Economist Impact’s inaugural Resilient Food Systems Index (RFSI), supported by Cargill, benchmarks food system resilience across 60 countries using 71 indicators organized into four pillars: affordability, availability, quality and safety, and climate risk responsiveness.
The accompanying new report, Resilient Food Systems Index: Global Report (Economist Impact, 2026) delves deeper.
Portugal tops the rankings (76.83/100) as the most resilient country, with France and the UK close behind, while the Democratic Republic of Congo sits last at 34.86 — a 42-point gap that illustrates how unevenly resilience is distributed globally. Critically, no country scores 80 or above, meaning even the most advanced food systems remain meaningfully exposed. Climate risk responsiveness is the weakest pillar overall, averaging just 56.43, and political commitment to mitigation and adaptation scores a dismal 34.03 globally. The affordability pillar looks deceptively healthy at 71.83, but masks the fact that in 62% of countries, the cheapest nutritious diet consumes roughly two-thirds of the poorest households’ income.
Income Shock Vulnerability. In low and lower-middle-income countries, food constitutes a massive share of household spending. The report states that prices in these nations have risen by 23.09% over the past five years. Unlike wealthier nations that can absorb price spikes or subsidize costs, households in countries like the DRC or Nigeria have no buffer. When resilience fails (due to climate or trade shocks), prices skyrocket, pushing basic staples out of reach and directly causing acute hunger.
The “Unaffordable” Healthy Diet. The report introduces a critical metric: the cost of a healthy diet. In Sub-Saharan Africa, a healthy diet absorbs more than one-third of average income. For the worst-off countries, this figure is catastrophic. The report specifies that in 37 RFSI countries, the cheapest healthy diet costs about two-thirds of the average per capita income. This means that even when calories are available (staving off starvation), malnutrition persists because nutrient-dense foods (fruits, vegetables, protein) are financially inaccessible.
The worst-off countries score lowest on the “Climate Risk Responsiveness” pillar, which has a global average of just 56.43. Lack of Early Warning: These countries lack the mechanisms (early-warning systems, disaster reduction strategies) to anticipate shocks. When a drought or flood hits, it becomes a food availability crisis because there is no time to react. Pests and Pathogens: With weak pest management (only a third of RFSI countries score high here), biological risks like disease and infestations decimate local yields. In countries like Uganda or Kenya, this directly reduces the food available for subsistence and local markets, eroding the availability pillar of food security.
Just 15 countries produce 70% of global food, and 11 of them are also top exporters. Yet none of these “anchor” countries score above 80. Even the US, Brazil, China, and Australia—collectively producing 37.6% of global food—show weaknesses in climate risk, water stress, and infrastructure.
“The US… ranks 51st out of 60 countries on dietary diversity.”
Despite widespread market‑access support, farmers’ incomes are not rising. “Annual growth in producer prices remains weak (averaging just 42.05).” This suggests that productivity gains are not translating into livelihoods, especially for smallholders. Farmers in countries like the DRC or Ethiopia struggle to get goods to market due to high transport costs and poor connectivity. Without income from their harvest, they cannot afford to buy food during the lean season, leading to seasonal hunger. Financial Exclusion: Access to basic financial services scores just 51.53. Without savings or credit, a smallholder farmer in Tanzania or Rwanda cannot buy seeds or fertilizer after a bad harvest, perpetuating a cycle of low productivity and food insecurity.
While nearly all countries (97%) have policies for “agritech,” more than half under-invest in the cold-chain capacity needed to prevent food from spoiling before it reaches consumers.
Foundational Needs: Digital tools are useless without basic enablers. For example, rural internet access and basic financial services (like savings accounts) remain “binding constraints” for smallholder farmers.
The timing is pointed. The report lands as geopolitical fragmentation, climate volatility and inflationary pressures are simultaneously straining global supply chains. The report also arrives as countries are submitting updated Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement framework, making its finding that agriculture-specific climate targets are nearly absent particularly timely and actionable. It reframes the conversation usefully: the problem is not a lack of innovation or ambition, but a failure to scale what already works. That framing matters because it points toward tractable policy levers rather than distant technological fixes.
About the author: Economist Impact is a division of The Economist Group that combines evidence-based research with the creativity of a media brand to inform, engage, and catalyze action on global issues. It partners with NGOs, and governments, providing expertise in policy research, events, and data visualization, with a focus on sustainability, healthcare, and new globalization.
– S Hansch, WHES Board of Directors
