Food Security Assessment: Why Countries Are At Risk. By Shahla Shapouri

and Stacey Rosen. Market and Trade Economics Division. Agriculture

Information Bulletin No. 754. 

Abstract

Food insecurity in many low-income, developing countries is projected to intensify unless steps are taken to reverse the performance trend of key contributing

factors: agricultural productivity, foreign exchange earnings, and population

growth. For the poorest countries, an increase in agricultural productivity is the

key to improving food security. In these countries, imports play a small role in

the domestic food supply because of limited foreign exchange availability. This

study evaluates availability and distribution of food and analyzes their trends

through 2008 by projecting food gaps to maintain per capita consumption, meet

nutritional needs, and fulfill requirements stemming from unequal food distribution. 

Keywords: Food security, developing countries, productivity, foreign exchange

availability, import capacity, income distribution, population growth, nutritional

requirements, per capita consumption.

Acknowledgments

Appreciation is extended to Kitty Smith and Nicole Ballenger for their support

of the food security project. The authors gratefully acknowledge the reviews of

David Atwood, Carl Mabbs-Zeno, Mark Rosegrant, and Mary Bohman. The

authors wish to thank Birgit Meade for her superior efforts on tables and charts.

Special thanks go to Carrie Ingoglia and Thomas McDonald, our technical editors, Wynnice Pointer-Napper and Anne Pearl, our graphics designers.

1800 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036-5831 August 1999
ii Food Security Assesment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Food Insecurity Will Escalate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Food Problems Vary Among Regions and Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Degree of Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Closing Food Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Increasing Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Increasing Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Reducing Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Appendix I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Appendix II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assesment/AIB-754 iii

Food insecurity in many low-income, developing countries is projected to intensify unless steps are taken to reverse the performance trend of key factors.

Agricultural productivity, foreign exchange earnings, and population growth all

influence a countrys food security. For the poorest countries, an increase in

agricultural productivity is the key to improving food security. In these countries, imports play a small role in the domestic food supply because of limited

foreign exchange availability. 

In this study, two main food gaps are used to measure food insecurity: the status

quo gap and the nutrition gap. The status quo gap is the difference between

projected food supplies and base period (1995-97 average) per capita consumption. The nutrition gap is the difference between projected food supplies and

the food needed to support minimum per capita nutritional standards. The

requirements stemming from unequal food distribution among income levels are

measured through the distribution gap. The food gap to maintain per capita

consumptionstatus quoat the base level for the 66 countries is estimated at

11 million tons for 1998 and is projected to be 18.8 million tons in 2008. Many

countries that cannot maintain their per capita consumption are also consuming

below their nutritional targets. The food supplies needed to meet their minimum nutritional requirements are projected to rise from less than 18 million

tons in 1998 to more than 28 million in 2008.

Sub-Saharan Africa is the most vulnerable region with respect to food security.

The regions per capita consumption is projected to decline 0.5 percent per year

through the next decade. By 2008, Sub-Saharan Africa is projected to account

for 61 percent of the total (all 66 countries) gap to maintain consumption and 79

percent of the nutritional gap even though the regions population constitutes

only 25 percent of the total for the 66 countries. The main problem in the SubSaharan region is high population growth, which puts pressure on food supplies.

While the regions production growth during 1980-97 exceeded that in Asia and

Latin America, its population growth was also higher. 

The Asian countries included in this study, despite having the second largest

food gap, have made significant gains in increasing food availability over the

past three decades. The ratio of food gaps to total consumption is very small (1-

2 percent) and is projected to remain relatively constant for the next decade.

The region, which will account for 63 percent of the population of all 66 countries in 2008, is projected to account for only 29 percent of the status quo food

gap and 16.5 percent of the nutritional gap. 

In Latin America and the Caribbean, the most difficult dimension of food security is the distribution of food within each country. Highly skewed distribution

of income limits purchasing power and access to food for low-income households which, in turn, intensifies food security problems. As a result, 40 percent

of the regions population is projected to be undernourished in 2008.

North Africa is the only study region with food supplies adequate to meet its

nutritional needs. 

Food consumption in the New Independent States (NIS, part of the former

Soviet Union) is projected to increase because of economic recovery, improved

export performance, and higher food production. This region is projected to

Summary
achieve the largest gains in per capita consumptionroughly 1 percent per year.

Only the war-torn economy of Tajikistan, projected to have a significant food

gap on a consistent basis, will likely remain vulnerable to food insecurity.

Among the factors contributing to food insecurity, the most crucial component

is the performance of the food production sector. Domestic food production

contributes to more than 90 percent of consumption in the most food-insecure

countries. During the last decade, domestic production contributed 97 and 91

percent of consumption in the two lowest income groups in Asia and SubSaharan Africa. In North Africa, Latin America, and the NIS, domestic production contributed 50-60 percent. The volume of food production, in addition to

its direct impact on consumption, has a strong link to population growth.

Improvements in technology reduce the traditional reliance on human labor and

affect human fertility decisions.

Although the main factors influencing food security are domestic food production, foreign exchange availability for food imports, and population growth, distribution of purchasing power within each country also plays a part in determining food security. Lower income groups have larger nutritional gaps than

wealthier people. The distribution gap, which measures the amount of food

required to raise food consumption of each income group to the nutritional

requirement, is projected to increase 36 percent between 1998 and 2008. The

growth of this gap far surpasses the growth in the number of people becoming

food insecure. In fact, the number of people failing to meet their nutritional

requirement is projected to grow only 3 percent during the next decade, reaching 1.13 billion by 2008. This means distribution-related nutritional problems

will not necessarily spread to countries that are unaffected today, but instead

problems will grow in countries that already suffer from food insecurity. Foodinsecurity problems will intensify in those more than they will spread to other

countries. 

iv Food Security Assesment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA
The worlds resources are adequate to produce enough

food for its population for at least the next few

decades. The available food, however, is not distributed evenly. This means that many countries experience food insecurity when food supplies are not adequate to provide all people at all times with sufficient

food for an active and healthy life. Although undernutrition is rarely viewed as an emergency, it reduces

productivity and a societys long-term growth.

Participants at the World Food Summit in November

1996 pledged to reduce the number of undernourished

people to half their present level no later than 2015.

The success of the World Food Summit pledge

depends on the current state of global food security

and governments commitment to implement policies

that can improve the situation. 

The principal focus of food security policies has been

to increase food supplies; little attention has been paid

to unequal distribution of food as the cause of food

insecurity. A review of nutritional data, however,

shows that undernutrition is prevalent even in middleincome countries with ample food supplies. In fact, if

the objective of the World Food Summit is to be met,

not only do food supplies need to expand, but strategies for reducing poverty and inequality of purchasing

power need to be adopted. 

In this study, we evaluate two aspects of food securityavailability and distribution of foodand analyze

their trends through 2008. The study includes 66

countries that have been or are potential food aid recipients (see box, p.2). We project food consumption at

the aggregate level, as well as by different income

groups, through the next decade. To assess food security of countries, we project shortfalls in food availability from that needed to maintain per capita consumption, to meet national nutritional requirements,

and to meet nutritional requirements for each income

group within a particular country. We also examine

the feasibility of achieving food security by evaluating

the required growth for the principal factors affecting

food securityagricultural productivity, foreign

exchange earnings, and population. 

We project that food insecurity in many of the study

countries will intensify unless the performance trends

of the key contributing factors are improved. For the

poorest countries, an increase in agricultural productivity is the key to improving food security. In these

countries, imports play a small role in the domestic

food supply because foreign exchange availability is

limited. Raising productivity is not an easy task, however. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the region most vulnerable to undernutrition, grain yields must grow at a rate

60 percent higher than the growth achieved during

1980-97 to satisfy nutritional requirements by 2008.

Achieving this goal will require a substantial increase

in investment. In other regions, although there are vulnerable countries, the overall picture is more promising. In Asia, food security will improve if yields or

imports continue to grow as they did during 1980-97.

The challenge, however, is to overcome Asias recent

slowdown in yield growth and external financial difficulties that may pose food-security problems in the

long term.

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 1

Food Security Assessment

Why Countries Are At Risk

Shahla Shapouri

Stacey Rosen

Introduction
Projections indicate that food consumption will

increase at a slower rate than population in many lowincome countries during the next decade, leading to a

decline in per capita consumption. Many countries

will also be unable to meet the minimum nutritional

requirements of their people. In some countries,

although their national performance shows an increase

in average consumption, low-income groups remain

vulnerable to food insecurity because of internal distribution problems. 

Forty-seven of the 66 countries will face a declining

per capita consumption trend through 2008, which, in

most cases, will lead to nutritional problems. By 2008,

39 countries are projected to be unable to meet their

nutritional food requirements. 

In this study, two main food gaps are used to measure

food insecurity: the status quo gap and the nutrition

gap. The status quo gap is the difference between projected food supplies and base period (1995-97 average)

per capita consumption (see box, p. 3). The nutrition

gap is the difference between projected food supplies

and the food needed to support minimum per capita

nutritional standards. The food gap to maintain per

capita consumption (status quo) at the 1995-97 base

level for the 66 countries is estimated at 11 million

tons for 1998 and is projected to be 18.8 million tons

in 2008 (table 1). Many countries that cannot maintain

their per capita consumption are also consuming below

their nutritional targets. The food supplies needed to

meet their minimum nutritional requirements are projected to rise from less than 18 million tons in 1998 to

more than 28 million in 2008.

National-level analysis, however, masks the impact of

unequal access to income on food security. People in

Food Insecurity Will Escalate

Regions and Countries

North Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia

Sub-Saharan Africa: Cameroon, Central Africa

Republic, the Congo (formerly known as Zaire),

Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda,

Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Angola,

Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique,

Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Benin, Burkina

Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Cote dIvoire, Gambia,

Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali,

Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone,

Togo

Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia,

Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam

Latin America and Caribbean (LAC): Bolivia,

Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El

Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica,

Nicaragua, Peru

NIS: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan,

Tajikistan

2 Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1—Production, commercial imports, and

food gaps*

The distribution gap is projected to be double the size

of the status quo gap and 35 percent higher than the

nutrition gap in 2008.

Food gaps

ComPro- mercial Status Nutri- DistriRegion duction imports quo tion bution

---------------Million tons----------------

North Africa

1998 38.0 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

2008 44.2 23.8 0.2 0.0 0.1

Sub-Saharan Africa

1998 138.4 8.6 6.7 13.9 17.9

2008 173.2 9.8 12.1 22.4 27.0

Asia

1998 418.1 16.6 3.8 2.7 8.4

2008 489.8 23.4 5.7 4.7 8.7

LAC

1998 27.5 10.3 0.4 0.4 1.8

2008 32.7 13.8 0.7 0.6 1.7

NIS

1998 6.1 1.5 0.1 0.7 0.8

2008 7.1 2.0 0.1 0.6 0.7

Total 66 countries

1998 628.1 56.2 11.0 17.7 29.0

2008 747.0 72.8 18.8 28.3 38.2

* in grain equivalent.
lower income groups have larger nutrition gaps than

wealthier people. The distribution gap is the amount of

food required to increase food consumption for all

income groups to the level to meet nutritional requirements (see box, p. 4). This gap is projected to increase

32 percent during the projection period to 38.2 million

tons by 2008. The growth of this gap far surpasses the

growth in the number of people becoming food insecure. In fact, the number of people failing to meet

their nutritional requirement is projected to grow by 3

percentfrom roughly 1.1 billion in 1998 to 1.13 billion by 2008. This means distribution-related nutritional problems will intensify more than they will

spread. 

A study by the United Nations Food and Agriculture

Organization projected a decline in the number of

undernourished people between 1990 and 2010. This

assessment was made despite the studys assumption

The Food Security Assessment model used in this

report was developed at USDAs Economic Research

Service for use in projecting food consumption and

access, and the food gap in 66 low-income

countries37 in Sub-Saharan Africa, 4 in North

Africa, 11 in LAC, 9 in Asia, and 5 in the New

Independent States (NIS) of the former Soviet Union.

The projection period covered in this study is the 10-

year period 1998 through 2008. The reference to food

includes grains, root crops, and other. The other

category includes most other components of the diet.

These three food commodity groups account for as

much as 90 percent of all calories consumed in the

study countries. Root crops are generally not traded,

while the bulk of all food imports of these countries,

commercial or food aid, is in the form of grains.

Food security of a country is evaluated based on the

gap between projected domestic food consumption

(produced domestically and imported commercially)

and a consumption requirement. Although food aid is

expected to be available during the projection period,

it is not included in the projection of food consumption. It should be noted that while projection results

will provide a baseline for the food security situation

of the countries, they depend on assumptions and

specifications of the model. Since the model is based

on historical data, it implicitly assumes that the historical trend in key variables will continue in the future. 

Projections of food gaps for the countries are based on

differences between consumption targets and estimates

of food availability, which are domestic supplies (production plus commercial imports) minus nonfood use.

The estimated gaps are used to evaluate food security

of the countries. Food gaps are projected using two

consumption criteria:

Status quo target, where the objective is to maintain

average per capita consumption of the recent past.

The most recent 3-year average (1995-97) is used for

the per capita consumption target in order to eliminate

short-term fluctuations. 

Nutrition-based target, where the objective is to maintain the minimum daily caloric intake standards recommended by the UNs Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO). The caloric requirements (based

on total share of grains, root crops, and other) used

in this assessment are those necessary to sustain life

with minimum food-gathering activities. They are

comparable to the activity level for a refugeethey do

not allow for play, work, or any activity other than

food gathering.

The status quo measure embodies a safety-net criterion by providing food consumption stability at recently achieved levels. The nutrition-based target assists

in comparisons of relative well-being. Comparing the

two consumption measures either for countries or

regions provides an indicator of the need, depending

on whether the objectives are to achieve consumption

stability and/or to meet a nutritional standard. Large

nutrition-based needs relative to status quo needs, for

example, mean additional food must be provided if

improved nutrition levels are the main objective. In

cases where nutrition-based requirements are below

status quo consumption needs, food availability could

decline without risking nutritional adequacy, on average. Both methods, however, fail to address inequalities of food distribution within a country. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 3

Model Description and Definitions
4 Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA

of a decline in the growth rate of agricultural output

during the projection period compared with 1970-90.

Lower population growth is projected, resulting in

higher per capita food consumption and, therefore,

less nutritional problems. The incidence of undernutrition is projected to decline in all regions except

Sub-Saharan Africa (12).1

A recent FAO report indicates that the total number of

chronically undernourished people in developing

countries increased slightly between 1990-92 and

1994-96, from 822 million to 828 million (14).

The projections of food gaps in this study do not

include external food assistance. In the past, food aid

has played an important role in reducing food insecurity in low-income countries, but it remains inadequate to offset the full magnitude of needs. In fact,

food aid shipments have declined in recent years,

principally due to smaller budget outlays in donor

countries. From the mid-1980s to the early 1990s,

total food aid shipments exceeded 10 million tons

annually. During the last 2 years, shipments have

averaged around 5 million tons. Global food aid in

1997/98 was 5.3 million tons. At this level, food aid

could fill about half the estimated food gap necessary

to maintain consumption and roughly 30 percent of

the nutrition gap for the 66 countries in 1998. 

Measuring a 

Distribution Gap

In the estimation of nutritional deficits in developing countries, unequal distribution of food consumption is a major concern. We have estimated a

distribution gap which measures the food needed

to meet nutritional requirements under a targeted

policy scenario. Under this scenario, consumption

by each specified group (by income or any other

category) is targeted to rise by the amount necessary to meet that particular groups nutritional

requirements. The distribution food gap is projected to be more than 38 million tons in 2008, this is

33 percent higher than the projected gap to meet

aggregate nutritional requirements. 1 Italicized numbers in parentheses refer to sources listed in the

References.
Regional comparisons of projections of food gaps

reveal the intensity of the current as well as future

food security problems of different regions. The

results place Sub-Saharan Africa as the most foodinsecure region. By 2008, this region is projected

to account for 61 percent of the total (all 66 countries) gap to maintain consumption and 79 percent

of the gap to meet nutritional needs even though the

regions population constitutes only 25 percent of

the 66-country total (fig. 1). The regions nutrition

gap, as a share of consumption (total available food

supplies), is projected to exceed 10 percent by 2008

(fig. 2). The main problem in the Sub-Saharan

region is high population growth, which puts pressure on food supplies; while the regions production

growth during 1980-97 exceeded that in Asia and

Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), its population growth was also higher. 

In addition to inadequate food availability, skewed

distribution of purchasing power amplifies SubSaharan Africas nutritional problems. The distribution gap for the region is projected to be 27 million

tons in 2008. This is 21 percent higher than the

regions aggregate nutrition gap. The number of

people in Sub-Saharan Africa who cannot meet

their nutritional requirements is projected to

increase from 361 million during 1995-97 to 516

million by 2008 (fig. 3). This means that twothirds of this regions population will be undernourished in 2008. Sub-Saharan Africa also suffers the

greatest nutritional problems. It is the only region

where consumption is projected to fall below the

minimum nutritional requirement for 80 percent of

the population during the next decade (table 2). In

other regions, the problem is generally concentrated

in the lowest income group (20 percent of the population).

The Asian countries included in this study, despite

having the second largest nutrition gap, have made

significant gains in increasing food availability over

the past three decades. The ratio of food gaps to

total consumption is very small (1-2 percent), and is

projected to remain relatively constant for the next

decade. Asia will account for 64 percent of the

population of all the study countries in 2008, and is

projected to account for only 29 percent of the

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 5

Food Problems Vary Among Regions and Countries

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1

While Sub-Saharan Africa is projected to account for only

25 percent of the population of the 66 countries in 2008, 

the region is expected to account for 79 percent of the

nutrition gap.

Population Share

Status quo gap

Nutrition gap

LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean, NAfr = North Africa,

NIS = New Independent States, SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa.

Asia 16%

LAC 3% NIS 2%

SSA 79%

Asia 29%

LAC 4%

NIS 1%

SSA 61%

NAfr 5%

Asia 64%

LAC 5%

NIS 1%

SSA 25%

NAfr 5%

Population and food gaps in 2008
status quo food gap and 16.5 percent of the nutrition

gap. In fact, most Asian countries may be able to close

their food gaps by increasing imports slightly above

projected growth rates. The regions impressive gains,

however, mask food problems of large segments of the

population whose purchasing power is insufficient.

When skewed purchasing power is taken into account,

the regions distribution gap is projected at almost two

times the average nutrition gap in 2008. Moreover,

although the number of people who cannot meet their

nutritional requirements is projected to decline over

the next decade, still 40 percent of the regions population will be undernourished in 2008.

In LAC, the most difficult dimension of food security

is the distribution of food within each country. The

distribution gap is projected to be almost three times

larger than the nutrition gap in 2008. The number of

people who cannot meet their nutritional requirements

is projected to decline slightly between the 1995-97

average levels and 2008. However, 40 percent of the

LAC regions population is projected to be undernourished in 2008. Because the distribution of income is

highly skewed, low-income households have limited

purchasing power and access to food which, in turn,

intensifies food-security problems.

North Africa is the only study region with adequate

food supplies to meet its nutritional needs. However,

Table 2—Ratio of consumption to nutritional

requirements

Consumption is projected to fall short of the minimum

nutritional requirement for all but the highest income

group in the Sub-Saharan region.

Income quintiles

Region Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest

20% 20%

North Africa

Base 0.99 1.08 1.14 1.19 1.30

2008 1.11 1.17 1.22 1.27 1.38

Sub-Saharan Africa

Base 0.74 0.82 0.88 0.94 1.09

2008 0.70 0.78 0.83 0.89 1.03

Asia

Base 0.89 0.97 1.03 1.08 1.20

2008 0.89 0.96 1.00 1.06 1.19

LAC

Base 0.75 0.89 0.97 1.05 1.20

2008 0.85 0.95 1.03 1.11 1.31

NIS 1

Base 0.74 0.83 0.88 0.93 1.01

2008 0.92 1.00 1.06 1.13 1.24

1 Regional average income distribution was used for estimation.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nutrition gap as a share of consumption

Asia's and LAC's nutrition gaps are projected to remain quite small relative 

to their consumption throughout the projection period.

Figure 2

Percent

NIS

SSA

LAC

Asia

6 Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA
frequent droughts often affect a countrys economic

growth and welfare. The regions current level of food

consumption is among the highest in the world, and

consumption is projected to increase in Morocco and

Tunisia, but decrease marginally in Algeria and Egypt.

Political instability would be a major threat to food

security in the region. The North African region, like

the others, is faced with unequal food distribution.

Therefore, while food consumption, on average,

exceeds nutritional requirements, food consumption for

20 percent of the population (the lowest income group)

in Algeria is projected to be less than the requirement

by 2008.

Food consumption in the New Independent States is

projected to increase because of economic recovery,

improved export performance, and higher food production. Only the war-torn economy of Tajikistan, projected to have a significant food gap on a consistent

basis, will likely remain vulnerable to food insecurity.

It should be noted that data for the NIS are weak, and

because their economies are in a transition stage, the

projection results should be used with caution. 

Based on the projected results, countries covered in

this report can be grouped into four different foodsecurity categories: 1) countries that are projected, on

the national level, to have adequate food in 2008, but

because of inequality in purchasing power, segments of

their population will face food insecurity; 2) countries

that are moderately food insecure, where projected

average food consumption falls in the range of 75 to

99 percent of the nutritional requirement; 3) countries

with severe food-insecurity problems, where average

food consumption is projected to fall to less than 75

percent of the nutritional requirement; and 4) countries

where all income groups are projected to have adequate food (table 3).

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 7

Asia

North Africa

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

The share of population undernourished increases most in Sub-Saharan Africa.

LAC

SSA

Figure 3

Share of population undernourished

Number of undernourished in 2008:

Latin America: 69 million

Asia: 516 million

Sub-Saharan Africa: 484 million

North Africa: 14 million

1998 2008

 (Projected)

70

Percent of regional population
8 Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 3—Food insecurity in 2008

In 39 of the 66 countries, consumption is projected to fall short of the nutritional requirement on the national level,

and in 12 countries the nutritional problem is due to large disparity in income distribution.

Nationally food secure 1 Moderately food insecure 2 Highly food insecure 3

N.Africa: Algeria

Sub-Saharan 

Africa: Benin, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Centr. Afr. Republic, Burundi, Eritrea,

Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria D.R. of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia,

Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, Angola, Cape Verde,

Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Chad, Liberia,

Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone

Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali, 

Mauritania, Senegal, Togo

Asia: India, Pakistan,Sri Lanka Bangladesh, Nepal Afghanistan

LAC: El Salvador, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras, 

Peru Nicaragua, Haiti

NIS: Azerbaijan Tajikistan

In the remaining 26 countries, all income groups are projected to have adequate food.

1 Adequate food but unequal distribution.

2 Meet 75 percent or more of requirement.

3 Meet less than 75 percent of requirement.
In the first category of insecure countries, skewed

income distribution limits access of low-income

groups to sufficient amounts of food despite adequate

food supplies on the national level. Twenty-seven of

the 66 countries have adequate aggregate food supplies, but in 12 of them, skewed income distribution

limits purchasing power for lower income groups,

thereby precluding adequate diets. In these countries,

improved agricultural performance can reduce income

inequality. Most poor live in rural areas with limited

access to resources such as land or credit. In these

countries, food insecurity in the low-income group is

expected to continue unless programs to create

employment and increase productivity of the poor are

adopted. Increasing investment to improve market

infrastructure will also help markets work, increasing

returns to farming communities. 

The second group includes 27 countries that are moderately food insecure, where projected food consumption represents 75 to 99 percent of nutritional requirements. Most of the countries in this group are in SubSaharan Africa, but factors contributing to their food

insecurity vary. Some countries are experiencing civil

unrest; others have shown progress in their agricultural

performance and may be able to sustain the recent

growth momentum. For example, the Congos civil

unrest during the last 2 years has displaced populations, adversely affecting food production and hindering marketing activities. This factor, plus flooding

from El Niño in early 1998 that damaged houses,

infrastructure, and crops, led to higher food prices and

food insecurity in many parts of the country. On the

other hand, Mozambique is reaping the benefits of sustained peace. Production has risen steadily for the last

6 years, and grain output in 1997 was roughly three

times higher than the average output of the late 1980s.

The common characteristic of this group, however, is

the large contribution of domestic food production to

food consumption. Since these countries have been

unable to adopt new technologies to increase productivity, labor remains the principal input in production,

encouraging large families. With slow growth in

domestic food production, these countries use commercial imports to fill food gaps. Historically, imports in

these countries were supported by external assistance,

which helped reduce the financial burden of food

imports. With the decline in external assistance, a

larger share of foreign exchange availability must be

allocated to food imports. However, any increase in

spending on food imports will crowd out spending on

essential raw materials and spare parts, raising concern

over the long-term economic health of these countries. 

The 12 countries in the third group are the most food

insecure, and all but 2 are in Sub-Saharan Africa. For

these countries, average food consumption is projected

to fall to less than 75 percent of the nutritional requirement in 2008. A common characteristic among these

countries is that they have been or are currently faced

with political problems. While the projections of production and imports did not represent a decline from

the historical period, population growth alone will

severely deteriorate their food security situation

because of their already weak position. 

The political problems of these countries reinforce

long-term trends in poverty, food insecurity, and a

breakdown of social structure. Consequently, events

such as drought, disease (human or livestock), or

floods can easily trigger acute food shortages and

famine. For these countries, political stability and better policies are essential for improving food security.

Fifteen of the study countries fall into the fourth group,

projected to be food secure because their consumption,

both on average and by individual income group, will

be higher than the minimum nutritional requirements. 

In summary, Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are projected to face a deteriorating nutritional situation. In Asia,

however, the deterioration is negligible, and the

regions current consumption is higher than that of

Sub-Saharan Africa. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the deterioration is measurable, and consumption has a lower

base value. In this region, only the highest income

group is projected to consume more than the minimum

nutritional requirement, compared with the top three

groups in Asia. The severity of the situation in SubSaharan Africa is confirmed by projected changes in

the distribution gap. With the exception of SubSaharan Africa, for all the regions covered in this

study, this gap declines or increases negligibly during

the projection period. For Sub-Saharan Africa,

however, the distribution gap jumps more than 50 percent over the next decade. This statistic alone is a

strong indicator of the intensity of the regions food

insecurity problem. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 9

Degree of Vulnerability
Closing Food Gaps

A country will be faced with growing food insecurity

when food supplies are nutritionally inadequate and/or

do not keep pace with population growth. Projections

are made assuming trends in the key factors affecting

food securityagricultural productivity, foreign

exchange availability, and population growthcontinue. Any change in the performance of these factors

could significantly alter the projection results (fig. 4).

We used a projections model to simulate the effect of

changes in these factors. For example, to estimate the

feasibility of closing food gaps by increasing crop

yields, we assumed fertilizer use to increase at a higher

rate than that of the baseline projections; we then compared the effect on per capita consumption with the

baseline results. 

Increasing Production 

Agricultural productivity is, generally, the essential

element of the food security equation. In food-insecure countries, growth in food production is usually

low, and, in many cases, population growth is high,

putting additional pressure on food demand. The

annual production growth rate required to close the

average nutrition food gap by 2008 ranges from 3.4

percent in Sub-Saharan Africa to 1.4 percent in North

Africa (fig. 5). The questions are: can past success be

repeated or failures avoided? what would be the source

of growth? Surprisingly, for the 66 countries studied,

the average annual growth in food production was

about 3 percent during 1980-97, more than their average population growth of 2.3 percent for the same period. Most of the food production growth, however, was

concentrated in a handful of countries. 

For example, Egypt showed an impressive production

growth rate following the adoption of a new wheat

variety that led to more than a 60-percent increase in

grain yields between 1980 and 1997. In Nigeria, grain

production increased nearly 7 percent annually, and

production of root crops grew 10 percent per year during 1980-97. Nigerias continued restrictions on food

imports have increased domestic prices, thereby raising

the incentives to produce. Nigerian farmers adopted a

10 Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA
new variety of cassava, and increased their average

yield threefold. Because of Nigerias size relative to

other countries in the region, its strong growth supported Sub-Saharan Africas food output growth at 3.6 percent per year during 1980-97. In fact, if Nigeria is

excluded from the Sub-Saharan statistics, the annual

growth rate of food production in the region would

have been only 2 percent per year, which is lower than

the regions 3-percent-per-year increase in population. 

In Asia, average food production grew 2.6 percent per

year during 1980-97, which roughly translates into a

0.5-percent-per-year increase per capita. Food production growth in the LAC countries increased only 1.2

percent per year, considerably less than their 2.2-percent population growth. In the NIS countries, production has stagnated since 1987, the first year data were

available.

Future production growth in the countries depends on

expanding crop area, improving productivity of the

existing lands, or both.

Expanding Crop Area 

Since many low-income countries, particularly in SubSaharan Africa and LAC, have not experienced

improvements in technology, most increases in agricultural output have stemmed from area expansion (1,12).

In Sub-Saharan Africa, area expansion measured more

than 2 percent per year during 1980-97. However, the

long-term prospects for acreage expansion are not

bright, because, in most countries, a large part of land

that could be used for farming is unfit to cultivate

without major investment. In LAC and Sub-Saharan

Africa, continued expansion of cropland means converting range and forest land to crop production, a

process with high economic and environmental costs.

According to FAO estimates, about half of the land

that could be used to produce food in Sub-Saharan

Africa has poor soil (12). Sub-Saharan Africa has a

vast and diverse land area, but the region faces a number of resource constraints (such as lack of water) to

sustainable agricultural growth (6). Some countries,

such as Sudan and Zaire, have vast areas of rainfed

land with crop potential, while others, such as Kenya

and Madagascar, have already exhausted their highpotential land. In addition, relative to land currently in

production, much of the potential cropland is distant

from domestic and foreign markets. Moreover, the

transport and communications infrastructure necessary

for trade between the areas of crop potential and markets is poorly developed.

Demographic changes are placing increasing pressure

on land in Sub-Saharan Africa. More than 20 percent

of all vegetative land is degraded due to human causes;

however, water and wind erosion still account for a

majority of the affected hectares. Much of this degraded area is in the Sahel, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia,

Kenya, and southern Africa. Historically, farmers

adjusted to resource constraints by following several

years of planting with several fallow years. However,

population pressures have reduced the practice of these

sustainable agricultural techniques, and are leading to

rapid declines in land productivity. 

Growth in Yields

The only option to sustain production growth is to

increase yields. Growth in yields is projected to match

or exceed 1980-97 levels in LAC, Sub-Saharan Africa,

and the NIS. These optimistic trends are attributed to

the improved government policies of recent years

which are expected to increase returns and provide better incentives to producers. In North Africa, growth of

grain yields is projected to be slower than during 1980-

97 because no major technological shift, similar to the

early 1990s adoption of high-yielding varieties in

Egypt, is expected in the future (12). Grain yields in

Asia are projected to follow the recent trend (since the

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 11

Asia

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

SSA North

Africa

 LAC NIS

Figure 5

Projected growth in food production, 1998-2008

Production growth needed to close the nutrition gap

in Sub-Saharan Africa far exceeds projected rates.

Percent per year

Projected growth Growth needed to 

 fill nutritional gap
mid-1990s), which is slower than the growth of the

last two decades. In LAC and Sub-Saharan Africa,

while yield growth is projected to at least match that of

1980-97, it falls short of the growth required to significantly improve food security. Sub-Saharan Africas

annual yield growth would need to accelerate to 2.2

percent from projected rates of 1.4 percent to eliminate

the nutrition food gap by 2008. In LAC, yield growth

would need to increase 1.5 percent per year, or three

times the historical rate (table 4).

Average regional grain yields are the highest in North

Africa, followed by Asia, the NIS, LAC, and SubSaharan Africa (fig. 6). The quality of resources and

use of new technology are the reasons behind this

ranking. During 1980-97, yields declined in the NIS

countries and increased only marginally in LAC. In

Sub-Saharan Africa, yields grew 1.4 percent per year.

Distorted policies, limited resources, low input use,

and little use of new technology are the principal factors constraining yields in many countries in these

regions. Despite constraints, Asia and North Africa

experienced relatively strong yield growth of 2.6 and

3.5 percent per year during 1980-97. In Egypt, the

combination of fertile land and the adoption of highyielding crop varieties boosted the countrys yields significantly in the early 1990s, thereby raising the average regional yields. During the 1970s, most of Asias

production gains stemmed from the use of Green

Revolution technology and crop varieties, expansion

in the land base through irrigation, as well as improved

cultivation practices. Use of improved inputs also contributed to yield growth. Farmers who adopt improved

crop varieties must use more fertilizer and timely water

application and drainage to achieve yield potential. In

Asia, many governments made a package of

12 Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Figure 6

Grain yields by region

Average grain yields are influenced by quality of resources and use of technology.

NIS Base

LAC

Asia

SSA

North Africa

2008

(Projected)

kg/ha

Table 4—Grain yield growth by region

Yield growth must accelerate to eliminate the nutrition

gap in most regions.*

Regions 1980-97 1998-2008 Growth

to fill 

gap

Percent per year

North Africa 3.5 1.5 0.8

Sub-Saharan Africa 1.4 1.4 2.2

Asia 2.6 1.3 1.4

LAC 0.5 0.9 1.5

NIS NA 1.0 1.7

NA = not available.

* Given projected import growth.
technologies (high-yielding varieties, adequate fertilizer, and chemicals) available to farmers. In countries

with limited support for inputs, the adoption rate was

very slow. The pace of yield growth, however, has

slowed during the last decade and the current slower

trend is expected to continue.

Yield projections are based on the use of improved

inputs, particularly fertilizer use. The Asian countries

use the most fertilizer, 95 kg per hectare, followed by

LAC at 76 kg, North Africa at 74 kg, and Sub-Saharan

Africa at a very low level of 7 kg. Sub-Saharan Africa

accounts for only 1 percent of the worlds fertilizer

use. This study assumes higher fertilizer applications

for yield projections in all regions. But yield does not

increase proportionally to increases in fertilizer use. In

this study, a 1-percent increase in fertilizer use is projected to result in a 0.10.3 percent increase in yield

(estimates based on cross country data of the 66 countries) (2,6). Because of such low responsiveness,

growth rates of fertilizer use are projected to be low

in the range of 1 to 4 percent annually. In SubSaharan Africa, growth is projected to be positive,

reversing the trend during 1980-97. Despite this

assumption of growth, fertilizer use per hectare will

remain low by world standards, rising to only 9 kg by

2008. Because of Sub-Saharan Africas low response

of yields to fertilizer use, this increase will translate

into only a small gain in yields6 percent in 10 years. 

The principal factor limiting yield response to fertilizer

use is the inadequate supply of water during the growing season. Although water availability varies considerably across the regions, it has become a serious problem in many countries. According to the World Bank

study Resources and Global Food Prospects, depletion and degradation of water resources are major

problems facing many low-income countries (4,5).

Within 10 years, if population grows at projected rates,

per capita water availability will decrease by an average of 20 percent in developing countries and 34 percent in African countries. The agricultural sector consumes over half the annual freshwater withdrawals in

most of the countries and could face greater competing

demands from household and industrial uses in the

future. 

The sparse rainfall that characterizes much of SubSaharan Africa affects fertilizer response and demand

(5,9). Farmers are very reluctant to risk fertilizer use

until rain falls, since without adequate moisture to dissolve nutrients in fertilizer (especially nitrogen), crops

can burn. Irrigation can make the use of fertilizer

profitable and increase agricultural output. However,

in Sub-Saharan Africa, only 4.3 percent of arable land

is irrigated. This is low, even when compared with

other developing regions. In LAC, 13 percent of

arable land is irrigated, and 38 percent is irrigated in

Asia (13). The world average is 19 percent. There is

potential for expanding irrigated area in Sub-Saharan

Africa, but it is costly and requires investment.

Increasing the use of fertilizer raises production costs.

In many low-income countries, particularly those in

Sub-Saharan Africa and LAC, almost all fertilizer is

imported, and the lack of adequate foreign exchange

constrains availability.

The effects of technical change, improvements in

infrastructure, and research on yield growth are difficult to quantify. A paper by USDA economists summarizing earlier studies on agricultural productivity in

Sub-Saharan Africa indicates that policy reform,

improvement in infrastructure, and research expenditures encourage adoption of yield-increasing technologies (16). In recent years, however, public spending

on these activities has declined in most countries. This

trend could have detrimental implications for increasing food production. 

Increasing Imports 

The performance of domestic production would be less

critical to food security if countries could import their

required foods. Financial constraints are important

factors limiting the role of imports in many countries.

In some regions, the size of the food gaps are quite

small relative to commercial imports, meaning that if

imports grew at a slightly higher rate than projected,

the gaps could close. This is the case in North Africa

and LAC. In Asia, the ratio of the nutrition gap to

commercial imports is projected to be more imposing,

however, at 20 percent in 2008. In Sub-Saharan

Africa, the ratio of the average nutrition gap to commercial imports is projected at 229 percent. Given the

regions prospects for slow import growth, it is highly

unlikely that the gap will be filled by expanding

imports. To close nutrition gaps, food imports must

grow nearly 13 percent per year in Sub-Saharan Africa,

5.6 percent in the NIS, 4.7 percent in Asia, and just

under 4 percent in LAC (table 5). The North African

countries do not have any nutrition gaps, but to maintain their consumption, food imports need to grow

nearly 3 percent per year. Given the import patterns of

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 13
the regions during 1980-97, the most difficult challenge is the significant import growth required in SubSaharan Africa. 

The outlook for the financial conditions of most of the

study countries permits only slow growth in food

imports. During 1980-97, food imports expanded in

all regions. Asian imports increased at the fastest rate,

nearly 8 percent per year (13). Sub-Saharan Africas

imports grew at the slowest rate, 1.9 percent. The positive import growth was a response to a combination of

factors: declining world food prices, slow domestic

production growth (particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa

and LAC), improvements in financial conditions (in

North Africa and Asia), and the relaxation of import

restriction policies in many countries. 

Food imports are supported by foreign exchange availability. Foreign exchange availability, in this study, is

defined as the sum of real export earnings and real net

external financial flows. The response of food imports

to foreign exchange availability is not one-to-one in

this study (inelastic response in the range of 0.6 to 0.8,

depending on the countryestimates based on cross

country data). This means that, everything being

equal, to achieve a 1-percent growth in food imports,

foreign exchange availability must grow by 1.3 to 1.7

percent. Export earnings growth is projected to be

positive in all regions, while the real net external

financial flow (credit and external assistance) is

assumed to remain constant at 1995-97 levels. This

projection assumes that performance of exports will be

the key determinant of food imports. For example, to

achieve the target import growth, Sub-Saharan Africas

export earnings must increase by 13 to 17 percent

annually. 

While Sub-Saharan Africas projected growth rate for

exports is almost double the growth experienced during 1980-97, it falls well short of the growth required

to fill the food gaps. Continued political instability in

Liberia, the Congo, Central African Republic, Sudan,

Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, and Angola dampens the

regions prospects for export growth. In addition, SubSaharan Africa continues to depend on the exports of a

few primary commoditiessuch as coffee, tea, sugar,

and tobaccofor most of its export earnings. Prices

for these commodities are projected to decline in the

long term. According to the World Bank, in real terms,

non-energy and agricultural commodity prices are projected to decline on average by nearly 2 percent per

year in 1997-2006, metals by 1.8 percent, and beverages by 3.5 percent (19). Internal market conditions

(demand, supply) of Sub-Saharan countries generally

have no significant influence on world market prices.

Therefore, their export earnings are influenced by

world commodity prices and shifts in foreign demand.

Consequently, lower commodity prices will limit

export earnings, and thereby limit imports, which will

ultimately increase the regions vulnerability with

respect to food security.

Any significant increase in the net external financial

flows to these countries is unlikely. Average net flows

of money to the regions of North Africa, Sub-Saharan

Africa, and LAC declined during the last decade, while

the flow to the Asian countries in this study grew less

than 1 percent per year (19). External credit and assistance has contributed roughly 10 to 15 percent of the

total annual value of imports of the countries during

the last decade, although there is a wide variation

among countries. For countries such as Mozambique,

as much as 75 percent of imports were supported by

external assistance in the last 5 years, while countries

with political problems, such as Algeria, are faced with

a net loss due to capital flight. For a number of countries, the debt burden continues to dampen growth

prospects and the risks of setbacks are considerable;

14 Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 5—Food import growth 

Food import growth must accelerate to close nutrition

gaps.*

Growth

Regions 1980-97 1998-2008 to fill 

gap

Percent per year

North Africa 3.7 2.6 2.6

Sub-Saharan Africa 1.9 1.9 12.7

Asia 7.7 3.1 4.7

LAC 5.9 3.4 3.8

NIS NA 3.2 5.6

NA = not available.

* Given projected production growth.
therefore, financial conditions remain difficult.

According to the World Bank, the ratio of debt to

exports exceeded 200 percent in the low- and middleincome countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, LAC, and

South Asia in 1995 (19). 

To deal with the financial squeeze, many countries

have responded by taking economic or political steps

to help provide a more financially stable future. These

programs emphasize currency devaluation, privatization, and reduction in market distortions. They are

also expected to promote export performance, but it is

not clear how much these policies will influence the

amount of foreign capital these countries receive. The

annual growth of earnings from exports (which is

deflated by 2.5 percent, the World Banks projected

inflation rate in the countries designated by the

Organization of Economic Cooperation and

Development) is projected to be highest in the Asian

countries, at 6 percent, and the lowest in Sub-Saharan

Africa, at 1.5 percent (19).

Reducing Population Growth

High population growth rates are the principal factors

stimulating food demand. The United Nations projects

a declining trend in population growth, but at varied

rates across regions. The highest rate of decline is projected for North Africa, where during 1980-97, population growth was 2.4 percent and is projected to slow to

1.7 percent by 2008 (fig. 7). The smallest decline is

expected in Sub-Saharan Africa where the growth of 3

percent per year during 1980-97 is projected to decline

to 2.7 percent during 1998-2008. If population

growth in this region were to decline to 2.3 percent,

the projected growth in domestic food production

would be adequate to eliminate the nutrition gap. 

Sub-Saharan Africas population more than doubled to

an estimated 527 million between 1960 and 1990, and

by the year 2008 it will approach 800 million. There

is little doubt that prolonged rapid population growth,

in the absence of subsequent increases in agricultural

investment and sustainable cultivation methods, causes

bleak prospects for most countries in Sub-Saharan

Africa. The decision to reduce family size, however,

will not happen automatically. A large number of factors such as agrarian structure, stagnant rural incomes,

and religious and cultural beliefs are believed to be

important determinants of a familys demand for children in the region (8,10). With the exception of successful family planning initiatives in Botswana, Kenya,

and Zimbabwe, there is no indication of a sustained

decline in Sub-Saharan Africas population growth

rate. The present age composition will also lead to

continued high population growth. Between 35 and 50

percent of the regions population is 15 years old or

younger. With such a large percentage of the regions

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 15

Asia

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 1.0

Figure 7

Population growth rates

Population growth rates are projected to slow.

North Africa

SSA

LAC

NIS

Percent per year

3.0

Historical

Projected

by 2008
inhabitants about to enter their reproductive years,

population growth likely will remain high even if average fertility rates decline. 

The extensive food production systems common in

Sub-Saharan countries create a strong incentive for

large families, because the ability to increase cultivated

area increases with family size. Family size is even

more important because most of the food-production

work is done by women and children. Until the time

that an additional child becomes more expensive than

the income and labor that the child contributes, households will have few incentives to restrict family size.

Therefore, to reduce population growth, governments

need to curb incentives for large families by promoting

technology as a means of raising agricultural productivity. This would be achieved through investments in

market infrastructure as well as research and extension.

If new agricultural technologies are not adopted, labor

will remain the principal input in production, and large

families will be the norm. Such a scenario would continue the trend of little or no growth in per capita food

supplies, stagnant or deteriorating caloric intake, and

declining nutritional status (2). 

In many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, population pressure has forced people in traditional agriculture to

work harder without being able to maintain their

incomes or their standard of livingmeasured in terms

of food consumption and production. Ill health caused

by malnutrition, unexpected illness, disease, and accidents hinders a countrys development potential and

traps it in a cycle of rapid population growth, falling

per capita food production, and insufficient health care.

16 Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA
Uneven distribution of the worlds resources means

that the poor, low-resource countries are vulnerable to

food insecurity. Per capita food consumption is projected to decline in 47 of the 66 study countries in the

next decade, and 39 countries are projected to be

unable to meet their minimum nutritional requirements. Sub-Saharan Africa is identified as the most

food-insecure region, and the situation is projected to

deteriorate further during the next decade. The

regions per capita consumption is projected to decline

0.5 percent per year through the next decade. The NIS

region is projected to achieve the largest gains in per

capita consumptionroughly 1 percent per year. The

regional overview, however, masks the food problems

faced by individual countries. For example, countries

such as Afghanistan in Asia, Haiti in LAC, and

Tajikistan in the NIS region are also considered vulnerable to food insecurity, despite their regions more positive outlook, because their food consumption through

2008 is projected to be less than 80 percent of their

nutritional requirement.

The main factors influencing the food security position

of the countries are domestic food production, foreign

exchange availability, population growth, and distribution of income. Among these factors, domestic food

production is the most crucial. Domestic production

contributes to more than 90 percent of consumption in

the most food-insecure countries. In North Africa,

LAC, and the NIS, domestic production contributed

50-60 percent of consumption. Domestic production,

in addition to its direct impact on consumption, has a

strong link to population growth. Improvements in

technology reduce the traditional reliance on human

labor and therefore the desirability of large families. 

Sub-Saharan Africa, the most food-insecure region, is

caught in a web of interlocking problems. Finding

solutions amid continuing crises is the challenge facing

policymakers. Based on the current trend, agricultural

growth lags behind population growth, thereby widening food gaps and putting pressure on purchasing

power. Commercial food imports, used to fill food

gaps, divert limited foreign exchange availability from

domestic investment. The countries remain unsuccessful in adopting new technologies to raise food crop

yields and increase productivity, leaving people reliant

on large families as the principal input in production.

This will lead to little or no growth in per capita food

supplies, stagnant or deteriorating caloric intake, and

declining nutritional status. In addition, African countries face unfavorable terms of trade because of declining prices for their exports, and civil strife and political

instability have continued even into the post-cold war

period.

During 1980-97, Sub-Saharan Africas imports were

supported by external assistancefood aid provided

additional support to reduce the financial burden of

food imports. With the decline in external assistance, a

larger share of foreign exchange availability must be

allocated to food imports. Any increase in spending on

food imports, however, will crowd out spending on

essential raw materials and spare parts, raising concern

over the regions long-term economic health. Most

countries depend on imports of energy and capital to

complement domestic production. In the long run,

import capacity of the countries will depend mainly on

the performance of their export sectors. Annual

growth in Sub-Saharan Africas export earnings was

less than 1 percent during 1980-95, and agricultural

exports accounted for 20 to 40 percent of the regions

total export earnings. Although prices for these commodities are projected to decline in the next decade, an

increase in the volume of exports can have a positive

effect on the trend. 

To improve food security, it is essential to promote

policies that accelerate agricultural growth, particularly

in Sub-Saharan Africa. Foreign exchange availability

is limited, which limits imports. Increases in production would translate into a gradual increase in food

supplies, a decline in population growth, and an

increase in export earnings to support food imports. A

significant improvement in agricultural performance,

however, requires innovative technologies to increase

productivity of both land and labor. Reports indicate

that such technologies are available throughout the

region, but only experimentally and on a small scale

(2). Kenya and Zimbabwe adopted high-yielding corn

varieties and significantly increased yields in the

region during the last two decades. Improved production practices such as mixed cropping, which is currently used extensively, can be used to further increase

yields. Therefore, to close food gaps, regions must

disseminate these technologies to prevent further food

insecurity and perhaps stimulate domestic production.

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 17

Conclusion
1. Brown, M., and I. Goldin. The Future of

Agriculture: Developing Country Implications.

Development Center of the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development, Paris, France, 1992.

2. Cleaver, K., and G. Schreiber. Reversing the Spiral:

The Population, Agricultural, and Environment Nexus

in Sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank, Washington

DC, 1994.

3. Crosson, P., and J. Anderson. Resources and Global

Food Prospects: Supply and Demand for Cereals.

World Bank Technical Paper No. 184, Washington DC,

1992.

4. Gray, D., and B. Larson. Environmental Problems

and Resource Constraints. International Agricultural

and Trade Reports, Africa and Middle East Situation

and Outlook Series. United States Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, WRS-94-3,

1994.

5. Harold, C., B. Larson, and L. Scott. Fertilizer

Consumption Remains Low. International

Agricultural and Trade Reports, Africa and Middle

East Situation and Outlook Series. United States

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, WRS-94-3, 1994.

6. Ingram, K. and G. Frisvold. Productivity in

African Agriculture: Sources of Growth and

Stagnation. International Agricultural and Trade

Reports, Africa and Middle East Situation and Outlook

Series. United States Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, WRS-94-3, 1994. 

7. Lewis, J., and contributors. Strengthening the Poor:

What have We Learned? Overseas Development

Council, U.S.-Third World Policy Perspectives, No.

10, Washington DC, 1988.

8. Missiaen, M., S. Shapouri, and R. Trostle. Food Aid

Needs and Availabilities: Projections for 2005. GFA-6,

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, 1995.

9. Seckler, D., D. Gollin, and P. Antoine. Agricultural

Potential of Mid-Africa: A Technological

Assessment. Agricultural Technology in Sub-Saharan

Africa. World Bank Discussion Papers 126,

Washington DC, 1991.

10. Shapouri, S. and L. Scott. Population and the

Agricultural Sector. International Agricultural and

Trade Reports, Africa and Middle East Situation and

Outlook Series. United States Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, WRS-94-3,

1994.

11. Shapouri, S., and S. Rosen (Coordinator).

International Agricultural and Trade Reports, Food

Security Assessment, Situation and Outlook Series.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, GFA-9, 1997.

12. United Nations, Food and Agriculture

Organization. Agriculture: Towards 2010, Rome,

1993.

13. United Nations, Food and Agriculture

Organization. Electronic database, Rome, 1998.

14. United Nations, Food and Agriculture

Organization. The State of Food and Agriculture,

Rome, 1998.

15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service. PS&D database, various years. 

16. Wiebe, Keith D., Meredith J. Soule, and David E.

Schimmelpfennig. Agricultural Productivity and

Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. International

Agricultural and Trade Reports, Food Security

Assessment, Situation and Outlook Series. United

States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, GFA-9, 1998.

17. World Bank. Global Economic Prospects and the

Developing Countries. Washington DC, various

issues.

18. World Bank. Electronic database. Washington DC,

1997.

19. World Bank. Taking Action to Reduce Poverty in

Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC, 1997.

18 Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA

References
Projections of Food Availability The simulation

framework used for projecting aggregate food availability is based on partial equilibrium recursive models

of 66 lower income countries. The country models are

synthetic, meaning that the parameters that are used

are either cross country estimates or are estimated by

other studies. Each country model includes three commodity groups, grains, root crops, and other. The

production side of the model is divided into yield and

area response. Crop area is a function of 1-year lag

return (real price times yield), while yield responds to

input use. The projections of consumption for the

other commodities is simply based on a trend that

follows the projected growth in supply of the food

crops (grains plus root crops). Although this is a very

simplistic approach, it represents an improvement from

the previous assessments where the contribution to the

diet of commodities such as meat and dairy products

was overlooked. The plan is to enhance this aspect of

the model in the future. 

Commercial imports are assumed to be a function of

domestic price, world commodity price, and foreign

exchange availability. Foreign exchange availability is

a key determinant of commercial food imports and is

the sum of the value of export earnings and net flow of

credit. Foreign exchange availability is assumed to be

equal to foreign exchange use, meaning that foreign

exchange reserve is assumed constant during the projection period. Countries are assumed to be price takers in the international market, meaning that world

prices are exogenous in the model. However, producer

prices are linked to the international market.

For each commodity group (c), food consumption (FC)

is defined as domestic supply (DS) minus nonfood use

(NF). n is country index and t is time index.

FC cnt = DS cnt - NF cnt (1)

Nonfood use is the sum of seed use (SD), feed use

(FD), exports (EX), and other uses (OU). 

NF cnt = SD cnt + FD cnt + EX cnt + OU cnt (2)

Domestic supply of a commodity group is the sum of

domestic production (PR) plus commercial imports

(CI), food aid (FA), and changes in stocks (CSTK).

DS cnt = PRcnt + CIcnt + FA cnt+ CSTK cnt (3)

Production is generally determined by the area and

yield response functions:

PRcnt =ARcnt * YLcnt (4) 

YL cnt = f ( LBcnt ,FR cnt , K cnt ,Tcnt ) (5)

RPYcnt =YL cnt * DPcnt (6)

RNPYcnt =NYL cnt * NDPcnt (7)

ARcnt = f ( ARcnt-1, RPY cnt-1, 

RNPY cnt-1, Zcnt) (8)

where AR is area, YL is yield, LB is rural labor, FR is

fertilizer use, K is indicator of capital use,T is the indicator of technology change, DP is real domestic price,

RPY is yield times real price, NDP is real domestic

substitute price, NYL is yield of substitute commodity,

RNPY is yield of substitute commodity times substitute price, and Z is exogenous policies.

The commercial import demand function is defined as:

CI cnt = f (WPRct , NWPRct , FEXnt,

DRcnt, Mnt) (9)

where WPR is real world food price, NWPR is real

world price of nonfood items, FEX is real foreign

exchange availability, DR is real domestic price, and

M is import restriction policies.

The real domestic price is defined as: 

DPcnt = f (DPcnt-1, DS cnt, NDScnt,

GDnt, EXRnt) (10)

where NDS is supply of substitute commodity, GD is

real income, and EXR is real exchange rate.

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 19

Appendix 1

Structural Framework for Projecting Food Consumption 

in the Aggregate and by Income Group
Projections of Food Consumption by

Income Group- Inadequate economic access is the

most important cause of chronic undernutrition among

developing countries and is related to the level of

income. Estimates of food gaps at the aggregate or

national level fail to take into account the distribution

of food consumption among different income groups.

Lack of consumption distribution data for the countries

is the key factor preventing estimation of food consumption by income group. An attempt was made to

fill this information gap by using an indirect method of

projecting calorie consumption by different income

groups based on income distribution data.1 The procedure uses the concept of the income/consumption relationship and allocates the total projected amount of

available food among different income groups in each

country. 

Assuming a declining consumption and income relationship (semi-log functional form):

C = a + b ln Y (11)

C = Co/P (12)

P = P1 +........+ Pi (13)

Y = Yo/P (14)

I = 1 to 5 (15)

where C and Y are known average per capita food consumption (calorie consumption) and per capita income

(all quintiles), Co is total food consumption, P is the

total population, I is income quintile, a is the intercept,

b is the consumption income propensity, and b/C is

consumption income elasticity (point estimate elasticity is calculated for individual country). To estimate

per capita consumption by income group, the parameter of b is estimated based on cross country (66 lowincome countries) data for per capita calorie consumption and income. The parameter a is estimated for each

country based on the known data for average per capita

calorie consumption and per capita income. In the

next step, point consumption/income elasticities are

estimated for each country using base level country

income and consumption data. These elasticities are

then used to estimate calorie consumption by different

income groups in each country. The estimated distribution gap measures the food needed to bring food

consumption of each income group up to the nutritional requirements. To estimate the number of people

vulnerable to food insecurity, the portion of population

that consumes less than the requirement is multiplied

by the total population to estimate the number of people who have inadequate access to food. Country

income distribution is assumed constant during the

projection period. For countries where income distribution data are not available (mainly in Sub-Saharan

Africa), average sub-regional income distribution data

are used. 

20 Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 Economic Research Service/USDA

1 The method is similar to the method used by Shlomo Reutlinger

and Marcelo Selowsky in Malnutrition and Poverty, World Bank,

1978. 
Historical Data

Historical supply and use data for 1980-97 for most

variables are from a USDA database. Data for grain

production in 1997 for most countries are based on a

USDA database as of October 1997. Food aid data are

from the UNs Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO), and financial data are from the International

Monetary Fund and World Bank. Historical nonfooduse data, including seed, waste, processing use, and

other use, are estimated from the FAO Food Balance

series. The base year data used for projections are the

average for 1995-97, except export earnings, which are

1994-96.

Model Assumptions

Endogenous variables: Production, area, yield, commercial import, and domestic producer price.

Exogenous variables:

Populationdata are UN population projections. 

World pricesdata are USDA/baseline projections. 

Stocksassumed constant during the projection period. 

Seed useprojections are based on area projections

using constant base seed/area ratio. 

Industrial useprojections are based on extrapolation

of historical trends. 

Food exportsprojections are either based on the population growth rate or extrapolation of historical

trends. 

InputsFertilizer and capital projections are, in general, an extrapolation of historical growth.

Agricultural laborprojections are based on UN population projections, accounting for urbanization growth.

Food aidassumed no food aid during the projection

period (food aid is included only in the base year).

Net foreign creditnet real flow of foreign credit is

assumed constant during the projection period.

Value of exportsprojections are based on World

Bank (Global Economic Prospects and the Developing

Countries, various issues), IMF (World Economic

Outlook, various issues), or an extrapolation of historical growth. 

Export deflator or terms of tradeWorld Bank

(Commodity MarketsProjection of Inflation Indices

for Developed Countries). 

Incomeprojected based on World Bank report

(Global Economic Prospects and the Developing

Countries, various issues) or extrapolation of historical

growth.

Income distributionWorld Bank data. Income distributions are assumed constant during the projection

period.

Model Coefficients and Assumptions

Technical coefficients used in the model are either estimated, using cross country data, or synthesized from

other sources. With the exception of countries with

political problems, the model was validated using the

historical data (1980-96). Growth in crop area and

yield per hectare are functions of crop prices, fertilizer

use, labor, and technological progress. Area response

to price changes is small, in the range of 0.1 to 0.3.

Similarly, yield response to fertilizer use is 0.1 to 0.2

and the labor/land ratio (as an indicator of intensification) is in the range of 0.2 to 0.3. The main determinant of commercial import growth is the availability of

foreign exchange which is defined as the sum of

exports and net flow of capital. World food prices,

non-food prices, and expected domestic production

(indicator of government import policy) also influence

food imports. The food import response to foreign

exchange availability is in the range of 0.6 to 0.8 and

the response to food prices is in the range of 0.3 to 0.5.

The response to non-food price changes is in the range

of 0.1 to 0.2. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 21

Appendix II

Data Sources and Assumptions
Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 22
Economic Research Service/USDA Food Security Assessment/AIB-754 23
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,

and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact USDAs Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice

or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Its Easy To Order Another Copy!

Just dial 1-800-999-6779. Toll free in the United States and

Canada.

Ask for Food Security Assessment: Why Countries Are At Risk 

(AIB-754).

Charge to your VISA or MasterCard. 

For additional information about ERS publications, databases, and other

products, both paper and electronic, visit the ERS Home Page on the

Internet at http://www.econ.ag.gov/

National Agricultural Library Cataloging Record:

Shapouri, Shahla

Food security assessment: why countries are at risk.

(Agriculture information bulletin; no. 754)

1. Food supply--Developing countriesForecasting. 2. Agricultural

productivity--Developing countriesForecasting. 3. Income

distributionDeveloping countriesForecasting. 4. PopulationDeveloping

countries--Forecasting. 5. Food consumptionDeveloping

countries--Forecasting. 6. Nutrition--Developing countriesRequirements--

Forecasting.

I. Rosen, Stacey L. II. Title. 

HD9018.D44

The cover photograph of a field of millet in Niger was taken by P. Cenini of the UN Food and

Agriculture Organization.