food security and safety nets niger wb

8/6/2019 Food Security and Safety Nets Niger WB

1/98

February 18, 2009

Document of the World Bank

Report No. 44072-NE

NigerFood Security and Safety Nets

Human Development, AFTH2Country Department AFCF2Africa Region


2/98


3/98

Q U I BBU E M O AUNICEFU N D PUSAIDFEWS NETW A E M UW FDW H O

Questionnaire sur les Indicateurs de Base e t de Bien-&treUnio n Economique et Mone'taire Ouest AfricaineUnitedNations Children's FundUnitedNations Development ProgramUnited States Agency f or International Developmen tUSAID-Famine Early Warning System Ne twor kWest Afr ican Economic and Monetary Un ionWo rld Food ProgramW or ld Health Organization

Vice President: Obiageli Ka try n Ezekwe siliCountry Director Madani M. Ta l lSector Director Ya w AnsuSector Manager Eva JarawanTask Team Leader Setareh Ra zm ardCarlo D e l Ninno

ii


4/98


5/98

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis report was prepared b y a team consisting o f Jenny C. Aker (Consultant), Paul Dorosh(FEU), Menno Mulder-Sibanda (AFTH2), Carlo D e l Ni nn o (HDNSP, co-task team leader),and Setareh Razmara (AFTH2 , co-task t eam leader). Valuable inputs were provided byPhillippe George Le i t e (HDNSP), K o f f i Akakpo (VAM Officer WFP - Niger), andKhamada Baye (Local Consultant). The report draws from two background papers thatprovided substantial inputs:(i)ood Security, Social Sa fety Nets and Fo od Crises: CountryExperience from N iger (Jenny C. Aker, Consultant); and (ii) roduc tion Shocks, Regiona lTrade and Cereal Prices in Niger: A (Multi-Market) Simulation Analysis (Paul Dorosh).Valuable guidance and suggestions were prov ided by O usman Diagana (Country Managerfor Niger); Patrick Verissimo, El Hadj Adama Toure, and Amadou Alassane (AFTAR);Xiao Ye (AFRCE); Richard Seifman and Leandre Bassole (AFTHV); and AmadouIbr ah im (AFTP4). Peer reviewers were Dom inique van de Walle (PRMGE) and HaroldAlderman (AFTHD). Kathryn Bach provided valuable editorial inputs. Administrativesupport was provided by Aissatou Chipkaou (AFTH2) and Mohamed D ia w (AFTH2 ). Thepreparation o f his study also benefited f rom Trust Funds managed by HDNSP.Valuable support from the Nigerien counterpart team in the Prime Ministry Off ice(Primature), Executive Secretariat o f Rur al Development (SE/RDS), Ministry o f Economyand Finance (MEF), Office des Produits Vivriers du Niger (OPVN), Cellule de CriseAlimentaire (CCA), Systeme dAlerte Precoce (SAP) , and Institut national de la statistique(INS), are gratefu lly acknowledged. Particularly the team w ould l ike to thank M. Mal laAri, Ex-Director o f Cabinet o f Prime Minister and Director of the SRPII, M. OusmaneMahaman, Director o f Cabinet o f Prime Minister, Mme Zeinabou Maikorema, ExecutiveSecretary o f Rura l Development Strategy, M. Azara Sully, Ex-Senior Advisor to PrimeMinister Cabinet, and M. Diam oitou Boukari, Rural Development Senior Advisor to PrimeMinister Cabinet for supporting this study at early stage and facilitating i t s preparation.Preliminary results were presented through a workshop in Niger (December 2007) to theGovernment officials as well Development Partners and researchers, and valuablecomments were received from participants. In October 2008, the draft report wasdiscussed w ith the authorities and Technical and Financial Partners (TFPs). There wasconsensus on the recommendations and strategic messages o f the report, and with closecollaboration o f the G oN and the TFPs a concrete action plan fo r an effective foo d securityand social protection strategy (with short and medium te rm measures) was finalized. Theteam also received valuable advice and supports from, the TFPs (particularly EU, GTZ,WFP, UNICEF, FAO , FMI, etc.).


6/98


7/98

N i g e rFood Securi ty and Safety Nets

Table o f Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 4CHAPTER 1: NTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 18BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION ................................................................................... 18STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT.............................................................................................. 19CHAPTER 2: POVERTY AND FOOD INSECURITY ........................................................... 21CHRONIC AND SEASONAL FOOD INSECURITY.............................................................. 22RISK, VULNERABILITY, AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY .................................... 29CHAPTER 3: FOOD AVAILABILITY AND ACCESS .......................................................... 39FOOD AVAILABILITY: PRODUCTION, IMPORTS AND FOOD AID .............................. 39AGRO-FOOD MARKETS AND PRICES ................................................................................ 47CHAPTER 4: GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS AND RESPONSE TOTHE 2005 FOOD CRISIS ........................................................................................................... 53INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR RESPONSE TO FOOD CRISIS ............................. 53CAUSES OF THE 2005 FOOD CRISIS .................................................................................... 57

RESPONSES DURING THE FOOD CRISIS ........................................................................... 64GOVERNMENT SAFETY NET AND SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS ..................... 66NIGER 2008: PREPARING FOR AND RESPONDING TO A POTENTIAL FOOD CRISIS69

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND POLICY OPTIONS ............................................................ 73SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 73OUTLINE OF A FOOD SECURITY AND SOCIAL PROTECTION STRATEGY ................ 5

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 81ANNEX I: ESIGN OF EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS....................................................... 86TABLESTable 1 Socio-economic Indicators 2005Table 2: P overty Status in Nig er b y Geographic AreaTable 3 : Sources and level o f household foo d consumption in 2005 and 2006Table 4: Prevalence o f Chronic Food Insecurity in NigerTable 5: Prevalence o f U ndernutrition in Children under 5 in Niger. 2006Table 6: Percentage o f Households' Exposed to Shocks by Poverty level and Quin tileTable 7: Dis tribu tion o f households Exposed to Drough t across Regions o f ResidenceTable 8: Households C oping Strategies after Exposure to Drough tTable 9 : Percentage o f drought affected households receiv ing fo od a id in 2005 b y povertycategory and location

ii


8/98

Table 10: Coping mechanism after drought b y ownership o f l ivestock in rural and urbanareasTable 11 Household food insecurity levelsTable 12: Chronic, transient and vulnerable levels o f food insecurityTable 13: Dietary diversification indexTable 14: Millet and Sorghum Production in Niger, 1985-2004Table 15: Off icia l Cereal Imports for Niger, 1998-2004Table 16: Nig er: Cereal Production and Availability, 1990-2005Table 17: Cereal Production in Nig er and Nigeria, Average 2003-2004Table 18: Average Grain Prices in Nige r, N ige ria and Chad, 1996-2006Table 19: Simulated Prices Effects o f Productions Shock and N e t Imports, 2004/005Table 20: Grain Prices by Food Crisis Region i iger, 2004/2005Table 2 1 Distr ibution o f Safety net programs be tween 200 1 and 2006Table 22: Source o f financing o f Safety nets 200 1-2006Table 23: Governm ental (Emergency) Safety N e t Programs, by Year and by ProgramBOXESBox 1 How to measure Food Security?Box 2 : Steps for Identi fying the Mo st Vulnerable in NigerB ox 3 : Methodologies to estimate household food insecurityBo x 4: National Mechanism for the Prevention and management o f Food Crises in NigerBox 5: History o f Food Crises in NigerBo x 6 : Ethiopia's Productive Safety N e t Program (PSNP)Bo x 7: Enhancing Food Security in BangladeshFIGURESFigure 1 Poverty Rates in Niger Department, 2005Figure 2: Share of Per Capita Caloric Co nsum ption by Com modity Group (2005-2006)Figure 3: S tunting in Sub-Saharan Af ric aFigure 4: Number o f Cases o f Reported Wasting (by W eek), 2006 and 2007Figure 5 : Percentage o f Departments Affected by P roduction Shocks by Year 2000-2006Figure 6: Percentage o f he Population Vulnerable to Food Insecurity, 2007Figure 7: Predictions o f Areas Vu lnerable to Food Insecu rity in Niger, 2006Figure 8: Administrative regions and agro-ecologicalFigure 9: Key Grain Markets in NigerFigure 10: Grain Prices in Niger and key Regional Markets, 1996-2006Figure 11: Key Forecasting Markets for Nige rFigure 12: Comparison o f Millet Prices in Nige r and Nige riaFigure 13: Quantities o f Food A id Obtained and Distributed by O PV N and CCA during 200 1-2007Figure 14: Grain Price Levels o f Ke y Forecasting Markets during the Harvest Period.Figure 15: Intra-SeasonalChange o f Millet Prices by YearFigure 16: Distribution o f Children w ith an Infectious I l lness and Acute Under-nutrition by AgeGroupFigure 17: International Prices o f G rains (Wheat, Rice and Maize), 2000-2007Figure 18: Millet Prices on Key Forecasting Markets during the Harvest Period in 200,2004,2007Figu re 19: Changes in Millet Prices between the Harvest and Hungry P eriods

iii


9/98

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYNiger is a very poor country th at faces serious problems o poverty and household foodinsecurity. W i t h a per capita Gross Nation al Income (GNI) of US$240 and an estimated 62percent of the population l iving below the poverty l ine, Niger i s one of the lowest-rankedcountries on the United Nations' Human Development index. The incidence o f poverty hasremained constant since the early 1990s (63% in 1993), mainly due to lack o f resources, lo wagricultural productivity and hig h population growth. C urrently approximately 85 percent o f thepopulation lives on less than US$2 per day, with 65 percent l i v ing on less than US$1 per day.Al though the magnitude o f poverty and food insecurity i s most evident during years o f drought,the problem i s in fact a chronic one. L o w levels o f food ava ilability, hi gh population growth,limited economic access to f oo d because o f lo w incomes relative to market prices, andinadequate hea lth care have resulted n poor nutritio nal status for m uch o f the population, even inyears o f normal harvest.Reducing vulnerability and en suring food and n utrition security is an overarching

priority for the Government. Maintaining food security at the national and household level i s animportant p riorit y for developing countries in general, bo th for the welfare of the poor and forpo litica l stability. In order to ensure foo d security, governments have adopted various strategies,including efforts to increase staple food crop production (often with the explici t goal of foodself-sufficiency), market interventions, and a variety o f safety ne t programs, especially duringemergencies. In Niger, where profound vulnerabilities combined with a high level o f populat iongrowth (3.3 percent per year) have resulted in endemic food insecurity, the Government i s facedw it h a serious challenge. Fo od aid has served as an important resource for the Government andi s considered to be integral to the provision o f safety net interventions, especially emergencyresponse. In this framework, since 1998, Nige r's government and major food a id donors havemanaged a Disposit i fNational de Pre'vention e t de Gestion des Crises Alimentaires (DNPGCA),a Nat ional Mechanism fo r th e Prevention and Management o f Food Crises in Nig er mandated to(i)elp the government to build cereal and f inancial reserves for food aid during crises; and (ii)implement support actions for populations d uring periods o f food crisis. Moreover, in i t s RuralDevelopment Strategy (RDS) as well as the second Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP2), theGovernment o f Nig er (GoN) has established the strategic vision, policies and institutionalframework to address food security issues. Particularly the RDS, which i s the nationalagriculture policy, has for objectives to: (i)ecure the l ivi ng condit ions o f the population throughprevention o f food crisis; (ii)mprove the revenues of rural population through access toeconomic opportunities; (iii)trengthen capacities public institutions and agriculture professionalorganizations; and (iv) provide suppo rt to increase food production.

I n this context, the purpose o this study is to contribute to the existing strategy and assistthe Government in developing a holistic, multi-sectoral, and institutional approach toreducing the population 's vulne rability to food insecurity. A comprehensive food securitystrategy needs to address ways to enhance food security through increases in agriculturalprodu ctivity, as w el l as throug h policies related to education, health & nutr i t ion and populationgro wt h that are crucial for div ers ifyin g and increasing household incomes (and thereby access tofood). Since safety nets are also essential to respond to chronic food insecurity, the reportdiscusses the food securi ty strategy in the context of the social protection interventions, whilecomplementing other existing and ongoing analytical works (Le., on irrigation, agriculture,

4


10/98

population, health). From the perspective o f social protection, this study i s designed to synthesizeconsiderable exis ting analysis, revi ew fo od and nutr ition security policie s and programs in Niger,and provide an action plan for strengthening the existing system and developing an effectivefood security and safety ne t strategy, in the context o f the Governments poverty reductionstrategy. This report adds value to the ongo ing pol icy discussions in wo ways:First, i t presents new emp irical analysis o f i) ood insecurity and vulnerabil ity o fhouseholds during the period o f food crises as w el l as during normal period, ii)hestructure and integration o f cereal markets within Niger and with markets in neighboringcountries, and iii) auses o f the 2005 food crisis, and lessons learned o n implication s o fvarious levels o f cross-border flow s betweenN i g e r and Nigeria.Second, i t provides concrete short- and medium-term recommendations for helpinggovernment t o im pro ve the performance o f existing programs to increase foo d security,particularly related to preparedness for and responses to food crises, and to designefficient safety nets mechanisms for vulnerable population. The policy options providedin this report are aligned with the strategies proposed in the SDRP2 and R D S andcomplement the Governme nt nationa l contingence plan (l e Plan Nat ional de Contingence surla Securite Alimentaire) (November 2007). They are also aim ed to help Governmen t respondto the recent and future high food w or ld prices, wh ich ma y contribute to higher domesticprices and reduce availabil i ty o f ood aid to supplement Nigers domestic food supply.

What are mainfindings of the study? First, the data suggest that more than 50 percent o f hepopulation suffers fro m some form o f food insecurity, with 22 percent o f the popu lationchron ically extremely foo d insecure. Second, poor households are more exposed to shocks, thepoorest regions are the most vulnerable to fo od insecurity, and copin g mechanisms ofte n increasethe vulnerabil i ty o f households to future food insecurity. Third, since tw o thirds o f da i ly ca lor icconsumption comes from cereals, cereal production, availability, and market performance arecrucial determinants o f oo d security. Fourth, evidence suggests that the target ing o f ood aid hasbeen either non-existent or has focused o n help ing al l those affected by drought rather than onlypoor households affected by drought. Fifth, altho ugh the need to support p oor and foo d insecurehouseholds i s substantial, safety net programs are small, receive l im it ed government funding,and are designed for emergency food crises. Finally, faced with l imited resources, a highprevalence o f pover ty an d periodic severe droughts and other shocks, as mention ed in the R D S(program 9), an effective f oo d security an d social pro tection strategy is essential for Nig er. Thisstrategy needs to focus on: (i)mprov ing the effic iency and scope o f safety net programs; (ii)prom oting effective m edium -term strategies and investments to imp rove f oo d availab ility, accessand utilization; and (iii)mproving emergency responses and the info rma tio n system.POVERTYND FOODNSECURITY

Niger is classified as one o the poorest countries in the world with substantial povertyvariation at the regional level. According to 2005 household survey on basic indicators(QUIBB),about 62 percent o f he population has an income that places them b elow the povertyline. Since the economy i s m a in ly centered arou nd subsistence crops and l ivestock, and given thehigh evels o f popu lation gro wth (3.3 percent pea.)and modest growt h in real GDP, the incidenceo f pov erty has remaine d constant since 1993. A s in many other countries in sub-Saharan Af rica ,poverty i s more prevalent in rural areas (65.7 percent) than in urban areas (55.5 percent).5


11/98

Regional variations o f poverty fo llo w this pattern as well: predominantly rural regions such asMaradi (79.7 percent), Tillaberi (68.9 percent) and Dosso (67.3 percent) have the highestincidences o f poverty, wh ile in the predominantly urban region o f Niamey, the incidence o fpoverty i s only 27.1 percent.

Since grains account for a high share o total household expenditures and almost allhouseholds are net purchasers of grains, fluctuations in gra in production and prices have amajor im pact on household food security. Between 61-64 percent o f total householdexpenditures are for basic foodstuffs, and grains represent about 50 percent o f total householdspending. Grains (millet and sorghum) are also the dominan t sources o f caloric consum ption,accounting for over 75 percent o f food consumption. Moreover, although the major i ty ofhouseholds are engaged in agricultural activities, almost all are net purchasers o f food and arethus negatively affected b y increases in food prices.More than 50 percent of Nigers population is estimated to be chronically foodinsecure, with 22 percent of the total population suffering from extreme chronic foodinsecurity (per capita caloric consumption of less than 1800 kcal/person/day). A variety o f

indicators demonstrate Nigers food insecurity, inclu ding lo w per capita food consumption, thelimited dietary diversity of the population, the hig h prevalence o f stunting in children under 5 ,and hig h levels o f micronutrient deficiencies (primarily iodine, iro n and Vitamin A). The causeso f foo d security are complex, however, and result from the interaction between l ow foodavailability, poverty and limited economic access, the poor health and nutritio nal status o f thepopulation, and the countrys hig h vulnerability to shocks. Altho ugh poverty rates lower inurban areas, available household data fo r 2006 suggest that the percentage o f the population wit hinadequate caloric consum ption (less than 2 100 calories per day) i s actually higher in urban areas(58 percent) in al l regions, compared to the rur al areas (51 percent), w it h the exception o f Dosso..The 2007 survey also confirms these findings, showing that the 50 per cent of the populationwh ich are chronically food insecure are com posed of 30 per cent suffering fro m extreme chronicfood insecurity and 20 per cent at risk.

There were substantial variations in food insecurity across regions between 2005 and2006. The hi gh leve l o f extreme chronic food insecurity has affected regions differently in Niger.In 2005, Maradi, Dosso and Niam ey experienced the highest levels o f extreme chronic and totalfood insecurity, with over 48 percent of the population in a state o f extreme chronic fo odinsecurity. In 2006, although extreme chronic food insecurity had been reduced, Agadez (withabout 44 percent o f the population vulnerable to chronic food insecurity) had taken Maradisplace as the region with the highest level o f food insecurity in the country because the l eve l o ffood insecurity f e l l in Maradi.

I n addition to chronic food insecurity, much of Nig ers population suffers fromseasonal and transitory ood insecurity. Nu tritio na l data show that much o f the rura l populationsuffers fro m seasonal food insecurity, evidenced by the annual hun gry season (soudure) betweenJune and September. Both rura l and urban populations also are vulnerable to transitory foodinsecurity, definedas tempo rarily reduced foo d consum ption after a shock.

Households have fair ly limited coping strategies to deal with shocks to their incomesand food access, and some coping mechanisms make affected households more vulnerable tofuture food insecurity. Qualitative surveys report that the most common strategies used b y6


12/98

Nig erie n households to respond to natural shocks include migration, asset and livestock sales,and borrowing money. In a 2005 household survey, food aid was rated as the most commonstrategy used by households to m itigate the ef fects o f shocks, i nc lud ing droughts and economicand health shocks. In the case o f droughts, almost 1 in 4 households used food aid as the maincoping strategy. Severe shocks leave households more vulnerable to future food insecurity: 60percent o f households were s t i l l in debt after 2005 food crises (Marinho and Gerard, 2008). Insome cases, coping strategies exacerbated vuln erability.

The probability of receiving food aid is not correlated with poverty in ru ra l areas.Am ong those affected b y the drought in rur al areas, on ly 72 percent o f the poor received food a idas compared to almost 80 percent o f the non poor. In urban areas, however, poor householdsaffected by drought were more likely to receive food aid than non-poor households. Theseresults suggest that the targeting o f food aid has been either no n existent or i t has focused onhelping al l those affected by drought rather than only poor households affected b y drought.FOODRODUCTIONNDMARKETS

In l i ght o f the importance o f staple cereals (millet and sorghum) for producers andconsumers welfare (over two thirds o f daily caloric consum ption comes from cereals), thestructure, conduct and performance o f food p roduction and marketing has important implicationsfor food security in the country.

Despite un avorable agro-climatic conditions, agriculture and livestock-raising play akey role in the economy of Niger. Therefore, the prevalence and severity o f the food securityproblem in Niger are directly related to the structure, conduct and performance o f foodproduction and marketing. Overall, agriculture employs more than 80 percent o f the totalpopulation and contributes to approximately 40 percent o f Gross Domestic Product (GDP).Agricu lture accounts for about 52 percent o f rural output, w ith livestock co ntributing another 30percent.

Niger relies mainly on its own domestic production of grains (dominated by millet andsorghum ) for its cereal supply. Agriculture i s prim arily characterized by subsistence farmingand production o f food crop i s prim arily based on rainfed agriculture. Over 80 percent o f Nigerstotal cereal availability comes from domestic production, prim arily millet and sorghum. M i l l e t sby far the dominant staple food crop (accounting for 76 percent o f cereal production), follo we dby sorghum (accounting for 22 percent o f cereal production). These crops are m ajo r determinantso f both national food availability and rural household incomes.Given irregular rain all, cereal production varies substantially and rura l households

are exposed to production shocks. Over the past two decades, the lowest cereal productionyears (1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004) coincided w it h natural shocks (drought). Alth ou gh nationalcereal production increased by 48 percent between 1985 and 2004 (from 1.8 m ill io n tons in 1985to 2.7 m ill io n tons), the increase was prim arily due to the expansion o f cultivated areas (f rom 4.3m ill i on hectares to over 7 m ill i on hectares). Because rain fall i s hig hly va riable b ot h across spaceand from year to year, there are substantial spatial and inter-annual variations in cerealproduction: the average coefficients o f variation fo r national millet and sorghum production are.20 and -35, respectively. There i s significant spatial variation in millet production as well: theregions o f M aradi and Zinder (w hich account for app roximately 40 percent o f national millet

7


13/98

production) have the lowest coefficients o f variation, while the regions o f Ti l laberi and Tahouahave the highest, suggesting that rura l households in the latter regions are exposed to relativelyhigher production risk than households in other areas o f the country. In addition, the magnitudeo f production shocks varies quite substan tially across regions.Given the strong intra-annual variation in staple food crop production, total foodavailab ility in Niger depends strongly on commercial imports (specifically supply and demandconditions in Niger ia), while food aid does not play an important role. Data on ce real importsand exports in Niger are hig hly unreliable, due in part to the large volume o f nform al trade thatoccurs between Niger and i t s neighbors (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali and Nigeria), andunoff ic ial net imports o f sorghum and millet from Nig eria are like ly much larger in most yearsthan recorded offic ial imports. Estimates o f these imports vary widely by year, but analysis ofannual supply, demand and prices suggests that millet imports may have been as high as 200thousand tons in 2004, equivalent to about 10 percent o f total net millet supply. Moreover, sinceproduction o f millet, sorghum and maize are m uc h larger in Nigeria than in Niger, the supply anddemand conditions in Nigeria, especially in the northern regions, have a major inf luence onprices and availability in Niger. In comparison with unofficial imports, food aid inflows are

small, accounting for less than 20 percent o f total cereal imports and only about 1 percent o f otalnet cereal availability.The role of the Government of Niger in cereal production and marketing has beensignificantly reduced since the 1990s and food prices are now determined by market forces.These reforms have had important implications for the functioning o f Nige rs agro-food sector,particularly in terms o f pricing, marketing, and agricultural development and investment. Withthe cereal market becoming liberalized, the ro le o f the OfJice des Produits Vivriers uu Niger(OPVN), established in 1984 to manage the purchase and sales o f staple cereals (millet andsorghum), i s no w reduced to mon itor ing the food security situation within the country and tomanaging the countrys strategic grain reserves. As a result, during 2000 and 2004, O P V N was

responsible for distributing subsidized food to the population, inc lud ing to vulnerable groups,and domestic cereal prices ar e influenced b y a host o f factors, such as dom estic supply anddemand, commercial imports, import taxes and tari f fs, regional trade patterns and marketstructure. How ever, depending on domestic cereal produ ction in a particular year, the GoN mayregulate trade flow s by l im itin g either exports or imports o f specific commodities.Although grain markets in Niger are well integrated in general, this varies bothtemporally and spatially. Staple food crop markets in Niger are somewhat integrated, with anaverage correlation coefficien t o f .55 for al l markets between 1996 and 2006. Nevertheless, thedegree o f domestic m arket integration varies bo th over time and across space, w it h higher levelso f ntegration during low-production years. The degree o f integration between markets in Nigerand those in border countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Nigeria) fol low the same pattern

as the domestic markets. Market pr ice integration between Chad and Niger i s minor, however,as i s the degree o f integration between Burkina Faso and Niger. The highest degree o fintegra tion occurs betweenNiger, Benin and Nigeria, with correlation coefficient o f grain pricesaveraging 0.65. There i s also evidence o f strong market integration between hree-quarters o f themajor markets in southern Nig er and markets just across the border in Malanvi l le (Benin) andJibia, Il le la and Ma i-Ad ua (Nigeria).

8


14/98

THE 005 FOOD RISISThe food crisis in N iger in 2005 provided important lessons to national policy-makersand the international community. Estimates o f national food prod uction in ate 200 4 suggested

only a modest decline rela tive to me diu m-te rm trends gave litt le cause fo r concern. In one sense,the major cause o f the crisis was the extremely lo w level o f household income, whic h leavesmany households on the brink o f ser ious malnutr i t ion even in years o f no rmal harvests andprices. The additio nal shocks in 2005 that tipped the balance fro m risk to real i ty o f a food cr is iswere:9 losses in food production and incomes for those farmers whose late 2004 harvests wereaffected by drought and locusts; and9 a sharp rise in food prices (related to even more dramatic price increases in some o fNigerias markets beginning in mid-2004) that reduced household access to food for allnet purchasers. Market analysis suggests that Nigerias production shortfal l and highprices l ikely led to a decline in net impor ts o f millet that significantly worsened theeffects o f Nigers production shortfal l.

The Government response to the 2005 food crisis included various mechanisms tosupport households affected by in come losses and production shocks. The governmentresponse, with support from non-governmental agencies and international organizations,consisted mainly o f a range o f emergency schemes: (i) ood aid for direct emergencydistr ibution and Food For Work (FFW) programs; (ii)ale o f approx imately 40 thousand tonso f cereals at sub sidized prices; and (iii)rovision o f Cash-for-Work (CFW) programs to raisethe purchasing power o f affected households. These programs rel ied up on both imported andlocal foo d aid, with some lo cal purchases occ urring within Niger (Niamey and Maradi) and innorthern Nigeria. In spite o f hese efforts, the gross mo rta lity rate reached 1.5 deaths per 10,000per day in some o f he worst-affected regions, with chi l d mortal ity rates o f 4.1 deaths per 10,000per day, levels we ll above international thresholds fo r humanitarian crises.

Since criteria for targeting vulnerable regions for the implementation o emergencyprogram s were unclear, a list identifyin g the most severely affected regions du ring the 2005food crisis is still not available. Due to the lack o f exp licit and transparent crite ria (orthresholds) for determining a food crisis and identifying vulnerable regions, the areas mostaffected by the crisis ma y n ot have be en reached in 2005. A l ist o f vulnerable vi l lages was firstproduced in M a y 2005, however the l ist was not al igned with qualitative and quantitativeevidence observed by international and non-governm ental organizations.To improve the functioning of its em ergency response interventions, the G o N has

developed a natio nal contingency pl an for food security and nu trition with the participation ofa variety of governmental and non-governmental actors. Developed in 2007, the documentoutlines the strategies priorities (including early warning indicators, i.e., cereal deficit, foodprices and severe malnutrit ion) f or the Government and development partners in preventing andmanaging food crises in the country. The overall objective o f the plan i s to m in im ize the impacto f ood crises by ensuring households access to staple foods an d pro tect ing their assets, mainlyvia the national security stock and emergency cash resources (Le., general food distribution,Food for W ork (FFW), Cash fo r W o rk (CFW), subsidized sales, seeds distrib ution s). Howe ver,there is s t i l l lack o f agreement re gardin g the relative effectiveness o f safety net interventions in9


15/98

Niger. The l i s t o f response interventions outlined by the national contingency plan includes mosto f the same instrumentsthat have been used in the past few years, w it h an increased emphasis onCF W rather than FFW and cereal banks. However there i s no good evidence regarding whichinterventions have been most effective. The data on cereal banks from the 1990s shows thatthese have not been sustainable. CFW programs, which are usually preferred to FFW, are fair lynew interventions that have not been ful ly evaluated in Niger.POLICY OPTIONS TO RESPOND TO FOODNSECURITY

International experience has shown that social safety net programs play a very important rolein reducing and attenuating chronic poverty and in helping the poorest people after naturalcatastrophes. In this study, social safety nets (safety nets for short) are non-contributory transferprograms targeted to the poor and to individuals vulnerable to poverty and to shocks. Theseprograms have the simultaneous goals o f (i)rov idin g assistance to households in poverty, thuscontributing to a reduction in the impact o f poverty and to helping them get out o f poverty, andalso to help households face the impact o f shocks; and (ii)educing the effects o f globalization,macroeconomic shocks, and structural changes, and thus contributing to more sustainablegrowth'. These are programs such as:

Cash transfers or food coupons, by category or subject to resource conditions, such as familyallowances or social pensions.In-k ind transfers, school meal programs or supplements designed for mothers and childrenare the most widespread, but they also include distribution o f meals ready to eat, schoolsupplies, uniforms, etc.General price subsidies, often fo r food or energy, targeted to households.Employment through labor-intensive public works programs, sometimes called "workfare"(conditional transfers).Cash or in-kind transfers to poor households, subject to meeting specific educational orhealth conditions.Exemption from duties for basic services, health services, education, public services, ortransportation.Given i t s limited resources, hi gh poverty incidence and periodic c limatic shocks, an effectivefood security and social protection strategy i s essential for Niger. Such a strategy should include

three key components: (i)mproving the efficiency and scope o f safety net programs; (ii)promoting effective medium-termstrategies and investments to im prove foo d ava ilability, accessand utilization; and (iii)trengthening em ergency response and the information system. Avoidin gfuture food crises will also require greater recognition of the major importance o f regionalmarkets (pa rticularly with Nigeria) in influencing market prices, foo d impo rts (and exports), andultimately household food consumption in Niger. Finally, any social protection strategy,including the safety nets, will need to be consistent w it h the country's overall strategy for growthand poverty reduction, which represent the ultimate solutions for food insecurity and the poor

See Grosh et al. (2008) for a complete description of social safety nets.

10


16/98

health an d nut ritio nal outcomes associated with both poverty and household fo od insecurity. Anaction plan has been developed with close collaboration o f the G o N and development partnersproposing policy measures that need to be implemented in short and medium t e rms (see thepoli cy matrix).Safety nets to protect poor and vulnerable people: Currently, social safety ne t programsreceive onl y a small portion o f the government's total budget, representing between 1 and 5percent o f total expenditures between 2001 and 2006. During this period, almost 70 percent o fthe safety net expenditures focused on food crises, with the Food Crisis Cell (CCA) largelyresponsible fo r coo rdination o f hese programs and Niger's Food Production Office (OP VN) anda variety o f NGOs serving as the ma in imp leme nting agencies.Safety nets are needed even in years of no rm al harvests, however, to prevent vulnerableand poor people from fall ing deeper into poverty an d debt. The ma in challenge i s to design aneffective safety net system and provide adequate funding to ensure i t s sustainability. Thedevelopment o f an effective safety net program could include the fo l lowi ng steps:

> Development of a com pre hen sive safety nets syste. The mechanisms for prevention andresponse to food crises as currently implemented by the National Mechanism for thePrevention and Management o f Foo d Crises in Niger (DNPG CA) constitute o nly a partand one stage in the imple men tation o f a safety net system. Consequently, to de velop ageneral safety net system for households suffering from chronic and seasonal andtransitory food insecurity, i t i s necessary to (i)ormulate a safety net program alignedwith the PRSP2 and R D S ; and (ii) nsure coordination between the State and thetechnical and financial partners (TFPs). This in turn will require the inc lus ion o f safetynet programs in the government budget and a long-term financial commitment fro m theTFPs.

P Improvement o the effectiveness o cu rre nt safety nets systems. This wo uld require (i)nassessment o f the effectiveness o f existing programs (HIM0 [ labor-intensive publicworks programs] such as "Food for Work" (FFW) and "Cash for Work" (CFW); freedist ribu tion o f foodstuffs; subsidized fo od sales; cereal banks; school fee ding programs;etc); (ii) review o f the existing targeting system to determine the challenges o faddressing the needs o f chronically poor people; and (iii)n improvement in he programmonitoring system. Within this framework, to ensure that the safety net system iseffective (in crisis and no rma l periods) i t must be possible (i)o guarantee that the "Foodfor Work" (FFW) and "Cash for Work" (CFW) programs are we l l organized and giveproductive results; (ii)o limit the amount o f free dis tr ibut ion o f food as wel l assubsidized sales, and pay specif ic attention to synchronization and localization o f sales;(iii)o ensure that the purchase o f oc al foodstuffs i s well planned; and (iv) that targetingo f programs follow s transparent and efficien t procedures for the selection o f he regionsand households to benefit f r om the program.> In t roduct ion o new safety nets pr og ram s. Once the vulnerab le groups are ident i f ied andevaluation o f the existing programs i s completed, i t wil l be necessary to identify pi lotprograms that cou ld be tested based o n transparent el ig ib ili ty criteria, coverage and cost.Among these new programs to pilot are cash payments and conditional cash transfers(i.e., lin ke d to school attendance and health service utiliz atio n fo r children).

11


17/98

Me dium term policies and investments to improve food availab ility, access and utilization:Medium and long t e r m policies are alsb needed to reduce vulnerability to production shocks,raise incomes o f the poor, and enhance market efficiency. These targeted actions ar e alreadyintegrated in the Government programs such as under axis no.1 o f R D S as well as in the in theAccelerated Development Strategy and the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP2). In this context,policies could focus on the fol lowing:9 Increase availability of staple food produ cts. This could be achieved through imp rovin gagricultural productivity and efficiency o f agriculture markets, as well as reducingproduction risks for farmers. Prom oting eflc ient domestic agricu lture prod uction co uldbe achieved through investments in agricultural research and extension, investments inroad construction and maintenance, increasing market infrastructure (e.g. storagefacilities), and im pro vin g access to water fo r agriculture through investments in rr igationand water retention.9 Ensure that comm ercial po licie s prom ote the development o cereals markets. In this

context i t i s necessary to (i)educe pri ce risk or farm products to increase incentives forproduction; and (i i) reduce variabil i ty of rural incomes through p romo tion o f farmersgroups. In addition i t i s crucial to improve market information systems on prices andvolumes o f production and market supplies. To ensure that commercial policies do notimpede the development o f cereals markets, i t will be necessary to promote marketefficiency and transparent policies on food aid flows, imports and releases o f food stocks.9 Expand access to food for the poor (in ru ra l and urban areas). In this context i t i simportant to support various household income-generating activities (such as micro-credit through local NGOs, investment in education and s k i l l s development to raise laborproductivity).9 Improve uti l ization of food. This w i l l require focus on the overall health and sanitationenvironment, particularly among the poorest households.Strengthen emergency response and information system. Despite recent progress, furthersteps are needed to improve the functioning of the early warning systems and emergencyresponse as well the existing info rma tion system. This could include:9 Revise and implement the Government Na tion al Contingency Plan or Fo od Security and

se t up a comprehensive mo nito ring system or food procurement, d istrib utio n and stocks.9 Improve the information system and the emergency pro gra m by (i) onitor ing

international price movements, particularly in Nigeria. Particularly i t i s cri t ical torecognize that, depending on the price incentives for trade between major markets inNiger and northern Nigeria, net imports o f millet could vary b y about 200 thousand tons(about 10 percent o f millet availability in a normal year); and (ii)mprove informationdissemination o f the early warning system to decision makers and other actors; and (iii)strengthen the analytical capacities of the key government institutions (CCA, SAP,SIMA, CIC).

12


18/98

P Use current and new safety nets pro gra ms for emergency response. Part icu lar ly i t i snecessary to st rengthen ef f ic i ent safety nets programs and to de f ine spec i f i c ta rget ingmechan isms for emergencies.

1 3


19/98

.

. .

. . .

e . . .

. . 0

I


20/98

0 . . . 0 . . .

. . . . .


21/98

0 0

0 0

0

P

0 0

0

0 . 0 0

0

0


22/98

-BctGk

Ueme0v).-Y U

-L

e

rEcUccc

B-

cco(ccc.1

c

e 0

e o e e e

0

0 0 0

a

0 e

0 e


23/98

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

countries Poverty remains widespreadand social indicators compare poorly toSub-Saharan African averages aspresented in table 1 below. The share o fthe population l iving in poverty,estimated at 62 percent in 2005, has been

BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION

Countries NigerG NI per mplta, Atlas method (current us$) 146 240

2 3 3 341 45ife expectancy at birth. total (years)Feniliry rate (briths per woman) 5 3 I 1Infant mortality rate (per i 000 live births) 96 I50

Access to improved sanitation ( O h of total po p )

population growth (annual

Access to improved water source (% of total pop ) 56 465 3 43

Gross primary enrollment. total (oh ofage group) 92 41Adult literac , otal (% of a es IS and older) 61 29I ~ r o c h e I~ l i~ d au Bmk.1007 s WorldBenk

2. Nig er s vulnerability to several exogenous factors, as well as its low level ofsocio-economic development, result in ch ronic food insecurity. Past experience showsthat Nigers economy has been affected by high variabi l i ty of rainfal l , terms o f tradeshocks, and volat il ity o f aid flows. Evidence shows that these shocks result in lowergrowth performance, severely affect human development, and cause chronic foodsecurity in Nige r. Food insecurity i s aggravated by hig h incidences o f rural poverty,which translate at the household level into l o w purchasing power, lack o f access to foodby vulnerable groups, rampant m alnutrition, and poor access to health facilities. D roughtsoften result in increases in the prices o f millet, sorghum and other staple foods o f thepopulation, and dramatic decreases in prices o f livestock (savings account o f agro-pastoralists and pastoralists).2 Since there i s no safety net scheme in place, the ruralpopulation often migrates out o f the most vulnerable zones during these diff icult times.3. Reducing vu lnerability and ensuring food and nutr itio n security is anoverarchingpriority for the Government. Food aid has served as an important resourcefo r the Government and i s considered to be integral to the provision of safety netinterventions, especially emergency response. In this framework, since 1998, Nigersgovernment and major food aid donors have managed a Dispo sitifNational de Preventionet de Gestion des Crises Alimentaires (DNPGCA), a Na tiona l Mechanism for thePrevention and Management o f Food Crises in Niger mandated to (i) elp thegovernment to build cereal and f inancial reserves for food aid during crises; and (ii)implement support actions fo r populations du ring periods o f food cris is. Moreover, the

* The more recent drought in 2005 led to food shortages for millions of Nigeriens.18


24/98

governments Rural Development Strategy (RDS) 3action plan has se t the strategicvision, policies, and institutional framework to address food security issues. Morespecifically, this strategy suggests that the Government (i) ursue the ongoing efforts toincrease the performance of the existing national system for cr is is prevention andmitigation; and (ii) dopt a multisectoral approach to focus on both increasingagricultural production and reducing the countrys vulnerability to food crises. In thiscontext, the existing national system for c risis prevention and mitigation, created in 1989,has been improved over time to better target vulnerable zones and households.Moreover, in l ight o f lessons learned from the 2005 crisis, the Government i s pursuingefforts to increase the performance o f the system by: (i)ocusing the alert approach onaccessibility (monitoring o f purchasing power and anticipation o f market behavior andhousehold strategies); (ii) ntegrating the nutr i t ion and health dimensions of foodinsecurity into the vulnerability analysis; (iii)mproving the targeting o f beneficiaries andthe estimation o f their needs; (iv) strengthening the r o le o f the communes in food crisismanagement; and (v) developing a communication strategy w ith the media. Moreover,with donors collaboration, an evaluation study on the national system for food crisismanagement and prevention, along w ith an action plan have been prepared and validatedby the Government. This action plan aims to establish a better emergency responsemechanism to food cr is is in Niger, but i t s not expected to address the structural issues toprevent food crisis.

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

4. Aligned with Government thinking, and taking stock o f the existing inform ationas well as new analysis on vulnerability, the purpose o f this report i s to provide ananalysis o f the food security situation in the country, draw lessons fro m the experience o fthe 2005 food crisis, and discuss polic y options for improv ing food security. M or especifically, this report:> Presents a detailed analysis o f households foo d security in Niger, includingma in sources o f risks, household vulnerability to food insecurity and copingmechanisms;> Provides an ove rview o f agriculture production, foo d ava ilability and accessto grain markets, highlighting the role of pr ivate unoff icial trade withneighboring countries;> Reviews the experience of the food and nutr i t ion cr isis in 2005 and anoverview of the existing national food security system and safety nets fo r

cr is is prevention and mitigation ;> Suggests policy options, aligned with the Government Development Strategyand the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP2) and the Rural Development Strategy(RDS), for: (i)ntroducing a safety ne t to protect the poor and vulnerablegroups; (ii)mproving the eff iciency o f medium term policies and investmentsto improve food availability and accessibility; and (iii) trengthening theexisting emergency response.

R D S - Program 9 i s focused on Reduction de l a vulnerabilite des menages19


25/98

5 . Given the multi sectoral aspects of the food security, the report addresses bothenhancement of food security and prevention o reductions in food security. Acomprehensive food security strategy needs to address ways to enhance food securitythrough increases in agricultural productivity, as well as through policies related toeducation, health & nutr i t ion and population grow th that are crucial for div ersify ing andincreasing household incomes (and thereby their access to food). Since safety nets areessential to respond to ch ronic fo od insecurity, the report i s discussing the food securitystrategy in the context o f the social protection interventions, while complementing otherexisting and ongoing analytical works (i.e., on irrigation , agriculture, population, health).6. This report relies on several primary and secondary sources o information,includ ing studies on risks, shocks and vulnerability to food insecurity in Nig er ,conducted between 2004 an d 2008. Primary sources include surveys o f governmentaland non-governmental interventions during and after the food crisis, prepared by theNational Statistical Office (INS), as well as a cereal market survey conducted by fournon-governmental organizations in Niger (CRS , CARE, HKI and Wor ld Vis ionInternational). The I N S has completed several consumption and expenditures surveys: (i)in M ay 2005 an extended national survey (Questionnaire sur les Indicateurs de Base etde Bien-etre, or QUIBB) and (ii)n November 2006 a survey on food security o f theHouseholds (Enquzte sur la Conjoncture et la Vulne'rabilite'Alimentaire des Me'nages,orEC VAM ) . These two surveys have been collected at different point in time: one du ringthe crises o f 2004-5 and the other after a good harvest in November 2006. They providedthe basis for the analysis o f poverty, conducted by the I N S in collaboration with theWo rld Bank, and the household food insecurity. Secondary sources o f inform ationinclude the series o f poverty and vulnerability reports prepared by various internationalpartners (including WFP, the Wo rld Bank, etc.) and various consultants between 2006and 2008. These studies provide detailed inform ation on the food security situation inNiger, poverty and consumption, cereal production and marketing, health and nutritionand the types o f shocks that affect the country.7 . The rest o f this study i s organized as follow s: Chapter 2 presents a prof i le o f thepoverty and food security situation in Nige r, inclu ding the sources o f risk andvulne rability to foo d crises. Chapter 3 provides an overview o f the agriculturalproduction and marketing system in the country, including informa tion on trade f lowsand foo d aid. Chapter 4 summarizes the 2005 foo d crisis, i t s causes and the responses o fthe Government o f Nige r, non-governmental and international organizations p rio r to,during and after the food crisis. Chapter 5 outlines p olic y recommendations to provideprotec tion to househo lds who are food insecure and respond to future foo d crises.

Note that the comparison between the two surveys i s fir ther complicated by the difference in the structureo f he consumption modules between the two surveys. However they do represent an illustration of theconsumption pattern between the period o f crises in 2005 and after a good harvest in fa l l 2006.

20


26/98

CHAPTER 2: POVERTY AND FOOD INSECURITY

Accord ing to the available information, more than 50 percent of Nigers populationsuffers fr om some fo rm of food insecurity, includ ing chronic, seasonal an d transitoryfood insecurity (defined as reduced access to food after a shock). This is due to thecomplex interaction between low food availability, limited econom ic access, the poorhealth and nutritional status of the population, and the countrys high susceptibility toshocks. According to available household surveys, over two thirds of peoples dailycaloric consumption comes from cereals, with regional variations in consumptionlevels mirroring the spatial distribution of poverty. N utr itio nal outcomes are consistentwith the prevalence of seasonal and transitory food security. Coping strategies to thevarious risks and shocks affecting urb an an d rur al households includ e the use of foodaid, reduction in number of meals per day, migration, and asset and livestock sales.Overall, poor households are more exposed to shocks, the poorest regions are the mostvulnerable to food insecurity and coping mechanisms make households morevulnerable to future food insecurity.8 . Mor e than 50 percent of Nige rs population is estimated to suffer fr om someform o food insecurity. Regardless o f the in dicato rs used, survey-based evidenceconsistently shows that mu ch o f Nigers population suffers f ro m widespread chronic,seasonal an d transitory food insecurity. This i s due to the comp lex interac tion betweenlow food availabil i ty, poverty and l imited economic access, the poor health andnutritio nal status o f the population, and the countrys high vulnerability to shocks due toi t s economic dependency on subsistence crops and l ivestock. Per capita foodconsumption leve ls are lo w for about h al f o f the households in Niger; there i s l imi teddietary diversity f or m u c h o f he population; prevalence o f stunting in children under 5 i shigh; and mic ron utri ent deficiencies are widespread (see Box 1).

Bo x 1: H o w to Measure Food Security? IInternational Organizations (UN, FAO, W FP and the World Bank - 1986) define fo od s ecurity as accessby al l people at all times to sufficient foo d for an active, healthy life. Foo d insecurity i s therefore definedas the absence o f one or al l o f he conditions required, and can be classified into one o f hree categories:chronic food insecurity, defined as insufficient access to sufficient food on a continuous basis; seasonalfood insecurity, or ins ufficient access to f ood o n a cyclical basis; and transitory fo od insecurity, wherebyhouseholds do not have access to sufficient fo od fo llo wi ng a shock, such as a man-made or natu ral disaster.Although most definit ions o f food security used by governmental, non-governmental and internationalorganizations are closely related to the World Banks definition, measurability remains problematic.Ma xw ell and Frankenberger (1992) highlighted he diversity o f the points o f view rega rding food security,and concluded that there i s not a gold standard for measuring food security (Maxwell 1999). The mostcommon approaches used include analysis o f poverty, consump tion patterns, such as d aily caloric intake,and nutritional status o f children under 5 (stunting, wasting, under-nutrition) and micronutrientdeficiencies. Anoth er approach, presented later in this chapter, uses a risk and vulnerability analysis torelate the main sources o f risk and vulnerability to household level food security indicators, distinguishingbetween chronic food insecurity and vulnera bility t o foo d insecurity.

21


27/98

CHRONIC AND SEASONALFOOD INSECURITY

Links between food Insecurity and Poverty59. All methods used for Areameasuring poverty - including the Region Incidence Dep th Severitymonetary approach, the living Agadez 45.9 16.1 8.8conditions approach and the Dosso 67.3 28.8 15.3incidence of poverty remains high in Tahoua 45.9 14.5 6.2Niger.6 Wi th an average GDP per Taber 68 .9 26 .8 13.9capita o f US$ 240 (2005), Niger i s Zinder-Diffa 63.1 23.0 23.0Niam ey 27.1 7.2 7.262.1 24.1 12.3

Table 2: Poverty Status in Nige r by Geographic

subjective approach - show that the Mara di 79.7 35.1 19.0

classified as the forth poorest countryin the world, and i s the lowest-ranked Source: UIBB2005on the U N s Human DevelopmentIndex (HDI).7 According to the Survey on S atisfaction of Basic Needs (DSBE) in 2004,70 percent o f households in Nige r do not meet their basic needs, inclu ding food, income,employment, farm equipment, land, education, health, and dri nk ing w ater. These resultsare further confirmed by the monetary evaluation o f poverty (QUIBB 2005), w hic h showsthat the prevalence o f the population l iving below the poverty l i ne was 62.1 percent in20058 (see Table 2). In fact, the prevalence o f poverty in Ni ge r has remained essentiallyconstant since 1993 (in 1993 the incidence o f poverty was 64 percent as compared to 62percent in 2005). Furthermore, according to a participatory poverty survey (2006/07),approximately 66 percent o f households in Nig er consider themselves to be poor, and 20percent consider themselves to be extremely poor. Upda ted estimates and further

National

Three poverty surveys have been conducted in Niger since 2000: The Survey on CombinedQuestionnaire o f Basic Welfare Indicators (QU IBB ) in 2005; the Survey on Satisfaction o f Basic Needs(DSBE) in 2004; and the second participatory survey o n poverty (EPP2) in 2005.The incidence o f poverty measures the percentage o f individuals or h ouseholds whose consumerspending i s below the monetary poverty line. The poverty line corresponds to a m inim um annual consumerspending for an individual or household; the depth o f poverty measures the average gap in percentagebetween the level o f well-being o f the poor households and the poverty line. I t i s used in estimating themin imu m amount o f addition al resources to be transferred to poor h ouseholds to place them on themonetary poverty l ine; and the severity of poverty measures the average gap betwe en consum ption b y thepoor and the poverty line. I t gives relative proportion o f poorer people in a given group.Whi l e there i s no single and universal definition o f poverty, poverty i s ofte n defined as a state o findividual or collective destitution w hich places man in a situation o shortage or lack o essential needs This definit ion (WB 2000) reflects the lack o f adequate income to sa tisfy basic needs in feeding, health,education, drin kin g water, decent housing and results in lack o f opportunities to participate in social andeconomic l i f e , an in greater vulnera bility o f he populations concerned to shocks o f various types.* See Niger Mi lle niu m Developm ent Goals: Diagnostic and Tools; WB , June 2005; Q. Wodon. Based onthis study, the poverty thresholds for Niger in 2005 were 144,750 FCFA (equivalent to about $USD 175)per capita and per year for urba n areas and 105,827 FCFA (equ ivalen t to abou t 1 10 USD) for rura l areas.

6

22


28/98

analysis o f poverty trends are expected after the comp letion o f the ongo ing House holdBu dge t Sur vey (2007/08). Mo reov er, besides i t s l ower leve l o f consumption , foodexpenditure accounts fo r a signi f icant am ount o f otal household expenditures leading tohigh l eve ls o f ood insecur ity .10. Poverty incidence varies by region, though is on average higher in rural areasthan in urban areas. The prevalence o f pove rty and extreme povert y are relatively higherin ru ra l areas, with 65.7 percent o f the populat ion in rur al areas living belo w the povertyline, compared to 55.5 percent in urban areas. Regional variations in poverty are alsosignific ant as presented in able 2. The inc idence o f poverty i s highest in he Marad i (79.7percent), Til laberi (68.9 percent) and Dosso (67.3 percent) regions; but i t reaches 27.1%in the capital Niam ey. Likew ise, the depth o f pove rty that indicates whether fam il ies areliving in abject poverty or just be low the poverty l ine, also conf i rm h igher levels o fpoverty in he same three regions: M aradi, T i l labe ri and Dosso.11. Variations i n poverty rates are even greater at the deparmen t level (see Fig ur e1J9 Poverty i s most widespread in M ay ah i (Maradi) department, where almost 90percent o f the populat ion i s living be l ow the poverty l ine; departments located in theregions o f Maradi , T i l laber i, Dosso and Zinde r also have very high ncidences o f poverty,with more than 50 percent o f he populat ion living be l ow the poverty l ine. Other regions(Tahoua and Agadez) have local ized pockets o f poverty, but on average poverty ratesrange from 35 to 50 percent.

Figure 1: Poverty Rates in Niger by D epartment, 2005

12. As in other countries, poverty in iwger is strongly correlated with a v ariety ofhousehold characteristics, such as household size, the gender o the household head,educational level and the economic status of the head o the households. Accord ing tothe 2005 QUIBB survey, larger households are relatively poorer, as are households withmore chi ldren. All else being equal, female-headed households are relatively poorer, asare households in wh ich the household head did no t complete pr im ary education. TheSee W B 2006; INS and Q . Wodon.

23


29/98

household's source o f ncom e also has a ma jor impact on per capita consumption and thehousehold's probability o f being poor. In general, households in Niger rely on a limitednumber of income-generating activities: according to the 2006 ECVAM survey, 20percent o f households generate income from a single activity (agriculture, trade orlivestock)." Moreover, approxima tely 65 percent o f households whose head i s self-employed are class ified as poor, follo we d b y those headed by u npaid apprentices (61.3percent) and domestic servants (54.3%) ( I N S QUIBB 2005). B y contrast, householdheads whose m ain source o f income i s a formal pub lic sector salary jo b have a higherstandard o f iving.Consumption patterns13 . Food accounts for over 60 percent of total household expenditures. Accordingto the 2005 and 2006 household budget surveys, between 61-64 percent o f totalhousehold expenditures were for basic foodstuffs. Am on g these expenditures, cereals(including millet, sorghum and other cereals) representedapproximately 50 percent o f a l lspending14. Though the majority o households engage in some farming, almost allhouseholds are net purchasers of food. Over 60 percent o f households rely in part ontheir ow n production to meet their consumption needs. Nevertheless, over 60 percent o fhouseholds were net purchasers o f millet in 2005. This implies that households do notproduce suff icient quantities to meet their consumption needs (see Table 3).

lo ore recent information confirms that 40 percent o f he population generates 80 percent o f heir incom efrom one activity (see Ma rinh o and Gerard, 2008).

24


30/98

T a b l e 3: Sources a nd level of household food consum ption in 2005 a n d 2006

CaloriesharesQuantity ExpenditureSource O f COnSUmptiOn consumed

Consuming Own Netmarket per capita bugdetsharesCom mod ity groups households Prod uction Purchase per day2005MilletSorghumOther CerealsRoots and TubersNuts and pulsesFruit LegumeMeat and fishMilk, Eggs, cheeseO i lSugar2006Mi l l e tSorghumOther CerealsRoots and TubersNuts and pulsesFruit LegumeMeat and fishMilk, Eggs, cheeseO i l

86.742.579.236.256.383.754.165.136.065.2

60.431.710.24.0

23.218.922.219.00.00.0

81.8 57.839.2 27.176.7 7.814.3 0.165.2 34.852.1 4.521.7 7.9

7.8 0.7

62.521.577.033.340.079.941.153.236.065.2

Grams385.4

75.9209.3

13.621.5

101.211.851.0

3.89.6

26.3 346.713.3 107.574.7 130.214.3 12.233.3 67.950.3 53.815.0 58.07.2 48.3

48.29.5

21.31.22.75.26.22.43.3

46.18.026.8

1.96.44.93.82.1

56.512.616.70.62.71.42.72. 03.31.3

42.013.014.3

1.49.02.72.6

14.9Sugar 32.5 0.3 32.2 1 o 0.1 0.1

Souurce: I N S QUIBB 2005 and EC VA M 2006

1 5 . Cereals are the dominant source of calories and dietary diversity is limitedespecially after a crisis. Accordin g to the QUIBB and E C V A M surveys, over 80 percento f dai ly caloric consumption came fro m cereals (millet, sorghum and other cereals) in2005 and 70 percent in 2006. Less than 5 percent o f daily caloric consumption i s derivedf rom meat and fish, dairy products, and fmits and vegetables, which are importantsources o f micro nutrie nts, such as iron, iodine, vitamin A and calcium (Figure 2). l1

'I Calculations o f per capita da ily caloric consump tion are based on different number o f commodities andmethodology in 2005 and 2006 expenditure surveys. Howeve r, the ordering o f the commodities remainsroughly the same.

25


31/98

Figure 2: Share o f Per Capita Caloric Consum ption by C omm odity G roup (2005-2006)Shm of Psroapita Cslons Conrumplion n ZWS, hycommndily gmup

Share of Percapila Cslonc Consumption n 2lUAi. by tommodit).group

Source: I N S QUIBB 2005; ECVAM2006.16. The majoriw of Niger's population consumes fewer than 2100 calories per day.In 2005, 59 percent o f the popu lation consumed less than the minimum caloricrequirement for adults population - 2100 calories per day - as defined by the Wor l dHea lth Organization'2, while in 2006, about 52 percent o f the popu lation consumed lessthat this minimum requirement. Table 4 also shows important geographical variationamong regions. Although poverty rates are lower in urb an areas, the percentage o f thepopulation with inadequate caloric consumption i s actually higher in urb an areas in a l lregions with the exception o f Dosso. This difference between patterns o f poverty asmeasured by the value o f expenditures and estimated calorie consumption reflectsdifferences in food and non-food consumption patterns, as well as variations in pricesbetween rural and urban areas, confirming the multi-dimensions o f food security. F orexample, urban households tend to eat more rice, a higher per calorie cost staple; ruralhouseholds tend to consume more mil let, a staple with a lower per calorie cost. Mo reover, a shortage o f oo d affect urban areas throu gh prices o f products whi le ru ral areas bythe unavailabil i ty to cover own needs from own produ ction. Hence, better indicators o fl2Da ily caloric requirem ents for specific popu lations should be calculated based upon age, height, genderand the individu al's activ ity lev el (mild, moderate and intense). In the absence o f such information, thestandard threshold o f 2100kocalories per adult per day i s used.

26


32/98

food insecurity in ru ra l areas can be correlated to the fact they are more li ke ly to receiveexterior assistance in case of urgency or of threat of famine given i t s dependence onsubsistence crops.

Tab le 5. Prevalence of Undernutrition inChildren under 5 in Niger, 2006

Region Childre n 0-59 monthsStuntingastinP

Zinder 10.6 58.7Maradi 11.6 62.2Diffa 12.7 46.6Dosso 10.3 46.6Tahoua 10.3 46.7TillabCri 8.7 46.7Agadez 10.5 38.8Niamey 6.7 21.3Source : DHS/MICS (2006)

Table 4. Prevalence o f Chronic Food Insecurity in Niger

17, Nutrition-based indicators offood insecurity confirm the high levelo chronic food insecurity in Nig er .According to the 2006 Demographicand Health Survey (DHS), theprevalence o f stunting (lo w height-for-age) in Niger i s estimated at 50 percent.The situation varies across regions, withMaradi and Zinder having the highestprevalence o f stunting (Table 5).Nigers stunting rate makes i t thesecond worst-affected country in Sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 3). The

(YORegionAgadezDiffaDossoMaradiTahouaTillaberiZinderNiameyTotal

r the Population Consuming less2005 (Yo)

R ura l U rban Tota l41.4 64.4 53.335.2 43.4 36.468.7 59.1 67.974.8 72.9 74.637.5 39.8 37.755.7 5 5 . 5 55.758.5 73.4 60.3

67.3 67.358.2 64.1 59.2

Ian 2100 calories per day)2006 (Yo)

R ura l U rban Tota l66.0 64.6 65.244.5 54.1 45.758.5 51.6 57.744.5 52.8 45.252.8 55.7 53.055.4 58.9 55.746.5 68.0 49.6

50.7 50.751.0 58.1 51.9

Source: INS OUIBB 2005 and 2006 ConsumDtion Survev

The nutritional dimension

l3Multiple rounds o f DHS surveys conducted in Niger since 1992 suggest that chronic food insecurity, asmeasured by stunting, has increased from 40 percent (1 992-2000) to 50 percent (2006).

27


33/98

Figure 3: Stunting in Sub-Saharan AfricaPrevalence

Source : State o f he World's children, UNICE F, 200718. Mic ronu trie nt deficiencies in the country provide further evidence of chronicfood insecurity. The ma in micronutrient deficiencies are iodine, iron and vitamin A,which are crucial for vital bodily functions. I t i s estimated that 20 percent o f thepopulation suffers from goiter (iodine deficiency), with higher rates in the Dosso andTahoua regions. Furthermore, an estimated 42 percent o f children under six suffer f romsub-clinical vitamin A deficiency, wi th 7 percent of their mothers reported to havesuffered f rom night blindness during pregnancy. In erms o f ro n deficiencies, 84 percento f all children, and 46 percent o f women aged 15-49, are anemic (DHS/MICS 2006).19.from seasonal foodinsecurity. There i squalitative evidence that

Nutrition outcomes also provide evidence that Niger's rural population suffersFigure 4: Number o f Cases o f Reported Wasting (by Week), 2006 and2007

during the hungry season(soudure), between June andSeptember, household foodconsumption i s lower (both interms o f quality andquantity). This i s supportedby the prevalence o f wastingin Niger (10 percent),to the World Heal ththresholds for public healthproblems. Figure 4 shows th e number o f reported cases o f moderate and acutemalnu tr i t ion by week for 2006 and 2007. While the data are subject to potential selection

class ified as "high" according SemmesOrganization's (WHO) **"" s'nNspMnr

28


34/98

bias (as a highe r number o f nutritiona l rehabilitation centers opened during this period), ageneral pattern o f seasonal food insecurity emerges. In 2006, there was a markedincrease in reported cases o f moderate malnu trition between April (week 16) to October(week 39), coinciding wit h the pre-harvest period and hungry season. The same pattern,albeit not so strong, was also observable in 2007.RISK,VULNERABILITY, AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY

20. Nigers populations are also vulnerab le to transitory food insecurity, defined asreduced access to food after a shock. Shocks, such as droughts, floods, pest attacks,health epidemics and economic not only have an immediate impact onhouseholds food security, but can also have longer-term consequences and leavehouseholds in debt or without the necessary assets to guarantee a minimum l eve l o fproduction. l5 As vulnerability i s an ex-ante measure o f well-being, an ideal vulnerabilityanalysis wo uld fol lo w the approach outlined in B ox 2. W hile the data available will notpermit covering all the steps outlined in the box, the section f i r s t summarizes the resultso f other reports and attempts to using some o f the available data surveys (Le., QUIBB2005 and E C V A M 2006 ).

Box 2 : Steps for Identifying the Most Vulnerable in Nigero Identify potential shockso r hazards that could affect communities o r individualso Determine the level of risk (probability of being affected by this shock) of the affectedpopulationso Note the negative impacts o f these shocks on individual, household and community-

level food security and how households cope with these shocks. This can or shouldinclude a percentage reduction in the productiono f staple food crops, or an increase instaple food crop prices (or a reduction in livestock prices).

o Determine the level o f households food insecurity and the characteristics o findividuals, households, communities who are the most vulnerable to shocks (ie, theyare the most at risk and th e most affected by the negative impacts)

o Determine whether vulnerable households will have unacceptable levelso f foodinsecurityas a result o f the shocks. For example, do household reduce the number o fmeals. dietarv divers itv? 1s there an increase in malnutrition?

Source: See Tesliuc, E. and Kathy Lindert (2004); Hoddinott, J. and Agnes Quisumbing (200.Hoogeveen, J., E. Tesliuc, R. Vakis, with S . Dercon (2004); de l Ninno, C. and A. Marini (2005).Risks and Shocks2 1. Although ru ra l and u rban households in N iger are susceptible to a variety ofrisks and shocks, not all of these shocks result in food insecurity or food crises.Whether or not food insecurity occurs depends on households assets, risks and riskI4 UN DP (2007) notes two main types o f risk factors in Nige r: conflicts (farmer-herder and farmer-farmer)and naturalshocks, such as droughts and prod uction shocks.I s See Carter and Barrett paper

29


35/98

management strategies. This section focuses on national and regional covariant shocks16that are highly correlated with the production of and access to food; namely, droughts,harvest failures, and r ising grain prices (Holzmann and Jorgensen, 2000). l722. Over the past 12 years, Niger has experienced three severe droughts, tw o ofwhich were associated with food crises. During the last 12 years, the countryexperienced droughts in 1996, 2000 and 2004.18 These weather rela ted shocks co incidedwith lower cereal production, higher cereal prices, and lower incomes for the rural poor.Among these drought years, 1996/1997 and 2004/2005 were identified as severe foodcris is years.lg In 2005, an estimated 2.4 million Nigeriens were affected by severe foodshortages, with more than 800,000 o f these classified as critically food insecure (USAIDFEW SNE T 2005).20 Althoug h the 2004/05 food cr is is was not o f the scale o f the 1968-74 or 1983-84 famines, the gross mo rta lity rate reached 1.5 deaths per 10,000 per day incertain regions, and the child mortality rate reached 4.1 deaths per 10,000 per day(Medecins sans Frontieres 2005).23 . While droughts consistently cause production to decline, the severity of theimpact has varied sharply across sub-regions within Niger and also over time. In spiteo f the fact that 2000/01 drought had affected per capita production decrease - o f morethan 50 percent - n about 15% o f departments, th e 2004/05 drought affected over 25percent o f departments. Comparatively, during non-drought years (e.g. , 200 1 2002 and2005/2006), less than 3 percent o f a ll departments experienced a per capita drop at thesame level o f more than 50 percent.

l6 Shocks that affect all the households in an area or group are called covariant shocks, as opposed toidiosyncratic shocks that affect only some households.This paper adopts the definitions proposed by the W orld Bank (2001) for the concepts o f risks, shocks,poverty and vulne rability . Poverty i s defined as an ex-post measure of well-be ing, whereas vulne rabilit y i san ex-ante measure o f well-being (or expected outcome). Central to the concept o f vulnerability i s risk,which i s a prob abilit y distribution o f events. Examples o f risks include natural risks, health risks, economicrisks, life-cycle risks, social risks, political risks or environmental risks. Whether a risk materializes, it i skno wn as a shock.l8 Annual rainf all was low er than one standard deviation from the mean. See Nicholson et a1 2000.I 9 Since the 1960s, Niger has experienced drought-related transitory food insecurity in 1966/67(Bandabari), 1973/74 (Dakoussou), 1984/85 (El Bohari), 1990/91, 1993/94, 1996/97 (Matche mai),2000/01 and 2004105 (Wazaka gaya ma). O f these years, only 1973/94, 1984/85, 1990/91, 1996/97 and2004/2005 were classified as severe food crises. (Government o f NigerD NPG CA 2007).2o As the definitions o f a food crisis vary, iden tifying clear thresholds for food crises i s problematic. Whi lea number o f households were affected by food insecurity in 1997/1998 and 2000/2001, data on the numbero f households affected are not rea dily available. Nevertheless, i t i s commonly agreed that the magnitude o fthe 2004/2005 food crisis i s the most severe, both in terms o f number o f persons affected and the severityo f the problem.

17

30


36/98

I Figure 5: Percentage of DeDartments Affected bv Prod uction Shocks bv Yea r. 20 00-2006 1

e 4" W j1 3 0 %92 0%

IO %

0%2 a 0 0 ~ 2 0 0 1

Source: Aker 200724. These marked differences in region al climate fluctua tions are also reflected inhigher dispersion of gra in production in drought-prone departments aro und theobserved production mean in N ige r. These fluctuations measured by the coefficient o fvariation, CVs2', ranges from -11 in the Magaria department (Zinder) to .75 in theTil laberi department. Overall, the regions o f Maradi and Zinder (which accountapproximately 40 percent o f national millet production) have the lowest coefficients ofvariation (.22 and -27, respectively), whereas the deficit regions o f Tillaberi and Tahouahave the highest coefficients o f variation. This suggests that rural households living indrought-prone areas (Tahoua and Tillaberi) are more l ik el y to be affected a higher degreeo f output risk.

Table 6. Percentage o f Households' Exposed to Shocks by Poverty Level and QuintileIllnessProduction (severe or La ndDroug ht Shock Death chronic) Flood Job Loss loss

A l l HH 4 7.62 16.59 11.22 10.55 1.99 1.48 0.90Poor 49.03 19.16 10.91 10.84 2.09 0.63 1.59Non-poor 46.04 13.68 11.57 10.22 1.88 1.21 1.36Qu int ile l 47.57 21.87 10.28 10.9 2.28 0.56 1.94Quin tile3 45.60 16.34 10.52 10.56 2.0 1 0.86 1.39QuintileS 50.50 15.59 13.99 10.51 2.01 1.37 2.15Source: INS QUIBB 2005

Quintile2 46.76 14.73 10.82 10.5 1.97 1.15 0.8Quintile4 47.85 13.98 10.99 10.20 1.65 0.6 1 1.10

2 ' The coefficient o f variation i s the standard deviation o f per capita grain production in a particulardepartment over the entire period, divided by mean per capita grain production.

3 1


37/98

25. Vulnerability to drought is associated with low level o households assets and humancapital. Poor households are not more exposed to shocks. Table 6 shows the relativeimportance o f different types o f shocks in Niger by poverty levels and quintiles.According to available information, drought i s the most prevalent type of shockexperienced b y households in Niger, fo llowe d by production shocks. O n average, poorhouseholds appear to be more l ikely to be exposed to natural and health shocks (drought,flood, production losses and illnesses). When stratifying the results by income quintile,however, the correlation between poverty and risk i s less clear. Econometric analysis byOuedraogo (2008) shows that households whose head i s unemployed, or work in informalsector; or i s female; or does have low levels o f education; or does not have livestock; or doeshave high dependency ratio are more likely to suffer from drought. In terms o f location, thehouseholds in Tahoua have the highest combination o f people residing and reportedhaving been exposed to drought and production shocks the most frequently, fol lowed b ythose in Maradi, Tillabery and Di f f a (see Table 7).Table 7. Distribution o f households Exposed to Drought across Regions o f Residence(%)

Region Residing Affected IncidenceAgadez 3.2 2.4 0.74Di f fa 3.7 5.9 1.59Dosso 9.7 5.1 0.53Maradi 19.7 20.8 1.06Tahoua 20.8 32.5 1.56Tillabery 15.9 16.5 1.04Zinder 20.2 16.7 0.83Niam ey 6.6 0.2 0.03Tota l 100 100 1Source: QUIBB2005

26. According to the information from 2005 QUIBB (INS), households have fairlylimited coping strategies to deal with covariate and individual shocks. Based on thissurvey, food aid was rated as the most common strategy used b y households to m itigatethe effects o f shocks, includ ing natural, economic and hea lth shocks (see Table 8). Fordrought alone, almost 1 in 4 households stated that they had used food aid as a copingstrategy. Fo llow ing food aid, households cited requesting assistance and the sale o fagricultural products as the most common strategies, followed by the sale o f householdassets, borrowing, and assistance fro m N GO s.27. The probability of receiving food aid is not correlated with poverty in ruralareas. Am ong those affected by the drought in rur al areas, on ly 72 percent o f the poorreceived food aid as compared to almost 80 percent o f the non poor. In urban areas,instead, poor households affected b y drought were more likely to receive food aid thannon-poor households. These results suggest that the targeting o f food aid has been eithernon existent or i t has focused on helping all those affected by drought rather than onlypoor households affected b y drought (see Tables 8 and 9).

32


38/98

Table 8. Households Cop ing Strategies after E xposure to Dro ught (YO)Strategies DroughtFood aid 74.8Sel l agricu ltural products 15.3s e l l agricultural materials 3 .OSel l HH assets 8.0Get help fro m Other households 40.0Assistance from NGOs 8.1Intern ationa l assistance 6.2Others 1.2Borrowing 7.3

Source: I N S QUI BB 2005Table 9 : Percentage o f drought affected households receiving food a id in 2005 bypoverty category and locationUrban Rural AllPoor 73.0 72.2 72.3I Non Poor 52.4 79.3 78.1 ]Source: I N S QU IBB 2005

28. Qualitative studies conducted by num erous NGOs and W FP pa in t a notablydifferent picture of household coping strategies. WFPs Emergency Food SecurityAssessment (2005) noted that the most comm on strategies usedb y households to respondto natural shocks include a reduction in the number o f meals per day, collecting wildfoods, bor row ing money or food from other households, migration, asset sales, land salesand livestock sales. W hi le the study did not focus o n the prevalence o f these strategies(overall or by region) or their relative importance, migration, the sale o f household assets,livestock stales and bo rrowin g were highligh ted as the most common strategies used b yNigerien households.29. Some coping mechanisms make households more vulnerab le to future foodinsecurity. Existing information confirms that although borrowing and selling strategiesmay enable households to cope with shocks in the short-term and help them to smoothincome, they effectively decapitalize the household o f i t s productive assets (naturalcapital, human capital and financial capital), thereby making i t more vulnerable to futurefood insecurity. For example, Marinho and Gerard (2008) estimate that 47 percent o fhouseholds had sold livestock, and as a consequence, 60 percent o f households in thenational poverty survey were s t i l l in debt after the 2005 food crisis, with the average debtequivalent to 427 k g o f cereals.30. Livestock ownersh ip affects coping mechanisms. In rural areas food aid i s themost common fo rm o f coping mechanisms, especially for those that do no t have anylivestock. In Urban areas, instead, households withou t any lives tock are more lik el y toreceive help from other households (70 percent).

3 3


39/98

Table 10. Coping mechanisms after drought by ownership o f livestock in rural andurban areas (YO)

RURAL URBANLivestock Livestockvalue valueN o below above

Coping mechanisms livestock median medianFood aid 80.7 74.7 72.7S e l l agricultural products 10.7 14.7 18.6Sel l agricultural equipments 3.6 2.5 2.8Sales o f HHassets 8.0 8.3 8.2Assistance from NGO's 7.6 7.5 10.1Internationalassistance 6.0 4.4 8.3Borrowing 9.4 5.6 7.0

Get help from other HH 42.8 33.8 40.5

Livestock Livestockvalue valueN o below abovelivestock median median55.8 72.7 76.118.6 6.3 33.01 5 7.4 5.91.3 11.3 3.570.0 48.4 61.34.0 1 o 2.011.4 1 o 0.020.5 8.0 5.4

Others 2.2 1.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.0Source: QUIBB 2005.Vulnerability to Food Insecurity3 1. Despite the wealth of data collected on household food security subject, it is notpossible to use a common classification of the most vulnerable households within thecountry and over time. There have been numerous expenditure, consumption andvulnerability surveys conducted by the Government o f Niger (GoN), WFP and variousNGOs between 2004 and 200722. Each study re l ies upon a different set o f variable fo rthe d efinition o f food security and vulnerability, in addition to different approaches andmethodologies to data collection. For example on ly the Q U I BB 2005 and ECVAM 2006contain inform atio n on expenditure and consumption. Therefore i t i s diff icult to have aconsistent defin ition and sources o f nform ation for estimating household foo d insecurity(see B ox 3).

Vulnerability surveys include: Enquete Conjointe sur la Vulnerabilite' a 1 Insecurite' Alimentaire desMknages au Niger ( I N S and SAP, November 2006); Enquete sur la Vulnerabilite' a l ' lnsecurite'Alimentaire des Me'nages au Niger ( I N S , WFP, FAO, UNICEF, FEWS NET, CILSS, December 2007);Enquetesur la Securtie Alimentaire en Situation d'Urgence au Niger (WFP, October 2005).

22

34


40/98

Box 3 :Methodologies to estimate household food insecurityBesides the simple calo ric consumption analysis presented in the first section o f his chapter, there are severalmethodologies that ca n be used to ca lculate household foo d insecuritv as:The f i k t measure estimates the expected level o f caloric consu mption, based on household human and physicalassets and capabilities, and compares i t wi th the observed level o f caloric consum ption. below 21 00 calories percapita per day in to 3 categories o f risk:

oo

Extreme chronic lev el (A) o f food insecurity level reflects both observed and expected levels o fconsumption below the minim um le vel of caloric consumption;Vulnerabilty to chronic level (B) foo d insecurity summarizes the share o f households wi th observedconsumption levels below min imum level o f caloric con sumption, but have the huma n and physicalassets that wou ld a llow them to consume adequate level o f calories, but they do not because o fparticular circumstances like drought.Vulnerability to food insecurity level (C) that summarizes the share o f households exposed to ris kand uncertainty, wh ich h ad affected their levels o f consumption. They are those who are expectedto consume l e s s than 2100 calories per capita a day in response to a shock, but manage to con

food security and safety nets niger wb

Documents