Quantitative Baseline
- Display score: 2/5
- Continuous score: 24.2
- 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 | 0.484 | 25.6 | FAO Food Balance Sheets (derived) | 2023 |
| Cereal import dependency | PRIMARY | 0.941 | 5.9 | FAO Food Balance Sheets | 2023 |
| Water stress | PRIMARY | 4.981 | 0.4 | WRI Aqueduct | 2023 |
| Fertilizer import dependency | SUPPLEMENTARY | 0.000 | 100.0 | FAOSTAT Fertilizers by Nutrient | 2023 |
Saudi Arabia’s food score is weak because the kingdom faces a structural ecological constraint, not just a trade-management problem. Water stress is near the worst end of the scale, caloric self-sufficiency is low, and cereal import dependence is extremely high. Those are not the ingredients of food sovereignty.
What Saudi Arabia does have is money, logistics, and state capacity. That matters a great deal in normal conditions and even in many stressed conditions. But the Five Factor framework is deliberately stricter than that. It asks whether a country can maintain core resilience if markets and finance become less cooperative. On that test, Saudi Arabia’s food position remains soft.
The cleanest way to read this factor is as an offset to energy dominance. The kingdom can generate enormous cash flow, but it still has to turn that financial power into imported calories and reliable supply chains. Food is therefore the main reminder that resource wealth does not erase physical dependency.
Back to Saudi Arabia