. Röling, O. Saki-Dawson,
M. Traoré, and A. van Huis. 2012. “An Innovation Systems Approach to Institutional Change:
Smallholder Development in West Africa.” Agricultural Systems 108:74-83.
India National Sample Survey. 2007. Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Program
Implementation, New Delhi, India.
International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2014. “Agriculture and Climate Risk Enterprise (ACRE)
– Kilimo Salama – Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania,” International Finance Corporation (IFC), World
Bank, Washington, DC.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2015. “Global Food Policy Report,”
International Food Policy Report.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2015. “Rural Poverty in Chad,” Rural
Poverty Portal: IFAD.
Ivanic, M. and W. Martin. 2015. “The Welfare Effects of Changes in Food Prices,” in Trade Policy
and Food Security: Improving Access to Food in Developing Countries in the Wake of High
World Prices, I. Gilson and A. Fouad, eds. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Janzen, S., M. Carter, and M. Ikegami. 2012. “Valuing Asset Insurance in the Presence of Poverty
Traps: A Dynamic Approach,.” paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the
Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in Seattle, Washington.
Jayachandran, S., and R. Pande. 2015. “Why Are Indian Children So Short?” NBER Working Paper
21036, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jedwab, R., L. Christeaensen, and M. Gindelsky. 2015. “Demography, Urbanization and
Development: Rural Push, Urban Pull and … Urban Push?” Policy Research Working Paper no.
WPS 7333. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Jensen, R., and N. Miller. 2011. “Do Consumer Price Subsidies Really Improve Nutrition?” Review
of Economics and Statistics 93(4) :1,205-1,223.
Johnston, B., and J. Mellor. 1961. “The Role of Agriculture in Economic Development,” American
Economic Review 51(4):566 -593.
Jyoti, D. F., E.A. Frongillo, and S.J. Jones. 2005. “Food Insecurity Affects School
Children’s Academic Performance, Weight Gain, and Social Skills,” The Journal of
Nutrition 135 (12):2,831-2,839.
Kapur, D., P Mukhopadhyay, and A. Subramanian. 2008. “More on Direct Cash Transfers,”
Economic and Political Weekly 43 (47 ) :85-87.
Karlan, D., R. Osei, I. Osei-Akoto, and C. Udry. 2014. “Agricultural Decisions after Relaxing Credit
and Risk Constraints,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 129(2):597-652.
Keyser, J. 2015. “Regional Trade of Food Staples and Crop Inputs in Africa,” in Trade Policy and
Food Security, Gillson, I. and A. Fouad, eds. Washington, DC: World Bank.

79
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Khera, R. 2011. “Revival of the Public Distribution System: Evidence and Explanations,”
Economic and Political Weekly 46(44).
Kilelu, C., L. Klerkx, and C. Leeuwis. 2013.”Unravelling the Role of Innovation Platforms in
Supporting Co-Evolution of Innovation: Contributions and Tensions in a Smallholder Dairy
Development Programme,” Agricultural Systems 118 : 65-77.
Kochar, A. 2005. “Can Targeted Food Programs Improve Nutrition? An Empirical Analysis
of India’s Public Distribution System,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 54
(1):203-235.
Konig G., C. da Silva, and N. Mhlanga. 2013. “Enabling Environments for Agribusiness and
Agro-Industries Development: Regional and Country Perspectives,” Agribusiness and Food
Industries Series, No. 1. Rome, Italy: United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization.
Kotwal, A., B. Ramaswami, and M. Murugkar. 2011. “PDS Forever?” Economic and Political
Weekly 46 (21).
Krishnamurthy, P., V. Pathania, and S. Tandon. 2014. “Public Distribution System Reforms and
Consumption in Chhattisgarh,” Economic and Political Weekly 49(8):74-81.
Krivonos, E. and R. Da Paixao. 2015. “Trade Policy and Food Security in Latin America: Lessons
Learned from Policy Responses to High Food Prices,” in Trade Policy and Food Security,
Gillson, I. and A. Fouad, eds. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Kuyvenhoven, A. 2004. “Creating an Enabling Environment: Policy Conditions for Less-Favored
Areas,” Food Policy 29(4):407-429.
Magrini, E., P. Montalbano, S. Nenci, and L. Salvatici. 2014. “Agricultural Trade Policies and Food
Security: Is There a Causal Relationship?” FOODSECURE Working Paper No. 25, The Hague,
LEI Wageningen, University and Research Centre.
Mason, N., T. Jayne, and R. Mofya-Mukuka. 2013. “A Review of Zambia’s Agricultural Input
Subsidy Programs: Targeting, Impacts, and the Way Forward,” Working Paper 77, Indaba
Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Zambia.
Mathew, S., and D. Goswami. 2016. “Doing Less with More,” Economic and Political Weekly
51(17).
Maxwell, D., B. Vaitla, and J. Coates. 2014. “How Do Indicators of Household Food Insecurity
Measure Up? An Empirical Comparison From Ethiopia,” Food Policy 47(0):107-116.
Maxwell, D. 1999. “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa,”
World Development 27(11): 1939-1953.
McCorriston, S., D. Hemming, J. Lamontagne-Godwin, J. Osborn, M. Parr, and P. Roberts. 2013.
“What Is the Evidence of the Impact of Agricultural Trade Liberalization on Food Security in
Developing Countries? A Systematic Review,” Evidence for Policy and Practice Information
and Coordinating Center Report 2105, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education,
University of London.

80
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Meade, B. and K. Thome. June 2017. International Food Security Assessment, 2017-27,
Food Security Assessment and Outlook, GFA-28, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Ministry of Consumer Affairs. 2002. “High Level Committee Report on Long Term Grain Policy,”
Report, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food, and Distribution, Government of India.
Minot, N. 2012. “Food Price Volatility in Africa: Has It Really Increased?” International Food
Policy Research Institute, Discussion Paper 1239.
Minten, C., and B. Barrett. 2008. “Agricultural Technology, Productivity, and Poverty in
Madagascar,” World Development 36(5):792-822.
Mueller, N., J. Gerber, M. Johnston, D. Ray, N. Ramankutty, and J. Foley. 2012. “Closing Yield Gaps
Through Nutrient and Water Management,” Nature 490:254-257.
National Sample Survey Organization. 2007. “Nutritional Intake in India 2004-2005,” Report No.
513, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi, India.
Nigatu, G. and M. Motamed. 2015. “Middle East and North Africa Region: An Important Driver of
World Agricultural Trade,” AES-99, Outlook Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2006. Promoting Pro-Poor
Growth: Agriculture. Paris, France: OECD.
Oxfam. 2014. “Managing Risks to Agricultural Livelihoods: Impact Evaluation of the HARITA
Project in Ethiopia (2009-2012),” Oxfam Evaluation Summary, Oxfam International,
Wash ing t on, DC.
Parikh, K., A. Ganesh-Kumar, and G. Darbha. 2003. “Growth and Welfare Consequences of a Rise
in MSP,” Economic and Political Weekly 38(18):891-895.
Pinstrup-Andersen P. 2013. “Nutrition-Sensitive Food Systems: From Rhetoric to Action,” Lancet
382(9890):375-376.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Shimokawa, S., Bourguignon, F., and B. Pleskovic. 2008. “Rural
Infrastructure and Agricultural Development,” in Rethinking Infrastructure for
Development. Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics-Global.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Popkin, B.M. 2006. “Global Nutritional Dynamics: The World Is Shifting Rapidly Toward a Diet
Linked With Noncommunicable Diseases,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 84(2):289-98.
Rada, Nicholas, S. Buccola, and K. Fuglie. 2011. “Government Policy and Agricultural Productivity
in Indonesia,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(3):863 – 880
Rada, N., and K. Fuglie. 2012. “Shifting Sources of Agricultural Growth in Indonesia,” in
Productivity Growth in Agriculture: An International Perspective, Fuglie, K., Wang, S.L., and
Ball, V.E., eds. Wallington, Oxon, UK: CAB International.

81
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Rada, N., and D. Schimmelpfennig. 2015. Propellers of Agricultural Productivity in India, ERR-203,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Rada, N., and C. Valdes. 2012. Policy, Technology, and Efficiency of Brazilian Agriculture,
ERR-137, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Rakshit, M. 2003. “Some Analytics of Medium and Long Term Food Policy,” Economic and
Political Weekly 38(18) :1,777-1,794.
Ravallion, M., K. Himelein, and K. Beegle. 2016. “Can Subjective Questions on Economic Welfare
Be Trusted?” Economic Development and Cultural Change 64(4).
Reardon, T. 1997. “Using Evidence of Household Income Diversification To Inform Study of the
Rural Nonfarm Labor Market in Africa,” World Development 25(5):735-748.
Rosen, S., B. Meade, and A. Murray. 2015. International Food Security Assessment, 2015-2025,
International Agriculture and Trade Outlook No. GFA-26, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
Rosen, S., B. Meade, and K. Thome. 2016. International Food Security Assessment, 2016 -26 ,
Food Security Assessment and Outlook, GFA-27, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Rosenzweig, C., J. Ellitott, D. Deryng, A. Ruane, C. Muller, A. Arneth, K. Boote, C. Folberth, M.
Glotter, N. Khabaraov, K. Newumann, F. Piontek, T. Pugh, E. Schmid, E. Stehfest, H. Yang,
and J. Jones. 2014. “Assessing Agricultural Risks of Climate Change in the 21st Century in a
Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
111( 9) :3,268 -3,273.
Ruel, M. 2003. “Operationalizing Dietary Diversity: A Review of Measurement Issues and Research
Priorities,” The Journal of Nutrition 133(11 Suppl 2):3911s-3926S.
Ruel, M.T., H. Alderman, and the Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group. 2013. “Nutrition-
Sensitive Interventions and Programmes: How Can They Help to Accelerate Progress in
Improving Maternal and Child Nutrition,” Lancet 382 (9891):536 -551.
Schmidt, Charles W. 2014 “Beyond Malnutrition: The Role of Sanitation in Stunted Growth,”
Environmental Health Perspectives 122 (11):A298 -A303.
Schneider, K., and M. Gugerty. 2011. “Agricultural Productivity and Poverty Reduction: Linkages
and Pathways,” Libraries Test Journal 1(1):56 -74.
Siegel, P. 2008. “Profile of Zambia’s Smallholders: Where and Who Are the Potential Beneficiaries
of Agricultural Commercialization?” Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 113, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Singh, A., A. Park, and S. Dercon. 2014. “School Meals As a Safety Net: An Evaluation of the
Midday Meal Scheme in India,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 62(2):275-306.
Smith, L., and L. Haddad. 2000. “Explaining Child Malnutrition in Developing Countries: A Cross-
Country Analysis,” Research Report 111, International Food Policy Research Institute.

82
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
Spears, M., A. Ghosh and O. Cumming. 2013. “Open Defecation and Childhood Stunting in India:
An Ecological Analysis of New Data from 112 Districts,” PLOS One 8(9):e73784.
Swanson, B. 1997. “Strengthening Research-Extension-Farmer Linkages,” in Improving Agricultural
Extension: A Reference Manual, B.E. Swanson et al., eds. Rome, Italy: United Nations, Food and
Agriculture Organization.
Swinnen, J. and P. Squicciarini. 2012. “Mixed Messages on Prices and Food Security,” Policy
Forum, Science 335(6067):405-6.
Tandon, S., and M. Landes. 2011a. “The Sensitivity of Food Security in India to Alternate
Estimation Methods,” Economic and Political Weekly 46(22):92-99.
Tandon, S., and M. Landes. 2011b. “The Response of Consumption to Income Shocks: Evidence
From the Indian Trade Liberalization,” Selected Presentation, Annual Meetings of the
Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Tandon, S., and M. Landes. 2012. Estimating the Range of Food-Insecure Households in India,
ERR-133, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Tandon, S., and M. Landes. February 2014. “India Continues to Grapple with Food Insecurity,”
Amber Waves, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Tarozzi, A. 2005. “The Indian Public Distribution System As a Provider of Food Security: Evidence
From Child Nutrition in Andhra Pradesh,” European Economic Review 49:1,305-1,330.
Tembo, S., and N. Sitko. 2013. “Technical Compendium: Descriptive Agricultural Statistics and
Analysis for Zambia,” Working Paper No. 155988, Michigan State University, Department of
Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
Tesliuc, C., W. Smith, and M. Sunkutu. 2013. “Zambia: Using Social Safety Nets to Accelerate
Poverty Reduction and Share Prosperity,” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper No.
1413, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Thornton, P., P. Ericksen, M. Herrero, and A. Challinor. 2010. “Climate Variability and
Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Review,” Global Change Biology 20(11):3,313-3,328.
Topalova, P. 2010. “Factor Immobility and Regional Impacts of Trade Liberalization: Evidence on
Poverty From India,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2(4):1-41.
Trostle, R., and R. Seeley. August 5, 2013. “Developing Countries Dominate World Demand for
Agricultural Products,” Amber Waves, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service.
Trostle, R., D. Marti, S. Rosen, and P. Westcott. 2011. Why Have Food Commodity Prices Risen
Again? WRS-1103, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
United Nations (UN). 2014. “World Urbanization Prospects: the 2014 Revision, Highlights,”
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.

83
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
United Nations (UN). 2015. “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development,” Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, United
Nations, New York, NY.
Upton, J., J. Cisse, and C. Barrett. January 2016. “Food Security as Resilience: Reconciling
Definition and Measurement,” Working Paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). May 2014. Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy
2014-2015, Washington, DC.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 2015. WASH and Nutrition: Water and
Development Strategy Implementation Brief, Was h i n g ton D.C.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 2016a. 2016-2015 Food Assistance and Food
Security Strategy, Office of Food for Peace, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian
Assistance, Washington, DC.
U.S. Congress, Public Law 114–195—July 20, 2016. 130 Stat. 675 (Global Food Security
Act).
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2016. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2015, OCE-2016-1, Office
of the Chief Economist, World Agricultural Outlook Board.
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. International
Food Assistance. F.Y. 15.
U.S. Government (USG). 2016a. U.S. Government Global Nutrition Coordination Plan 2016-2021.
U.S. Government (USG). September 2016. U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy FY
2017-2021.
van Ufford, P., C. Harland, S. Michelo, G. Tembo, K. Toole and D. Wood, 2016. “The Role of Impact
Evaluation in the Evolution of Zambia’s Cash Transfer Programme,” in From Evidence to Action:
The Story of Cash Transfers and Impact Evaluation in Sub Saharan Africa, Davis, B., Handa,
S., Hypher, N., Winder Rossi, N., Winters, P. and Yablonski, J., eds. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Wang, S. L., P. Heisey, D. Schimmelpfennig, and E. Ball. 2015. Agricultural Productivity Growth in
the United States: Measurement, Trends, and Drivers, ERR-189, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
Webb, P., J. Coates, E. Frongillo, B. Rogers, A. Swindale, and P. Blinsky. 2006. “Measuring
Household Food Insecurity: Why It’s So Important and Yet So Difficult To Do,” Journal of
Nutrition 136 :1,404S-1,408S.
Williams, V. 2010. “Identifying the Economic Effects of Salt Water Intrusion After Hurricane
Kat r in a ,” Journal of Sustainable Development 3(1):29-37.
WFP. 2015. “Resilience in Action: Preliminary Results of the Impact Evaluation for the Rural
Resilience Initiative in Senegal (2013-2015),” R4 Senegal Evaluation Summary, World Food
Program (WFP), Rome, Italy.

84
Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security, EIB-175
Economic Research Service/USDA
WFP. 2016. Zambia Country Brief. World Food Program.
World Bank. 1997. Chad Poverty Assessment: Constraints to Rural Development. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
World Bank. 2003. Vietnam—Development Report 2004—Poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 2007. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington ,
DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 2011. Evidence and Lessons from Impact Evaluations on Social Safety Nets.
Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, Washington.
World Bank. 2016. Country Overview: Chad.
Yanikkaya, H. 2003. “Trade Openness And Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical
Investigation,” Journal of Development Economics, 2(1):57-89.