Unpacking Food Sustainability Index

“When performance is measured, performance improves. When performance is measured and reported, the rate of improvement accelerates.”

⎯ Thomas Monson

Photo by engin akyurt / Unsplash

Food systems encompass the stages and actors in the production, aggregation, processing, distribution, consumption, and disposal of food, with many critical outcomes impacting sustainable development. Despite its major role in ensuring climate resilience, providing stable nutrition, and supporting livelihoods, current practices in the global food system are responsible for approximately one-third of global carbon emissions (about 70% from agriculture and land use change) and 231 million of malnutrition in children). In response to this, countries around the world have been implementing strategies to reduce the multiple negative social, economic, and environmental impacts of their food systems.

To increase awareness and inspire action among governments worldwide, Economist Impact, in partnership with the Barilla Foundation, developed the Food Sustainability Index (FSI)⎯an index that examines the performance of food systems at the country level. The FSI measures the sustainability of food systems in 78 countries, based on three key areas outlined in the 2015 Milan Protocol and aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): food loss and waste, sustainable agriculture, and nutritional challenges.

Evolution of FSI (2016 – 2021)

First launched in 2016, the FSI initially evaluated the food sustainability of just 25 countries. Since then, the number of countries included has expanded each year, reaching 78 by 2021. The FSI has continuously refined its methodology to improve the accuracy and relevance of its assessments.

In 2017, the FSI focused on three core pillars: food loss and waste, sustainable agriculture, and nutritional challenges. Each pillar represents a crucial dimension of food sustainability, reflecting the food paradoxes highlighted in the 2015 BCFN Milan Food Protocol. It examined efforts to reduce food waste along the supply chain, evaluated agricultural practices that minimize environmental harm, and measured progress in tackling malnutrition, obesity, and access to nutritious food.

By 2021, the FSI had updated and refined its indicators to better reflect global emerging trends, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and more detailed data on overall food systems performance. The 2021 index also highlighted the need to transform food systems in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted global food security and supply chains. Additionally, in line with the One Health approach, FSI included analyses related to strengthening food supply chain resilience, assessing the sustainability of food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs), and evaluating the affordability of sustainable diets. It also introduced stronger environmental indicators, placing greater emphasis on the carbon footprint of food production and the role of sustainable agriculture in mitigating climate change.

FSI indicator scores are normalized and aggregated to allow for cross-country comparison. Normalization converts raw data to a 0–100 scale, with 100 representing the highest sustainability and 0 the lowest. Most indicators use min/max normalization, with the lowest and highest values across 78 countries setting the bounds.

Sweden: Leading the world in food sustainability

In the 2021 FSI rankings, Sweden ranked as the top performer, achieving the highest overall score for food system sustainability (78/100). The country excelled in managing food loss and waste (76/100), with above-average scores in distribution-level loss, food waste, and policy responses to food waste. Its policies include measures like requiring supermarkets to donate unsold food to charities and committing to reduce food waste by 50% by 2025, inspired by similar successful initiatives in France.

Sweden also performed well in sustainable agriculture, scoring highly in 14 out of 22 sub-indicators (72/100). The focus on producing healthy, resource-efficient food strengthens its food supply capacity and preparedness. This includes adopting circular animal production strategies, such as using grass from pastures and residual food industry products to promote sustainability.

In promoting sustainable, healthy consumption, Sweden encourages balanced diets rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, and seafood, all of which contribute to lower environmental and climate impacts. This approach is reflected in its high nutritional score in the FSI (78/100).

Finally, Sweden has also advanced in addressing nutritional challenges, and promoting public health while reducing environmental impacts. The country’s policies support healthier dietary patterns and hold the food industry accountable in this transition. This comprehensive approach to improving food sustainability has positioned Sweden as a global leader in food system transformation.

High scores, hidden challenges: A closer look at Indonesia’s FSI ranking

Indonesia's overall score on the FSI is 59/100 (55 for food loss and waste, 56 for sustainable agriculture, and 65 for nutritional challenges), placing the country at 51st out of 78 nations. 

Investigated further, several parameters from each pillar showed high scores. For example, food loss scored 85, sustainability of water withdrawal 100, impact on land of animal feed and biofuels 96, and the affordability of a healthy and sustainable diet 93.

1. Food loss

   Highly perishable foods like fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts, dairy, meat, fish, and seafood are especially vulnerable to pests and disease, increasing the likelihood of loss or waste. This food loss and waste (FLW) results in the loss of valuable energy and nutrients that could otherwise improve nutrition. Moreover, losses in commodities like chili, cabbage, and shallots, mainly cultivated by smallholder farmers, contribute to stabilizing food prices and influencing regional inflation.

   Indonesia's FSI score of 86/100 for food loss reflects a relatively low amount of overall food loss when measured across the supply chain from production to packaging.

   At the regulatory level, laws such as Law 18/2008 on Waste Management (Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2008 tentang Pengelolaan Sampah) and Law 19/2013 on the Protection and Empowerment of Farmers (Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2013 tentang Perlindungan dan Pemberdayaan Petani) provide the legal framework for managing waste across sectors and supporting farmers to reduce agricultural losses.

   A strategic roadmap titled Peta Jalan SSP 2045 has also been developed at the local level to guide national efforts in reducing food losses by 2045.

   Despite existing policies and frameworks, Indonesia still generated over 15 million tons of food losses in 2019, with crops accounting for 46.2% FLW, equivalent to 14-24 million tons annually.

   The Ministry of Environment also reports that nearly half of Indonesia's waste is food-related, with up to 300 kg of food waste generated per capita annually.

   The discrepancies highlight two key issues.

   First, Indonesia’s food loss challenge stems from inadequate implementation and coordination across regions and sectors. It also signals the need to align strategic FLW policies and establish consistent performance tracking to support food system transformation. Improved data management is crucial, as comprehensive metadata on food losses remains fragmented, limiting detailed analysis and informed policy development.

   Second, despite Indonesia’s high FSI score for food loss, this score should not be solely relied upon by policymakers, as discrepancies exist between the parameters used and actual conditions on the ground.

2. Sustainability of water withdrawal

   Water withdrawal refers to the amount of water taken from its source, regardless of whether it is returned. Indonesia's perfect score of 100 for the sustainability of water withdrawal parameters reflects the responsible management of its renewable water resources for agriculture. This parameter measures the proportion of water used for agriculture relative to the total available renewable water resources, such as groundwater and surface water from rivers and lakes.

   In Indonesia, agricultural water withdrawal primarily relies on surface water, with rice paddies being the largest consumers. Over half (58%) of the country’s 8.2 million hectares of rice paddies are irrigated wetlands, while the remaining 42% are rainfed. This poses challenges for regions in dry climates where water scarcity can significantly reduce agricultural productivity.

   With only 9% of water withdrawn for irrigation each year, Indonesia’s high FSI score for the sustainability of water withdrawal warrants further investigation. This score may be linked to issues of the equity of water distribution, as the efficient use of water does not necessarily reflect fair access across regions and agricultural sectors.

3. Impact on land of animal feed and biofuels

   Indonesia’s score of 96/100 for the impact on land of animal feed and biofuels parameter reflects its relatively efficient domestic land use for these purposes. Many small- and medium-scale livestock farmers rely on crop residues and byproducts for animal feed, reducing the need for dedicated land.

   However, a significant portion of animal feed, especially for poultry, comes from imported high protein sources, such as soybeans or corn.

   While these imported commodities reduce domestic land pressure, they shift the environmental burden beyond our borders. For example, Indonesia’s heavy reliance on imported soybeans, which contributes to 31% of global deforestation in tropical ecosystems, drives land degradation and biodiversity loss in other countries. This suggests that Indonesia's high score overlooks the broader global environmental footprint tied to land use for animal feed.

   Beyond feed, agricultural land is also contested for biofuel production.

   Indonesia’s B35 program, which mandates a minimum of 35% biodiesel mix of palm oil and diesel, incentivizes palm oil plantations as one of the largest drivers of deforestation in the country. While the high score suggests efficient land use for biofuels, the environmental trade-offs, particularly in deforestation and ecosystem degradation, are significant and must be factored into the broader sustainability equation. This raises concerns about the sustainability of land use when balancing the competing needs for food, feed, and fuel.

4. Climate change adaptation and mitigation

   Much like the sustainability of water withdrawal, Indonesia has also achieved a perfect score of 100 on the climate change adaptation and mitigation index. This score reflects progress in two key areas: 1) the integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies into agricultural policies, and 2) the recognition of the role of agriculture in its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

   The Ministry of Agriculture (Direktoral Jenderal Prasarana dan Sarana Pertanian - Kementerian Pertanian, 2022) has developed technical guidelines for irrigation programs that address both climate adaptation and mitigation. This demonstrates that climate-related policies are being translated into actionable strategies at the ministerial level.

   In its enhanced 2022 NDC, Indonesia commits to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture while adopting climate-resilient technologies for sustainable food production. However, the GHG emission reduction targets for agriculture remain modest compared to the ambitious target of 1,229 million tons of CO2-equivalent in Forestry and Other Land Use (FOLU) by 2030; agriculture aims to reduce only around 22 million tons.

   The NDC for the agricultural sector emphasizes strategies, such as promoting low-emission crop varieties, adopting water-efficient practices, using organic fertilizers, managing manure for biogas, and providing livestock feed supplements. Despite these initiatives, much of the attention remains on rice crops, indicating a need for broader diversification of mitigation strategies across other agricultural sectors.

5. Affordability of a healthy and sustainable diet

   Affordability is key to ensuring equitable access to a healthy diet across socioeconomic levels. To capture this, Economist Impact analyzed food price indices, national food spending, and the cost of nutrient adequacy, using data from the study "Affordability of the EAT–Lancet Reference Diet: A Global Analysis." This study estimates the cost of the EAT-Lancet diet in 159 countries and compares it with daily per capita gross national incomes.

   Ranked 93 for affordability, Indonesia falls within the lower-middle-income group, where a healthy diet consumes 40% to 70% of daily household income. While a healthy diet might be affordable for average households, those at the higher end of this range struggle to meet basic needs, including food, due to competing expenses like housing, utilities, and healthcare.

   About 68% of Indonesians cannot afford the average monthly cost of a nutritionally balanced diet, estimated at IDR 663,791 per person.

   Similar to the critique of the food loss parameter, the FSI score for this parameter should be carefully examined before being used as a basis for policy making.

Assessing Indonesia’s food systems performance beyond the numbers

The FSI is a valuable tool for evaluating a country's commitment to food sustainability, using indicators like national policies, strategic plans, voluntary agreements, and public institutions. While these indicators provide a broad overview of Indonesia's efforts, they often fail to capture on-the-ground realities.

A notable example is the significant gap between Indonesia’s regulatory frameworks and their implementation. Despite comprehensive policies and roadmaps to reduce food losses, the figure remained high—surpassing 20 million tons in 2019. Similarly, the FSI score overlooks the substantial role of biofuel production, particularly in palm oil, in driving deforestation.

Data availability and quality further complicate the evaluation of Indonesia’s sustainability progress. In many developing countries, including Indonesia, data management is fragmented, with essential information often poorly documented or incomplete. This lack of reliable data complicates efforts to accurately assess policy effectiveness and make meaningful comparisons with other nations. ImprovingIndonesia’s monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure transparency and public accessibility is critical, particularly in providing comprehensive indicators like land degradation by commodity, irrigation development across regions, and regional sources of food loss and waste. Enhanced data governance is also crucial, as discrepancies and conflicting information currently hinder accurate analyses.

While numbers provide a universal language due to their objectivity, they should be approached critically when evaluating the dynamic and non-linear nature of food systems.

The FSI serves as a surface-level diagnostic tool, offering a snapshot of food sustainability relative to other countries. Still, generalized indicators often overlook local contexts and fail to account for impacts beyond administrative boundaries, such as with land degradation. Instead of claiming high scores at face value, it is essential to examine the areas that need improvement for true food sustainability.

References:

1. Crippa, M. et al. (2021) ‘Food Systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions’, Nature Food, 2(3), pp. 198–209. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9. 

2. Fact sheets - malnutrition (2024) World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malnutrition?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwxsm3BhDrARIsAMtVz6N3ilT5uMsgrqGNuGWnH0dpqHjxQp9H1Z0qh1OlByE6CmQ8kQ09Q-gaAm52EALw_wcB# (Accessed: 25 September 2024). 

3. Food sustainability index (no date) The Economist. Available at: https://impact.economist.com/projects/foodsustainability/ (Accessed: 25 September 2024). 

4. Economist Impact (2021) Food Sustainability Index 2021: Methodology Paper, Economist Impact. Available at: https://impact.economist.com/projects/foodsustainability/files/FSI_2021_Methodology_Paper.pdf (Accessed: 24 September 2024). 

5. The Economist (2017) Food sustainability index methodology. Available at: https://foodsustainability-cms.eiu.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/2017/12/BCFN_EIU_FSI_methodology_final.pdf (Accessed: 24 September 2024). 

6. Agovino, M., Cerciello, M. and Gatto, A. (2018) ‘Policy efficiency in the field of food sustainability. The Adjusted Food Agriculture and Nutrition Index’, Journal of Environmental Management, 218, pp. 220–233. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.058. 

7. OECD (2018) ‘Innovation, agricultural productivity and sustainability in Sweden’, OECD Food and Agricultural Reviews [Preprint]. doi:10.1787/9789264085268-en. 

8. Sweden (no date) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at: https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/sweden/en/ (Accessed: 25 September 2024). 

9. Holmesson, S. et al. (2021) ‘New Directions in global health: How Sweden can advance healthier populations’, International Journal of Health Policy and Management [Preprint]. doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2021.99. 

10. Kementerian Pertanian (2023) Statistik Pertanian Agricultural Statistics. Ragunan, Jakarta Selatan: Pusat Data dan Sistem Informasi Pertanian, Kementerian Pertanian. 

11. Jorio, L. (2024) How consumers in rich countries drive global deforestation, SWI swissinfo.ch. Available at: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/how-consumers-in-rich-countries-drive-world-deforestation/46691388 (Accessed: 25 September 2024). 

12. Alta, A., Auliya, R. and Fauzi, A.N. (2023) Policy Barriers to a Healthier Diet: The Case of Trade and Agriculture. Jakarta: Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS). 

13. Chini, C.M. et al. (2022) ‘A critical review on the accounting of energy in virtual water trade’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 379, p. 134558. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134558. 

14. Cisneros, E., Kis-Katos, K. and Nuryartono, N. (2021) ‘Palm oil and the politics of deforestation in Indonesia’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 108, p. 102453. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102453. 

15. Hirvonen, K. et al. (2020) ‘Affordability of the EAT–lancet reference diet: A global analysis’, The Lancet Global Health, 8(1). doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(19)30447-4. 

16. Eriyatno, E., Larasati, L., Herianto, A., Fatmaningrum, D., Bucatariu, C. & Galvez-Nogales, E. 2024. Food loss prevention and reduction analysis in Indonesia – A case study on chili, cabbage and shallot. Jakarta, FAO. doi:10.4060/cc8935e

17. Swastika, D. K. S., Priyanti, A., Hasibuan, A. M., Sahara, D., Arya, N. N., Malik, A., Ilham, N., Sayekti, A. L., Triastono, J., Asnawi, R., Sugandi, D., Hayati, N. Q., & Atman, A. (2024). Pursuing circular economics through the integrated crop-livestock systems: An integrative review on practices, strategies and challenges post Green Revolution in Indonesia. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 18, 101269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101269

18. FAO (2018) Sustainable Food Systems: Concept and framework, Food and Agriculture Organization. Available at: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b620989c-407b-4caf-a152-f790f55fec71/content (Accessed: 24 September 2024).