INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Thematic study on food insecurity and vulnerability in Nigeria

Oluyemisi Kuku-Shittu, Astrid Mathiassen, Amit Wadhwa,

Lucy Myles and Akeem Ajibola

NSSP Seminar Series, Feb 14, 2013

Introduction

A Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability

Analysis (CFSVA). Attempt to develop broad-based

national indicators on food security and vulnerability

of various segments of a population across regions.

Joint report with WFP

Data: Living Standards Measurement Study-

Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA).

• National bureau of statistics (NBS) and the World

Bank.

• Approx. 5000 respondents who are interviewed

every two years.

• This analysis relies on post-harvest data

Key Findings

Food insecurity and poverty are intricately linked

The poorest livelihoods are found in agriculture

Households that engage in agriculture and other

activities fare better than those in agriculture alone

The vulnerable and food insecure are mostly found

in rural areas and the North West and North East

regions of Nigeria

While most households in all regions and at all wealth levels purchase food, rural households and poorer households (by wealth and livelihood) also rely heavily on own food production.

Key Findings

Nigerians generally consume a starchy diet, but wealthier households are able to afford more nutrient rich foods (including animal based proteins) than poorer households.

Households protect vulnerable household members in terms of food allocations, although difficult tradeoffs may occur in poorer households.

Poor households engage in extreme coping

strategies to deal with food shortages

Dimensions of food security

Availability • Domestic production

• Commercial imports

• Reserves and food aid

Access • Household production

• Financial resources to

purchase food

• Food prices and

markets

• Existence of

formal/informal social

safety nets

Utilization • Care and feeding

practices

• Food preparation

• Intra-household

distribution

• Biological utilization of

food consumed

Food Security

Stability

What is food security?

“Food security exists when all people, at

all times, have physical, social, and

economic access to sufficient, safe and

nutritious food which meets their dietary

needs and food preferences for an active

and healthy life.”

– World Food Summit, 1996

Vulnerability

The probability of an acute decline in

access to food, or consumption, often in

reference to some critical value that

defines minimal values of human

wellbeing.

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS

Food Consumption Score

The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a composite score

based on dietary diversity, food frequency and the relative

nutritional importance of different food groups

The FCS serves as a proxy for current food security

The FCS is calculated by observing the frequency by which

households consume various food items over a seven day

recall period

Each food item is put into a category and the categories

are given a weight based on its relative nutritional value

The FCS was developed and extensively used by WFP in

food security assessments

Food Consumption Groups

Food consumption groups are created from the FCS based on

standard thresholds

A FCS of 21 is a minimum. A FCS below 21 assumes a household

does NOT to eat at least staple foods and vegetables on a daily

basis and is thus considered to have a poor diet.

A FCS between 21 and 35 reflects borderline food consumption. A

FCS of 35 assumes daily consumption of staple and vegetables

complemented by consumption of oil and pulses 4 days per week.

Food consumption group Standard threshold

Poor food consumption 0 – 21

Borderline food consumption 21.5 - 35

Acceptable food consumption >35.5

Wealth Index: A proxy indicator of household level wealth The wealth index is a composite index which attempts to measure

wealth without relying on income and expenditure data

The index is created by using a form of data reduction analysis called Principle Component Analysis (PCA)

A number of variables are used collectively to describe the wealth of a household. In Nigeria, 16 variables were used to construct the wealth index

After creating the index, the households are ranked and placed in quintiles to describe wealth groups within the population

Assets Households amenities

• TV

• Mobile phone

• Iron / sewing machine

• Refrigerator / stove

• Electricity generator

• Car

• Sofa / chairs / table

• Improved walls / roof / floor

• Improved drinking water

• Improved sanitation

• Electricity

• Cooking fuel

Distribution of households with unimproved amenities

19

29

32

36

42

44

48

69

85

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

roof

floor

cell phone

drinking water

toilet

electricity

outer wall

cooking fuel

refuse disposal

Livelihood groups

Due to the lack of proper income data we rely on time use data to assign household livelihood groups.

Household members reports time spent in income generating activities. Total time spent in each activity is added for all household members.

We assign the household to a livelihood group according to the proportion of time spent in the income generating activities.

Description of livelihood profiles

Livelihood group Definition

Subsistence farmer, fisherman or hunter only All time use in subsistence activities only

Mixed crop or cash crops only All time use in agricultural activities only

Mainly agriculture with other activities

More than 50 percent of time in agriculture, with other activities

Mainly industrial laborer

More than 50 percent of time use as an industry employee

Mainly small business (craftsman) Mainly self employed artisans and craftsmen

Mainly business/commerce

Mainly managing a business, involved in sales, and other larger commercial activities

Mainly livestock/poultry More than 50 percent of time use in animal husbandry

Mainly professionals

Salaried workers in public or private sector with professional qualifications.

Mainly service laborers

More than 50 percent of time use in provision of services that require no rigorous qualification

Agricultural & non agricultural mixed activities

Carries out a variety of livelihood activities in agriculture and other sectors

Non agricultural mixed activities

Carries out a variety of activities in the non-agricultural sector.

Distribution of total households in each livelihood group

3.8

15.2

13.3

7.7

5.0

21.4

1.6

11.3 12.3

4.3 4.0

0

5

10

15

20

25Perc

ent

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

DEMOGRAPHICS

Household characteristics

Household head (%) Basic literacy(%)

male household head spouse

Zone

North central 89 56 33

North east 97 50 29

North West 98 62 45

South East 71 61 68

South South 77 72 75

South West 79 73 73

Sector

Urban 82 78 72

Rural 86 55 42

On average about half of the household members are dependents (children or elderly)

9

11

26

46

8

8

10

23

52

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

< 3 years

3-5 years

6-14 years

15-59 years

60+ years

female

male

Health: Breastfeeding and supplementation.

Percentage of children exclusively breast fed for first six months

Percentage of children given vitamin A supplementation

Wealth quintile

Poorest 11 37

Poorer 11 38

Moderate 15 56

Wealthier 14 64

Wealthiest 21 74

Health: Access to unimproved amenities by geographic region

50

48

39

34

24

27

20

45

70

50

34

33

39

36

26

52

96

96

93

87

87

65

67

97

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

North central

North east

North west

South east

South south

South west

Urban

RuralRegio

nZone

refuse disposal

toilet

drinking water

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOOD SECURITY AND VULNERABILITY INDICATORS

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

WHICH GROUPS ARE MOST VULNERABLE?

Geographic distribution of wealth

25.5

36.2

38.2

8.9

6.4

9.4

31.5

25.6

30.4

30.5

16.3

13.4

9.8

7.7

28.1

21.1

17.8

18.4

26.4

21.0

17.4

20.4

19.8

19.1

10.9

9.2

25.4

27.7

25.5

30.1

13.3

8.7

23.1

31.5

37.9

39.4

7.2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

North Central

North East

North West

South East

South South

South West

Urban

Rural

Re

gio

nSe

cto

r

poorest poorer moderate wealthier wealthiest

Poorest livelihood groups by sector

2

8

10

98

92

90

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Mainly livestock production

Subsistence farmer, fisher, hunter

Mixed crop or cash crops farmer

urban

rural

Vulnerability: High food expenditures

48%

27%

62%

50%

64%

73%

39% 41%

29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Na

tio

nal

Urb

an

Ru

ral

No

rth

Cen

tral

No

rth

Eas

t

No

rth

Wes

t

So

uth

Eas

t

So

uth

So

uth

So

uth

Wes

t

Sector Zone

Food expenditure share >75% by region

Vulnerability: High Food expenditures by livelihood group

71 66

61

40 41

36

78

29 34

54

19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Food Sources by geographic area

58

59

66

67

70

72

73

62

14

11

16

14

13

19

20

12

26

28

18

17

14

5

4

24

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

North central

North east

North west

South east

South south

South west

Urban

Rural

Regio

nSect

or

Purchased

Away from home

Own production

Food sources by wealth quintile

• Poorer households rely more on own production, but purchased food is the most important category for in all wealth groups

56

62

67

72

75

10

12

15

18

20

31

24

15

8

4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Poorest

Poorer

Moderate

Wealthier

Wealthiest

Purchased

Away from home

Own production

Food sources by livelihood group

50

59

61

69

70

71

55

70

72

61

76

10

8

10

20

20

17

8

18

20

12

20

37

30

26

10

8

9

36

9

7

24

3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Subsistence farmer, fisher, hunter

Mixed crop or cash crops farmer

Mainly agriculture with other activities

Mainly industrial laborer

Mainly self-employed artisans

Mainly business/commerce

Mainly livestock production

Mainly professional

Mainly service laborer

Mixed activities

Non-agricultural mixed activities

Purchased

Away from home

Own production

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOOD CONSUMPTION AND FOOD DEFICIT COPING STRATEGIES

Mean number of days per week food item is consumed at home

6.5

6.5

6.7

6.7

6.1

6.7

6.3

6.4

6.6

2.9

3.0

3.8

2.9

2.3

2.8

2.9

3.1

2.9

4.9

5.1

5.4

5.5

4.1

4.9

4.5

4.9

5.0

3.7

3.9

3.1

2.3

3.8

5.0

4.2

4.3

3.4

2.5

2.6

3.8

3.4

2.5

2.4

5.4

5.7

5.5

5.9

4.9

5.7

4.8

5.3

5.4

0 10 20 30

National

North Central

North East

North West

South East

South South

South West

Urban

RuralR

egi

on

Sect

or

cereals and tubers

pulses

vegetables

fruit

meat and fish

milk

sugar

oil

Days

Frequency food item is consumed by wealth quintile-starches

11

12

13

16

19

88

86

85

82

80

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Poorest

Poorer

Moderate

Wealthier

Wealthiest

rarely (0-2 times per week) sometimes (3-5 times per week) frequently (6-7 times per week)

Frequency food item is consumed by wealth quintile- animal proteins

37

25

15

12

8

27

29

27

19

20

36

46

59

69

72

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Poorest

Poorer

Moderate

Wealthier

Wealthiest

rarely (0-2 times per week) sometimes (3-5 times per week) frequently (6-7 times per week)

Food consumption categories by wealth quintile

9

5

5

4

2

20

15

12

14

13

71

80

82

82

85

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Poorest

Poorer

Moderate

Wealthier

Wealthiest

Wealth q

uin

tile

Poor

Borderline

Acceptable

Intrahousehold food allocations: Household members with least diverse diet

Men Women Children

Poorest

47 26 27

Poorer

43 21 36

Moderate

69 18 13

Wealthier

72 17 11

Wealthiest

79 12 8

Causes of food shortages

6

2

5

5

4

16

21

36

3

7

10

14

16

8

5

29

0 10 20 30 40

Civil unrest/riots

Crop pest damage

Drought

Small land size

Lack of farm inputs

Other reasons

Financial hardship

High food prices

Rural

Urban

Most frequent coping strategies for dealing with food shortages

• Poorer households use more severe coping strategies

0 2 4 6 8 10

Poorest

Poorer

Moderate

Wealthier

Wealthiest

Go a whole day and night without

eating anything

Go to sleep at night hungry because

there is not enough food

Have no food of any kind in your

household

Borrow food, or rely on help from a

friend or relative

Recommendations

Better funding for data collection efforts

Culturally appropriate interventions to bridge gender gap

in education

Targeted food support for low income breastfeeding

women

Local and State government need to do better in

providing water and sanitation amenities

Improved access to animal proteins

Maximum support for ATA to increase opportunities and

incomes for poor rural farmers.

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

THANK YOU