Table Of ContentBIOSCIENCES BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH ASIA, September 2015. Vol. 12(Spl. Edn. 2), p. 773-781
Food Security Modelling
Evgeny A. Kuzmin
Chair Corporate Economics, Institute of Economics, Ural State University of Economics,
Str. 8-Marta, 62, Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russian Federation.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bbra/2095
(Received: 15 June 2015; accepted: 29 August 2015)
A focus of the paper is a problem of “observability” regarding food security.
Known scientific approaches to identification of a similar condition have not provided
us with a grounded solution to refer to actual borders of security (or standards of mutual
penetration). Their absence makes methodological capacities of modelling essentially
disturbed. It is levelling of these contradictions that is an aim of this research. The
authors put forward and give a scientific rationale for a hypothesis for fragmentary food
security, an essence of which is come down to a research on certain agricultural commodity
groups. In a critical review, features of security are specified. A theoretical development
of authors’ provisions have resulted in formalization of a number of models built in
terms of the dependence factor or inherent openness of the food system. These and other
features have made it possible to offer a distinctive technique for an analytical
interpretation of findings, including an assessment of risk for lost security condition in
a food aspect of the issue.
Key words: food security, agriculture, security modelling.
Relevance of a research on food security The mentioned and other causes made it
is difficult to be overestimated. The food issue is possible to accept as a dominant paradigm an idea
undoubtedly one of priority issues in life that food security is a condition, in which domestic
necessities of the population. Researchers have needs must be covered to the maximum extent with
made different emphases when refer to relevance own resources (Gusakov et al, 2008). However, this
of the problem, but they all share an idea that there is not exactly the case. It would be a mistake to
is a principal need to balance a demand and a assume that with internalisation of markets,
supply. Determining factors here include the food security is only limited to food production. Cross-
shortage, trends of a decline in export, a rise of dependences in a supply of non-food products
prices for agricultural products and an increase in have begun to play a special part. Pinstrup-
production costs, a declining paying capacity of Andersen (2009) says that “food security is an
customers and a growth of the total population. important concept, if used with a clear
Available macro-regional imbalances draw understanding of a meaning of [internal and
attention to an important objective of the best external – authors’ note] of interactions and the
possible redistribution of agricultural resources. essence of interaction with non-food factors”. At
the same time, an interpretation of food security is
ambiguous and not conventionally established in
its scientific understanding. They are informative
* To whom all correspondence should be addressed. components of security that represent availability
of concepts and models distinctive in their way. It
774 KUZMIN, Biosci., Biotech. Res. Asia, Vol. 12(Spl. Edn. 2), 773-781 (2015)
is clear that without revised security criteria and sustainability degree of the subsistence support
indicators, as well as characteristics of such a system; a level of national food self-sufficiency
condition, a further investigation will be particularly (by a share of imported food resources), etc. All of
difficult. More for pluralism of opinions see the them summarize an impact of advantages from those
literature review. factors that describe the current consumption.
Literature review However, food security is not only a result of
Fundamental nature of food security actions caused by those conditions, but also by
Food security refers to and belongs to non-food factors. This conclusion has already
various organizational levels. Many researchers found its detailed arguments. Therefore, a set of
mostly successfully explained all of them in their indicators should be expanded. Mainly at the
papers. There is a prevailing idea that the concept expense of parameters that define a degree of
of “food security” appeared for the first time in a dependence by both imported non-food supply
scientific use in the mid-1970-ies and is associated and export-prevalence of these commodities in a
with the World Conference on Food. It was there consumption structure. At the same time, it is
where it was clearly formalised that food security possible that there are more important regularities,
is an uninterrupted availability of sufficient world which should be seen as supreme.
stocks of vital foods to maintain a steady growth Models and concepts
in food consumption and fluctuation maturity Returning to an issue of food security
concerning production levels and prices modelling, we need to refer to some concepts and
(Report..., 1975). approaches significant for purposes of the
Aspects in research on food insecurity research. Uncertainty against definitions of food
are multiple and diverse. Among them, we may refer security leads to almost the same uncertainty to
to Coates, Webb & Houser (2003) saying of a establish reference poitsions for models. In due
measurable evaluation of security. Lawrence, Lyons time, Glazyev, Chekavinsky & Selimenkov (2014),
& Wellington (2013), Panda (2009) refer to an Sapkina (2012), Ivanova & Glukhova (2012), Panda
influence of globalization and liberalization in trade (2009), Coates, Webb & Houser (2003), Holden,
relationship. Thomson & Metz (1999), Pollard Bekele, Shiferaw & Pender (2005), Halliru (2013)
(2012) refer to regulation of influence and many others referred to this subject. Among
consequences. Ilyina (2003) refers to security the models, there are also those that have been
understood with a secured food supply. Kochanov proposed by field-specific organizations. They may
(1998) says of minimum standards of sensible include the model offered by IMPACT institute,
nutrition, which are only maintained. the model offered by AsiaFish (in an analysis in
Anfinogentova (2004) refer to an achieved state of the fish industry), the model by UNICEF, the model
security “in development of the world food market by AGLINK-COSIMO, the model by USDA-ERS.
with elimination of trade barriers and formation of A list of models is extensive and has regular
such a level of market prices, which represents updates. This research is not an exception and
comparative advantages of countries”, etc. makes its contribution into a search for a solution
The starting point to formalize modelling to this issue. In further development of the authors’
of food security is a research on factors and criteria approach, we will explain in more details the content
able to influence a change to a level of security and principles, according to which some of the
and determine its presence in volatile dynamics of mentioned models were designed.
indicators. Depending on an organizational level, A. Model for Policy Analysis of
a range of indicators included in various models Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT)
may be unique. However, one may trace some (2002) in its statements is very close to the authors’
similar approaches to determination of dependent view. Thus, it assumes that subsystems of the
parameters. By convention, they include the global food market are linked with trade and
following indicators (FAO (2013), Ilyina (2003), specialization. The demand within the model
Altukhov (2008)): a degree of met physiological depends on an influence of incomes and a
needs in nutrition; a level of physical availability population growth, while in its turn an increase in
of foods; a size of buffer food stocks; a production depends on prices for crops and
KUZMIN, Biosci., Biotech. Res. Asia, Vol. 12(Spl. Edn. 2), 773-781 (2015) 775
productivity growth rates. In general, the model consistency of these models is highly questionable
allows us to “minimize a sum of the net trade” at as it is extremely difficult to present “security” as
the global market and at the same time seeks to a generalized indicator. We have convincingly
establish equilibrium prices. It is worth mentioning proved that in a field of foods, it will be much fair
that productivity of a decline in the net trade with to talk of fragmentary security, that is, security for
foreign markets is ambiguous. a particular commodity group, rather than present
B. The USDA’s Economic Research a non-consistent provision as an average value
Service proposed the model USDA-ERS “to design that makes it possible to identify a particular
food consumption, an access to it and inherent qualitative state in a reliable way.
challenges with foods for 67 countries with low Methods and solutions
income” (2002). The model evaluates food security Model of fragmentary food security
based on a gap between the forecasted domestic A scientific issue of security modelling is
consumption (including net exports) and the explained in giving grounds for ultimate values of
required consumption based on rational standards. mutual penetration into food markets of countries
Thus, there is an essential assumption that the that in terms of trade are independent. Based on
security state is only limited to available foods; this, we are inclined to believe that food security
moreover, a source of foods becomes unimportant. must be designed in terms of abilities of the
According to the model, it is clear that the foreign domestic market (production) to make physical
trade turnover is a key determinant that defines delivery of agricultural resources and products (or
abilities of import and export of foods. From its further referred to as the agricultural commodity
origin, the model assumes that countries are unable groups), initially excluding the price factor (!), that
to cover domestic needs at the expense of their is in kind instead of cost estimates. The main
domestic production, so their focus is import. A hypothesis of the authors’ model is that
significant volume of imported supply of foods fragmentary food security is described with such
means that world prices have been in total a level of domestic production in certain agricultural
introduced to the domestic national market. An commodity groups (a level of substitution for
exogenous nature of global prices under the model domestic consumption), at which together with
allows us to make forecasts for the consumption stocks of production, a value of the net export
of other commodities with a simple analysis of capacity is a value of the acceptable import volume
growth trends in a supply of food crops. of relevant agricultural commodity groups. At the
C. It is much easier compared to the same time, the national consumption in the context
approach by IMPACT to design the model of denied openness of markets may be met at the
proposed by Pollard (2012). Its incoming physical expense of domestic production and involved
parameters include available resources, financial production stocks (Note 1).
support, skills and knowledge. At the same time, As we have mentioned earlier, the
factors that provide security are a cost of foods, principal matter here is a search for criterion levels.
their diversity, as well as their accessibility, At the same time, a review of literature has shown
regularity of supply and their quality. The model is that publications mostly do not include reasonable
essentially verbal and does not imply any estimates for barrier values of indicators, which
estimations. describe security in general terms. To solve this
Others. A number of researchers have guiding shortcoming, we have put forward a
focused on a design of food security integration technique to find ultimate levels of mutual
models. This is inefficient, to our mind. So, Pankova penetration into food markets of various countries
(2013) with purposes of an analysis offers to use (territorial entities) in terms of free turnover of
“a factor of national food security”, calculated as agricultural resources and goods.
a multi-dimensional vector of factors with A basic parameter in the technique is a
quantitative and qualitative evaluations (mostly usage level of production capacity. It shows how
expert). This approach does not obviously hold large the stocks are to build-up an input of
water. Another example of the built integrated agricultural resources, and at the same time build-
model is Grishakina & Zaretskaya (2013). Academic up capacities to meet food needs. All this allows
776 KUZMIN, Biosci., Biotech. Res. Asia, Vol. 12(Spl. Edn. 2), 773-781 (2015)
us to estimate a size of the net food export potential: of calculations is the calculation, where there are
no restrictions regarding changes to basic
Pd
NEPi= L i×100−[Cdi+Uii+Sci] ...(1) indicators. With regard to the relative potential of
pd
fragmentary food security, the applied similar idea
where NEP – net food export potential of
i will be unjustified as the potential is to show a
the i-th commodity in kind; Pd – domestic
i difference between the current condition and the
production of the i-th agricultural commodity in
perfect one. Then, the absolute potential is
kind; Lpd – usage level of annual average (torque) expressed under two conditions:
production capacity in %; Cd – final consumption
i ⎪⎧NEP≥[Cd +Ui +Sc]:APes =NEP−Ui −Cd −Sc,
of the i-th agricultural commodity in kind, including ⎨ i i i i i i i i i
losses in kind; Ui– interim usage for production ⎪⎩NEPi <[Cdi+Uii+Sci]:APies =NEPi−EPi.
i
purposes in kind; Sc – changes to stocks of the i- ...(3)
i
th agricultural commodity in kind. where APes – absolute potential of
i
The value of net food export potential fragmentary food security, or in other words, an
(NEP) may be either positive or negative. In cases acceptable quantitative change to the imported
where the NEP takes positive values, a local food agricultural commodities (with “>0” - a growth of
market have all the opportunities to export import, with “<0” - a decline in import); EP – import
i
agricultural commodities; in case of negative
of the i-th agricultural commodity in kind.
values, on the contrary, a need in import is a forced
As part of an assessment of the relative
necessity to meet in full the domestic demand. In
potential, one needs to pay attention to the fact
this way, we outline an important role of NEP to
that his/her calculations do not take into account
find ultimate capabilities of the market.
a scope of the dynamics for values of the barrier
To find the criterion level of substitution
level of substitution defined within the boundaries
of import for domestic production of agricultural
[0, 1]. It seems that relative potential value show a
resources and foods, we need to correlate an
barrier share of import, with which the situation
obtained value of NEP and a value of domestic
with security in general is maintained (or, at least,
consumption, including changes to stocks and the
not disturbed).
intermediate and final use, including losses. In a
RPes =BLimp −CPimp, ...(4)
variative change to NEP, the system of equations i i i
may look like follows: where RPes– relative potential of
i
fragmentary food security of the i-th agricultural
⎧NEP ≤0:BLimp =0,
⎪ i i commodity.
⎪ NEP
⎨0<NEP <[Cd +Ui +Sc]:BLimp = i , A development of the approach regarding
i i i i i Cd +Ui +Sc
⎪ i i i derivative analytic indicators for the model allows
⎪⎩NEPi ≥[Cdi+Uii+Sci]:BLiimp =1. us to proceed with an evaluation of the riskiness
of (risk) for the system’s going beyond the security
...(2)
state in terms of food security, which is an integral
where BLimp – barrier level of substitution
i part of the holistic methodology.
of imports for domestic production of agricultural
Riskiness assessment of going beyond a state of
resources and foods.
security
Derivative analytical indicators for the model
Riskiness as a universal characteristic
Besides basic parameters by formula (1)
reflects a probability that specified events will
and (2), it is possible to calculate derivative
occur. Parameters resulted from the model as a pure
analysis indicators that represent an absolute and
export potential, the barrier and the current level of
relative potential of fragmentary food security.
substitution of import for domestic production are
The absolute potential is associated with
in full unable to answer a question of a magnitude
the substitution barrier level (BL). On the one hand,
of the risk inherent to this or that actual value of
an assessment of the absolute potential aims to
these parameters. They only give a general idea of
find a value of a possible and acceptable change
trends in development of food markets, from which
to import. In this case, the only acceptable option
one may make a reasoned judgment on some areas
KUZMIN, Biosci., Biotech. Res. Asia, Vol. 12(Spl. Edn. 2), 773-781 (2015) 777
of threats. However, it is impossible to have a clear Model of interdependent fragmentary food
idea of a prospective scale of their influence. security
To solve a task of the riskiness In terms of a free turnover of agricultural
assessment, one should adhere to a number of resources (including all agricultural commodity
provisions. First, a crucial role in an indicative groups), fragmentary food security acts as a
definition of security belongs to a barrier level of balancer between “rationalities” to establish an
substitution of imports for domestic production of equilibrium in the common market. Assuming that
agricultural resources and foods. Second, the the food market is not homogeneous and subject
riskiness depends on proximity of the current to control by various actors, we can conclude that
(actual) and barrier levels of substitution of import a logic of one actor to achieve the equilibrium will
for domestic production. At the same time, the also differ from a logic of the others; sometimes
barrier level varies dynamically over time. Thus, dramatically. Herein, there is a crucial conclusion
the riskiness is not constant and torque. that rationality is not strictly defined and varies
Consolidation of these provisions allows us to depending on an extent of coverage. In other
proceed with a technique of calculation. In our words, the agro-industrial system of any territorial
view, the riskiness assessment should be based unit (region) has its own behaviour rationality, and
on the Laplace distribution function. Mathematical this behaviour may differ from the rationality of a
formalization involves consideration of such system at a higher organizational level.
values, as the lower limit and the upper limit of an Such assumption results in a tutorial
acceptable range of benchmark fluctuations (i.e. a incompleteness of the fragmentary food security
search for borders for the security standard), a model, which needs supplements. We believe that
figure of its average value for a period and its the model will be more complete in terms of an
standard deviation. effect of mutual penetration using the elimination
technique. Then separated evaluations of security
⎡ BLimp−f(CPimp) a−f(CPimp) ⎤
R(a<CPiimp<BLiimp)=1−⎢⎣L( iδ(CPiimp)i )−L( δ(CPiimip) )⎥⎦ aag=a0inst individual food markets will act as an
element of comparison with evaluations in general.
L(z)= 1 ∫ze−t22dt . At the same time, an impact or a contribution of a
2π
0 subsystem in consideration is excluded. As a result,
...(5)
for actors, there will be an essential a gap between
where R(a< f1<BLiimp) – risk value with values of current and barrier levels of substitution
regard to non-achieved target levels of
of imports for domestic production both “within
fragmentary food security by the i-th agricultural
the system”, i.e. in an idea of separate security,
good; L(z) – Laplace’s function; a – initial barrier and “beyond the system”, with a combined
level for substitution of imports for domestic account of all actors’ security, excluding an actor
production equal or closer to zero ( or under consideration. Having specified principal
a→−0); f(CPimp) – average value for index for a distinctions of the authors’ approach, we may
i proceed with its formalization.
period under review; δ(CPimp) – mean square
i Firstly, it is worth referring to a chart,
deviation for index for a period under review.
following which we put forward a hypothesis for
It should be emphasized again that the
applicability of the elimination technique in a
barrier level of substitution for each period
comparative analysis of food security for various
changes, therefore, a calculation of the risk should
actors within a single system – in the common
be only made with a successive replacement of the
market (see Figure 1).
barrier level and a record of an obtained value for
Note: CPimp – current level of substitution
this stage of calculations. A quality and accuracy j−i
of imports for domestic production for j-actor by i-
of risk estimates also depend on compehensive
th agricultural commodity; BLimp – barrier level of
perspective of a research. In cases where a j−i
substitution of imports for domestic production
reporting period is short, statistics of the current
level of substitution will be incomplete, while the for j-actor by i-th agricultural commodity; CPni−mip –
current level of substitution of imports for domestic
accuracy of estimates will be risky low.
778 KUZMIN, Biosci., Biotech. Res. Asia, Vol. 12(Spl. Edn. 2), 773-781 (2015)
production for n-actor in the external environment where L – usage level of annual
pd0−i
by i-th agricultural commodity; BLimp – barrier level average production capacity for “the others in
n−i
of substitution of imports for domestic production general”; Pd – domestic production of the i-th
ji
for n-actor in the external environment by i-th agricultural commodity in kind by j-actor; L –
pdji
agricultural commodity; CPimp– current level of usage level of annual average production capacity
0−i
substitution of imports for domestic production of of the i-th agricultural commodity by j-actor.
n actors in the external environment in general by Third, we define the current level of
i-th agricultural commodity; BLimp – barrier level of substitution of imports for domestic production
0−i
substitution of imports for domestic production for the system in time of elimination, i.e. “for the
for n actors in the external environment in general others in general”. Findings will thus represent
by i-th agricultural commodity. different capacities of actors in meeting food needs
Figure 1 includes a conceptual chart of on their own. To our mind, it is possible to make a
interaction between various actors (subsystems) hypothetical assumption that the system as a group
by one agricultural commodity group. Taking into of actors (territorial entities) is open and not closed.
account that each actor has its own characteristics Thus, the current level of substitution for “the
for the current and barrier levels of substitutions, others in general” may be presented as follows:
there is a guidance challenge to identify a
n
∑[CPimp×(Cd +Ui +Sc )]−CPimp×(Cd +Ui +Sc )
contribution of a single actor in aggregate food ji ji ji ji ji ji ji ji
CPimp= j=1 ,
security. To solve the task, we assume them that 0−i n
∑[Cd +Ui +Sc ]−(Cd +Ui +Sc )
ji ji ji ji ji ji
security of a group depends on security of each j=1
actor. That is why we use the elimination technique ...(7)
(similar to the factor analysis), which makes it where CPimp – current level of substitution
0−i
possible to determine a degree of actors’ of imports for domestic production of agricultural
participation to overcome supply-demand resources and foods for the system in time of
imbalances for agricultural resources and foods. elimination against j-actor; Cd – final consumption
ji
The key question here is the question of dominance of the the i-th of the agricultural commodity group
of one actor against the others. in kind, including losses against j-actor; Ui – for
ji
Secondly, one should estimate a usage production purposes, the intermediate use of the
level of the annual average production capacity, i-th of the agricultural commodity group in kind by
which is calculated as a weighted average value
j-actor; Sc – changes to stocks of the i-th of the
relative to domestic production. For this, a number ji
agricultural commodity group in kind by j-actor.
of transformations is necessary based on the
Finally, fourth, a final stage in modelling
previously presented guidance apparatus.
of interdependent fragmentary food security is a
n calculation of the barrier level of substitution for a
∑[Pd ×L ]−Pd ×L
ji pdji ji pdji set of actors, excluding an actor, against which a
L = j=1 ,
pd0−i n ...(6) comparison is made. In the calculation of the barrier
∑[Pd ]−Pd
ji ji
j=1
Fig. 1. Chart of relative interaction between actors in evaluations of current and barrier substitution levels
KUZMIN, Biosci., Biotech. Res. Asia, Vol. 12(Spl. Edn. 2), 773-781 (2015) 779
level in time of elimination, a value of annual of differences in calculation methods. The logic of
average production capacity is used by formula “reduction” is explained with a chart in Figure 2.
(6), as well as other parameters similar to the barrier Note: RPes – reference potential of
j−i
level by (1) and (2) to evaluate fragmentary security.
fragmentary food security for the i-th commodity
∑n[Pdji]−Pdji ⎡n ⎤ group in the agriculture against j-actor; RP0e−si –
BLi0m−pi= j=1 Lpd0−i n ×100−⎢⎣∑j=1[Cdji+Uiji+Scji]−(Cdji+Uiji+Scji)⎥⎦, rfoefre trheen ic-eth p cootmenmtioald iotyf fgrraogump einn ttahrey a fgoroicdu lsteucruer fiotyr
∑[Cd +Ui +Sc ]−(Cd +Ui +Sc )
j=1 ji ji ji ji ji ji n actors (subsystems) of the external environment.
...(8) From Figure 2, it is clear that an analysis
where BLimp – barrier level of substitution consists of a few units. The first one (A unit) deals
0−i
with elimination of food insecurity, while the
of imports for domestic production of agricultural
second one (B unit) points out to a need in an
resources and foods for the system in case of
alignment of proportions between the values
elimination regarding j-actor.
obtained, but with evaluations of their relative
Based on findings from levels of
potential. From there we assume that a change to
substitution of imports for domestic production in
the barrier and the current levels of substitution
both a separate and interdependent (in case of
depends on linear distribution; a proportional
elimination) form, it becomes possible to make a
increase (or decrease) in one of them will result in
comparative analysis and find a degree of actors’
a proportional increase (or decrease) in the other.
mutual penetration into food markets.
Otherwise, an analytical comparison is meaningless.
As a result, a written calculation of reduction
DISCUSSION
factors will look like:
Within the authors’ view of food security CPimp 1 CPimp
modelling, the mutual penetration (or combination) kα0 =CPji−mip and kαj = k0 =CP0i−mip , ...(9)
of subsystems is not worth to be explored in a 0−i α j−i
pairwise comparison. Instead, in a ratio of
BLimp 1 BLimp
proportions of the main indicator, which as such kβ0 = BLijm−pi and kβj = k0 = BLi0m−pi .
says of available or non-available state of security. 0−i β j−i
In this case, the matter is the level of substitution where k0 – reduction factor for the current
α
(CP and BP). In a further development of the
level of substitution in baseline comparison with
methodology for the approach, the ratio of
“the others in general”; kj – reduction factor for
proportions will be found with defined “reduced” α
the current level of substitution in baseline
values of the current and barrier levels of
substitution; in this regard, special factors comparison with j-actor; kβ0 – reduction factor for
(coefficients) will be introduced. These coefficients the barrier level of substitution in baseline
refer to adjustments to levels, as for the actor comparison with “the others in general”; kj –
β
(subsystem) and the system as such they will be
reduction factor for the barrier level of substitution
placed at some distance from each other because
in baseline comparison with j-actor.
Depending on what is taken as a
conditional standard of food security state, there
may be used either coefficients of reduction in
baseline comparison with “the others in general”,
or j-actor (subsystem). In the both cases, there will
not appear any controversies in an interpretation
of findings.
The authors’ approach implies that
mutual penetration or involvement with ratio of
proportions is estimated from a comparison of
Fig. 2. Units in analysis of food security state
780 KUZMIN, Biosci., Biotech. Res. Asia, Vol. 12(Spl. Edn. 2), 773-781 (2015)
current values of the level of substitution of CONCLUSION
imports for domestic production (using CPimp and
0−i A shift from an autarky paradigm to a
CPimp). The resulting value gap points to a
j−i cp paradigm of open markets has emphasized
difference between current levels of substitution,
importance of research on ways to maintain food
supposing the barrier level values were identical.
security to preserve incentives and favourable
From this perspective, it becomes possible to
conditions for development. Our research has
identify those actors (subsystems), for which
demonstrated that food security modelling is in
involvement in the common food market is the
line with a search for boundary (barrier) values for
highest or the lowest, showing at the same time a
a number of basic parameters, including firstly a
kind of a subordination degree. The gap-
level of substitution when imported resources are
comparison of values is made with “reduction”:
a substitution for domestic agricultural production.
An important aspect of security is its fragmentary
nature. In other words, food security may be only
CPimp =CPimp×k0, ...(10)
0−i 0−i β referred to specific commodity groups in the
agriculture. This has ultimately led to a need in
gap =CPimp−CPimp or
cp j−i 0−i decomposition for an analysis of security state
gap =CPimp−CPimp×k0, when, on the one hand, we explore the isolated
cp j−i 0−i β
subsystem, while, on the other, hand we explore
where – comparative value of the current
its participation and involvement in the common
level regarding the substitution of imports for
food market.
domestic production in baseline comparison with
In summary, the mentioned authors’
j-actor.
approach to modelling makes it possible to take
Similarly, using formula (10), we may make
another view of the issue of identification for the
reduction regarding the barrier value of the
security state and give a rationale for a criterion of
substitution level when j-actor is taken as a
“normal” mutual penetration into food markets.
comparative base:
Theoretical and methodological supplements that
cover a range of issues regarding the riskiness
BLimp =BLimp×k0, assessment and other aspects of the mentioned
0−i 0−i α
issue have allowed to have a comprehensive
gapbl =BLijm−pi −BLi0m−pi or gapbl =BLijm−pi−BLi0m−pi×kα0, approach to solve the problem of observability for
...(11) the security state and identify specifics of its
dynamic measurement. We believe that in the
where BLimp– comparative value for the
0−i future, these methods will help to build a balanced
barrier level of substitution of import for domestic
strategy to respond to threats in development of
production in baseline comparison with j-actor.
the agro-industrial complex.
A comparison of barrier values using
reduction factors plays an important role to identify
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
the characteristics and specifics of food systems,
when a difference between development potentials
The Russian Scientific Foundation (RSF)
influences differences in acceptable fluctuations
supported this research, project No. 14-18-00574
for a substitution of imported products for
“The Information and Analytical System Anti-
domestic production. The barrier level integrates
Crisis: Region Diagnosis, Threat Assessment and
those conditions and factors that put the framework
Scenario Forecasting to Preserve and Strengthen
for food security. From there, we may quite
Economic Security and Raise Welfare in Russia”.
reasonably conclude that the barrier level of
substitution is an indicator of the subsystem’s
Notes
(independent food market) ability to withstand
Note 1. The provision on fragmentary
challenges and threats of mutual penetration and
security includes an assumption that an available
subordination.
production stock may be immediately engaged
KUZMIN, Biosci., Biotech. Res. Asia, Vol. 12(Spl. Edn. 2), 773-781 (2015) 781
when there is a need in meeting an available security in Russia. Scientific bases to develop
shortage of food and agricultural resources and implement regional programs of
(agricultural commodity groups). stabilization and development in the
agribusiness. Novosibirsk: SibNIIESKH: 251-
252 (1998).
REFERENCES
13. Lawrence, G., Lyons, K., Wellington, T. (Eds.).
Introduction: Food Security, Nutrition and
1. Altukhov, A.I. Country’s food security and its
Sustainability in a Globalized World. In Food
evaluation. Economics of Agricultural and
Security, Nutrition and Sustainability. Earthscan
Processing Enterprises, 5: 1-5 (2008).
(2013).
2. Anfinogentova, A.A. Food security in Russia:
14. On food security in Russia. Report made by
Problems and Prospects. Moscow: Institute of
expert group from the Izborsk club headed by
Agrarian Problems of RAS; Saratov University
RAS member S.Yu. Glazyev. Available at: http:/
Press: 7 ; (2004)
/www.dynacon.ru/content/articles/1725.
3. Chekavinsky, A.N. & Selimenkov, R.Yu.
15. Panda, M. Trade liberalization, poverty, and
Modelling regional food security. Economic and
food security in India. Intl Food Policy Res Inst
Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 4 (34):
(2009).
226-235 (2014).
16. Pankova, V. N. Ratio of national food security
4. Coates, J., Webb, P., & Houser, R. Measuring
as a basis to model international food flows.
Food Insecurity: Going Beyond Indicators of
Economic Bulletin of the SFD, 8 (71): 45-54
Income and Anthropometry. Washington:
(2013).
FANTA (2003).
17. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. Food security: Definition
5. Food Insecurity in the World 2013. The multiple
and measurement. Food Security, 1: 5-7. http://
dimensions of food security. Rome: Food and
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-008-0002-y (2009).
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
18. Pollard, C. Selecting Interventions for Food
(FAO) (2013).
Security in Remote Indigenous Communities.
6. Grishakina, N.I., Zaretskaya, A.S. Integral
In Farmar-Bowers, Q., Higgins, V., Millar, J.
assessment of food security level for the
(Eds.). (2012). Food Security in Australia:
Novgorod Oblast. Bulletin of the Yaroslav the
Challenges and Prospects for the Future. Springer
Wise Novgorod State University, 1, 74: 20-26
Science & Business Media: 97-112. http://
(2013).
dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4484-8_7
7. Gusakov, V.G. et al. Food security: terms and
19. Report of the World Conference on Food, held
concepts: encycl. ref. Minsk, Belarusian Science,
in Rome on 5-16 November 1974. (1975). UN,
p. 6; (2008).
New York.
8. Halliru, S.L. Climate Change and Food Security
20. Rosegrant, M.W., Meijer, S., Cline, S.A. (2002).
in Kano Nigeria: A Model for Sustainable Food
International Model for Policy Analysis of
Production. In Behnassi, M., Pollmann, O.,
Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT):
Kissinger, G. Sustainable Food Security in the
Model description. Washington, DC:
Era of Local and Global Environmental Change.
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Springer Science & Business Media (2013).
Available at: www.ifpri.org/lhemes/impact/
9. Holden, S.T., Bekele, S., Shiferaw, B.A., &
impactmodel.pdf.
Pender, J. Policy Analysis for Sustainable Land
21. Sapkina, E.A. Mathematical model of macro
Management and Food Security in Ethiopia: A
dynamics at regional agricultural market in terms
Bio economic Model with Market
of food security factor. Mining Information and
Imperfections. Intl Food Policy Res Inst (2005).
Analytical Bulletin, Journal of Science and
10. Ilyina, Z.M. Food security: criteria and
Technology, 9: 325-328 (2012).
evaluation parameters. Proceedings of the
22. Thomson, A.M., Metz, M. Implications of
National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.
Economic Policy for Food Security: A Training
Agrarian Sciences Series, 1: 3-9; 6 (2003).
Manual. Food & Agriculture Org (1999).
11. Ivanova, I.A. & Glukhova, T.V. Analysis and
23. Umati-Deininger, D., Shapouri, S. Food
modelling of production-consumption ratio for
Security: Is India al Risk? (p. 49). In Lal, R.,
agricultural products. Modern Issues of Science
Hansen, D.O., Uphoff, N. (Eds.). Food Security
and Education, 6: 462; (2012).
and Environmental Quality in the Developing
12. Kochanov, M.A. Key directions to ensure food
World. CRC Press (2002).
