Quantitative Baseline
- Display score: 2/5
- Continuous score: 31.5
- Confidence: VERIFIED
- Data year: 2023
- Sources: FAO Food Balance Sheets, FAO Food Balance Sheets (derived), FAOSTAT Fertilizers by Nutrient, WRI Aqueduct
| Metric | Tier | Raw | Normalized | Source | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caloric self-sufficiency | DOMINANT | 0.520 | 28.0 | FAO Food Balance Sheets (derived) | 2023 |
| Cereal import dependency | PRIMARY | 0.737 | 26.3 | FAO Food Balance Sheets | 2023 |
| Water stress | PRIMARY | 2.381 | 52.4 | WRI Aqueduct | 2023 |
| Fertilizer import dependency | SUPPLEMENTARY | 0.793 | 20.7 | FAOSTAT Fertilizers by Nutrient | 2023 |
South Korea’s food score is low because the country manages food security through wealth, logistics, and state competence more than through domestic abundance. Caloric self-sufficiency is limited, cereal import dependence is high, and fertilizer dependence is also substantial. Those are the hallmarks of a food system that works well in open conditions but has less buffer under external stress.
This is not a claim that Korea is near food insecurity in the ordinary sense. It is a claim that food resilience is not a strategic strength in the same way technology is. Korea can purchase stability, but the system still depends on open shipping lanes, functioning import markets, and the same international financing and logistics architecture that supports its broader economy.
The result is a familiar Korean pattern: high capability, low material slack. Food is manageable, but it does not become an independent pillar of national resilience.
Back to South Korea