Food security researchers have unveiled a new composite metric designed to expose structural weaknesses in national food supplies, and its first application across Southeast Asia has produced a striking ranking. The Food Availability Vulnerability Index, or FAVI, was developed and tested on five ASEAN member states, and it places Singapore at the top of the vulnerability scale with a score of 0.71, driven largely by the country’s deep dependence on imported food and its limited natural resource base. Thailand, by contrast, recorded the lowest score at 0.13, followed by Vietnam at 0.17, Indonesia at 0.29, and the Philippines at 0.43.
The index was constructed to focus specifically on the availability pillar of food security, a dimension its developers argue is underrepresented in broader global assessments. FAVI rests on four dimensions: production adequacy, food reserves, import dependency, and distribution efficiency. Each dimension is quantified, normalized, and weighted to generate a composite score between 0 and 1, where higher values indicate greater structural vulnerability in food availability. The framework follows OECD guidelines for building composite indicators, a choice the authors say ensures methodological rigor and policy relevance.
Production adequacy compares total domestic food production, converted into kilocalories and adjusted for post-harvest losses, against a country’s total dietary energy requirement, which is calculated from population size and average daily caloric needs typically ranging from 2,100 to 2,500 kilocalories per person. A ratio at or above 1 means a country can meet its dietary energy needs from domestic production alone, while a value below 1 signals a production gap that must be filled through imports, reserves, or aid. Food reserves, the second dimension, measure how many days a nation can feed its population from strategic stockpiles of staples such as rice, wheat, and maize.
Import dependency captures the share of a nation’s food supply sourced from abroad, calculated as the caloric value of food imports divided by the total food supply, which combines domestic production, net imports, and stock changes while excluding feed, seed, waste, and processing losses. Distribution efficiency, the fourth dimension, draws on the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index alongside food loss rates, cold chain coverage, rural road access, and geographic constraints. The developers assigned production adequacy the highest weight at 30 percent, food reserves and import dependency 25 percent each, and distribution efficiency 20 percent, with weights determined through expert consultations and a review of empirical literature.
Data for the study came from FAOSTAT agricultural production statistics, the World Bank’s World Development Indicators, and the Global Logistics Performance Index, supplemented by national food security reports. The analysis covers Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, and Singapore, using data compiled from 2019 to 2024 to span the period before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The five countries were selected for their diverse food systems, agricultural productivity levels, trade practices, and distribution infrastructures.
The country-level results reveal sharply different vulnerability profiles. Singapore scored 0.90 on production adequacy, 0.80 on food reserves, and 0.92 on import dependency, reflecting a food system overwhelmingly reliant on external sources. Its reserves cover just 73 days of national food demand, a constraint the study attributes to land scarcity and geopolitical limitations, even as the city-state’s logistics performance is the region’s best, with a Logistics Performance Index score of 4.30, 95 percent cold chain coverage, and only 5 percent distribution losses. Despite that logistical excellence, Singapore’s overall FAVI score of 0.71 was the highest of the five countries examined.
Thailand and Vietnam anchor the low-vulnerability end of the spectrum. Thailand posted the region’s highest reserve coverage at 292 days, an import dependency score of just 0.02, and a distribution efficiency score of 0.82 supported by 80 percent rural road access and an LPI of 3.50. Vietnam recorded 274 days of reserves, an import dependency of 0.087, and a distribution efficiency score of 0.78, reflecting public investment in agricultural infrastructure and efficient state coordination. Both countries, however, face sustainability pressures, particularly in the Mekong Delta, where salinity intrusion and climate change threaten future output.
Indonesia and the Philippines occupy the middle of the range, with vulnerabilities rooted in distribution and reserve challenges. Indonesia holds 201 days of reserves and an import dependency reflecting reliance on wheat, soybean, and dairy imports, but its archipelagic geography imposes structural costs: an LPI of 3.00, 65 percent rural access, and an estimated 20 percent food loss in distribution. The Philippines shows 146 days of reserve capacity, an import dependency of 0.214, and the weakest distribution profile of the five, with a 25 percent food loss rate, 55 percent cold chain coverage, and 60 percent rural access, compounded by connectivity and disaster resilience problems highlighted during Typhoon Odette.
The index was subjected to both internal and external validation. A sensitivity analysis varied each indicator’s weight within a range of plus or minus 10 to 20 percent, and the country rankings remained stable across weighting scenarios, which the authors interpret as evidence of structural robustness. Externally, FAVI results were cross-referenced against the Global Food Security Index and regional food security crisis reports from the FAO and the ASEAN Food Security Information System. Countries that FAVI flagged as highly vulnerable, notably the Philippines and Singapore, have also been cited in external reports as facing elevated risk during recent food supply disruptions.
The comparison with the Global Food Security Index proved instructive. Thailand scored 67.2 and Vietnam 66.4 on the GFSI, corresponding to their low FAVI scores of 0.13 and 0.17, while Singapore’s combination of a high FAVI score and a lower GFSI score of 51.6 illustrates the risks of import-dependent systems even in economically advanced nations. The study’s authors argue that using the two indices together allows policymakers to identify structural weaknesses within food systems and anticipate potential supply shocks before they escalate, and that FAVI can guide targeted investments in local production, storage, logistics, and trade diversification across ASEAN and comparable regions.
Subject of Research: Development and application of a Food Availability Vulnerability Index to assess food availability risks in five ASEAN countries
Article Title: Developing a comprehensive food availability vulnerability index (FAVI) to address food security challenges in the asean region
Article References: Hakim, D. L., Machalett, B., Suhendra, A., Arifin, S., Kurniawan, A., & Putra, M. G. (2026). Developing a comprehensive food availability vulnerability index (FAVI) to address food security challenges in the asean region. Agriculture & Food Security, 15(1), Article 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-026-00627-7
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1186/s40066-026-00627-7
Keywords: food security, FAVI, ASEAN, food availability, import dependency, food reserves, distribution efficiency, production adequacy, Singapore, Thailand, composite index, vulnerability assessment
News Source: Alan Morgan. (October 28, 2026). New FAVI Index Ranks Food Availability Vulnerability Across Five ASEAN Countries. Scienmag.
