Content uploaded by Peter Agbola
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Agbola on Jul 05, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Effect of Income Diversification Strategies on food Insecurity Status of
Farming Households in Africa: Result of Analysis from Nigeria
Agbola P.O., Awotide D.O., IKPI A.E., Kormawa P., Okoruwa V.O.
and Babalola D.A.
Paper prepared for presentation at the 12th EAAE Congress
‘People, Food and Environments: Global Trends and European Strategies’,
Gent (Belgium), 26-29 August 2008
Copyright 2008 by [Agbola P.O., Awotide D.O., IKPI A.E., Kormawa P., Okoruwa V.O.
and Babalola D.A.]
. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-
commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all
such copies.
Effect of Income Diversification Strategies on food Insecurity Status of Farming
Households in Africa: Result of Analysis from Nigeria
Agbola P.O.
1
, Awotide D.O.
2
, IKPI A.E.
3
, Kormawa P.
4
, Okoruwa V.O.
3
and Babalola D.A.
1
1
Department of Agriculture and Industrial Technology, Babcock University, Nigeria
2
Department of Agricultural Economics, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago- Iwoye, Nigeria
3
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
4
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
ABSRACT—
This study links food insecurity status of
farming households in the study area to their income
diversification strategies. Data for the study were
collected from 400 farming households in Osun State of
the southwestern Nigeria. Households were classified
into four categories based on how they obtain a living.
Descriptive statistics, Cost of Calorie Function (COC)
and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to
analyze the data. Income diversification strategies of the
households involved – combinations of crop production
with livestock enterprises; crop production with off
farm activities; off farm activities with livestock
enterprises and crop production only; at 60.0%, 10.0%,
8.0%, and 22.0% of households respectively. Income
diversification strategies have significant influence on
food insecurity at x
2
<0.001. Households that depend
more on off farm income ranked the best, having the
highest surplus index of 0.71 and the least shortfall
index of 0.21 which indicate that the food secure
households exceed the calorie requirement by 71% while
the food insecure households fell short of the
recommended calorie intake by 21%. The head count
ratio shows that 82% of individuals in this group are
food secure while 18% are food insecure. Households
that rely solely on crop production ranked the least. A
shortfall index of 0.41 and a surplus index of 0.62
indicate that food insecure households in this group fell
short of the recommended calorie intake by 41% while
food secure households exceed the calorie requirement
by 62%. Head count ratio reveals that 79% of the
individuals are food secure while 21% are food insecure.
Results have shown that food insecurity among farming
households in the study area was influenced by Income
diversification strategies.
Keywords— Diversification, Food, Insecurity.
I. I
NTRODUCTION
In the last decade, attention has been focused on
means of eliminating food insecurity and hunger
world- wide. The 1992 International Conference on
Nutrition and the 1996 World Food Summit both
emphasized the critical need to decrease food
insecurity and hunger globally. With the increase
emphasis on relieving food crisis and reducing the
severe consequences of famine and malnutrition on the
poor, there is increase need for researching food
problems in Africa. Most of the countries with the
most extreme depth of hunger (more than 300
Kilocalories per person per day) are located in Africa
(FAO 2000) [1]. Nigeria is the most populous country
in Africa. The issue of food insecurity is of high
importance to Nigeria because average Calorie and
protein intake is only at the threshold of adequacy.
Estimates show that at least 41% of the population is
food-insecure; with 16 percent being severely
undernourished (Olayemi 1996) [2]. The daily per
capital calorie supply as a proportion of requirement
was 90 percent in 1988-90 and 85 percent in 1992-96
(FOS 1999) [3]. Also, trends in poverty reveal that the
incidence of poverty increased sharply both between
1980 and 1985 and between 1992 and 1996. The
figures were 27.2%, 46.3%, 42.7% and 65.6% for
1980, 1985, 1992 and 1996 respectively. The figure
for 1996 was translated to 67.1 million. In the same
year, consumption of own produce (COP) was almost
of the same magnitude as food cash expenditure in the
rural; 33.9% and 33.88% respectively. The overall
national average household income in 1996 prices
indicate a very significant downward trend, moving
from N 13,454.00 in 1980 to just N6252.00 in 1996,
over 50% reduction. The average household in the
rural areas earned N5590.00 (FAO, 2000) [1]. At the
world food summit in 1996, Nigeria along with 184
other countries made a commitment to reduce the
number of chronically undernourished people by half
by the year 2015 (FAO, 2002)[4]. Therefore, in order
to formulate effective policies for reaching this goal, a
thorough understanding of the causes of food
insecurity is needed. Also, the process of identifying
the food insecure as target groups and achieving a
better understanding of the determinants of food
insecurity as policy instruments for development
planners is crucial for designing effective food
security programmes. This paper examines the effect
of income diversification strategies on food insecurity
status of farming households in the study area.
II. C
ONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
In order to generate food insecurity indices, the
cost-of-calorie (COC) method proposed by Greer
and Thorbecke (1986)
[5]
was used in this study
for its simplicity and ease of computation. In this
procedure a cost-of-calorie (COC) function of the
following forms was estimated.
InX = a + bC………………………………… (1)
Where:
X = food expenditure (=N=)
C = calorie consumption (kcal)
The calorie contents of the recommended daily
nutrients level (L) were used to derive the food
insecurity line Z:
Z =
)( bLa
e
+
………………………………… (2)
Based on Z, several food security measures were
calculated with the shortfall index given as P:
P =
M
1
∑
1m
G
i
………………………………..………….. (3)
Headcount ratio (H) is given as:
H =
N
M
……………..……………………… (4)
G
i
= (Z – X
i
)/Z
……………………………………………… (5)
Where Z gives the cost of buying the minimum
calorie intake (L)
L = Recommended daily energy levels
(2250kcal)
G
i
= Food expenditure deficiency for
household i
M = the number of food insecure in the
sample
N = Sample size
The shortfall index (P) measures the extent to
which poor households are food insecure. The
index is a reflection of the food insecurity
situation in a society. In implementing food
security policies and programmes the value of the
index could be monitored over time and
compared among the different groups of the
population. Food secure households are defined
as those with a minimum intake of 2250
kilocalories, recommended by the FAO/WHO
(1973)
[6]
. The nutrient composition of commonly
eaten foods in Nigeria (Oguntona and Akinyele
1995)
[7]
was used to estimate the calorie intake
of households
III. R
ESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Income Diversification Strategies of Respondents
Households were classified into four categories
based on how they obtain a living. Four income
diversification strategies were identified among
the households namely;
• Crop production only
• Crop production with off farm activities
• Crop production with livestock enterprises
• Off farm activities with livestock enterprises
Majority of the households (60%) derive their
livelihood through a combination of crop
production and livestock enterprises. Crops that
are grown include food/cash crops and
plantation/orchard. About 10% of the households
derive their livelihood through a combination of
crop production and off farm activities. About 8%
combine off farm activities with livestock
enterprises, while 22% rely on crop production
only.
B. Household food insecurity by income diversification
strategies
Households that derive their livelihood mainly
through off farm activities with some livestock
enterprises ranked best. This set of households
had the highest surplus index of 0.71 and the least
shortfall index of 0.21. Food secure households
exceed the calorie requirement by 71%; the food
insecure households fell short of the
recommended calorie intake by 21%. The head
count ratio shows that 82% of individuals in this
group are food secure; 18% are food insecure.
Households that rely solely on crop production
ranked the least. A shortfall index of 0.41 and a
surplus index of 0.62 indicate that food insecure
households in this group fell short of the
recommended calorie intake by 41% while food
secure households exceed the calorie requirement
by 62%. Head count ratio reveals that 79% of the
individuals are food insecure while 21% are food
secure. Households that derive their livelihood
through a combination of crop production and off
farm activities ranked second. This group has a
shortfall index of 0.37 and a surplus index of
0.29. Food insecure households in this group fell
short of the recommended calorie intake by 37%;
food secure households exceed the calorie
requirement by 29%. Head count ratio reveals that
61% of the individuals are food insecure; 39% are
food secure. Households that derive their
livelihood through a combination of crop
production and livestock enterprises ranked third.
This group has a shortfall index of 0.38 and a
surplus index of 0.64. Food insecure households
in this group fell short of the recommended
calorie intake by 38%; food secure households
exceed the calorie requirement by 64%. Head
count ratio reveals that 73% of the individuals are
food insecure; 27% are food secure.
Table 1: Household food insecurity by income
diversification strategies
Livelihood
category Rank Household
(%)
Household
Food
Status (%)
Shortfall/
surplus
index
Head
count ratio
Food security
index
(mean) (stdev)
Insecure
16 -0.21
0.18
0.79 0.26 A
1
st
8
Secure
84
0.71
0.82
1.71 0.49
Insecure
57 -0.37
0.61
0.63 0.26 B
2
nd
10
Secure
42
0.29
0. 39
1.29 0.30
Insecure
61 -0.38
0.73
0.66 0.26 C
3
rd
22
Secure
38 0.64
0. 27
1.55 0.67
Insecure
69 -0.41
0.79
0.59 0.25 D
4
th
60
Secure
31
0.62
0. 21
1.62 1.12
Off-farm activities with Livestock enterprises=A
Annual crop production with off farm activities=B
Annual crop production with livestock enterprises=C
Annual crop production only=D
Further more, result shows that the chi-square test
is significant at 1% level (table 2), which means
that food insecurity is significantly and
statistically related to income diversification
strategies.
Table 2: Test Statistics
Strategies Food Insecurity Status
Chi-Square 260.686 237.760
df 3 10
Asymp. Sig 0.000 0.000
IV. C
ONCLUSION
Income diversification strategies have an
important influence on food insecurity.
Households produced crops and gathered wild
fruits, vegetables and sold farm labour to
supplement cash income and to reduce household
food insecurity. Households that combined
enterprises were better off and able to meet their
capital expenditure. Livestock were sold in times
of emergencies such as sickness and also for
children education. Annual food and cash crops
were used to meet daily food and cash
requirements. Promising routes out of extreme
food insecurity include adding enterprises to a
farm, or diversifying into non-farm or wage
employment.
V
.
R
EFERENCES
1. FAO. (2000) The State of food Insecurity in the world. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
2. Olayemi J.K. (1996) Food Security in Nigeria. The Report of a
Research Study Sponsored by Development Policy Center, Ibadan,
Nigeria. September 1996.
3. FOS. (1999). Poverty Profile for Nigeria 1980-1996. Federal Office of
statistics. Nigeria.
4. FAO. (2002). World Food Summit-five years later.
www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit.
5. Greer J. and E. Thorbecke (1986): “A Methodology for Measuring
Food Poverty Applied to Kenya, Journal of Development Economics
24 (1) 59 – 74.
6. FAO/WHO. (1973). Nutritional Requirements, Nutrition Meetings
Report Series. No 52. FAO.
7. Oguntona .E.B and Akinyele .I.O. (1995) “Nutrients Composition of
commonly Eaten foods in Nigeria – Raw, Processed and Prepared.
Food Basket Foundation. Ibadan, Nigeria
• Author: Agbola P.O
• Institution: Babcock University
• Street: Ilisan
• City: Ilisan- Remo
• Country: Nigeria
• Email: afemop@yahoo.com
