NIGERIA FOOD SECURITY AND VULNERABILITY SURVEY 2016 REPORT

Transcription

1 NIGERIA FOOD SECURITY AND VULNERABILITY SURVEY 2016 REPORT Published by FAO Representation in Nigeria November 2016

2 CONTENTS List of Tables... iv List of Figures... v Acknowledgements... vi Acronyms... vii Executive Summary... viii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background Objectives of the Survey... 1 CHAPTER TWO METHODS Sample Size Calculation... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1 Sampling Data Collection Data Processing and Analyses... 3 CHAPTER THREE FINDINGS Distribution of Households Sampled by State and Zones Demographic Profile of the Sample Population Household Head Information Resident Status of Households Household Size and Composition Food Security Food Availability Food Access Box 1: Food Security and Livelihoods Evolution in North East Nigeria Food Utilization Food Stability Livelihoods and Income Livelihood Sources Income Expenditure Shocks Nature and Scale of Shocks Livelihood-Based Coping Strategies Other Assets of Sustainable Livelihoods ii

3 3.5.1 Ownership of Possessions Housing and Facilities Access to Basic Services Access to Credit Social Support CHAPTER FOUR DISCUSSION Limits of the Survey Dependency Ratio Food Availability Food Access Food Utilization Food Stability Livelihoods Evolution CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Recommendations ANNEX RESULTS BY SENATORIAL ZONES iii

4 List of Tables Table 1: Sample size of the FSVS by state and senatorial zone... 5 Table 2: Household head characteristics... 6 Table 3: Highest education level of household heads who attended school... 6 Table 4: Resident status of households... 7 Table 5: Age distribution of household population... 8 Table 6: Reasons for lack of crop production Table 7: Average staple grain production per household and calorie proxy Table 8: Major livestock produced in the survey states Table 9: Transportation means of market access and average number of minutes required to get to market Table 10: Average weekly consumption of food groups Table 11: Average number of days households deployed specific coping strategies in 7 days preceding FSVS Table 12: Distribution of main livelihood source by state Table 13: Prevalence of livelihood change and associated factors Table 14: Average household expenditure in 30 days preceding FSVS Table 15: Primary shocks experienced by households Table 16: Percentage of households who have used specific livelihood coping strategies Table 17: Household access to basic education and health services Table 18: Percentage of households who borrowed money, the sources and uses of borrowed money, and the average amount of money borrowed Table 19: Types of food assistance received and organization providing assistance iv

5 List of Figures Figure 1: Average household size... 8 Figure 2: Percentage of households who produced crops in 2015 and Figure 3: Mean land area (hectares) cultivated in 2015 and Figure 4: Percentage of households producing livestock in Figure 5: Percentage household market access and food availability in markets Figure 6: Household perceptions of staple foods variations in markets Figure 7: Prevalence of borderline and poor food consumption Figure 8: Household dietary diversity score distribution Figure 9: Percentage of households who did not have enough food or money to buy food in 7 days preceding FSVS Figure 10: Distribution of reduced coping strategy index (rcsi) among households with insufficient food in 7 days preceding FSVS Figure 11: Distribution of hunger Figure 12: Drinking water facilities Figure 13: Percentage of households with food stocks Figure 14: Number of household livelihood sources Figure 15: Median estimated household monthly income in past year (Naira) Figure 16: Food expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure Figure 17: Percentage of households who experienced shocks in the past 12 months Figure 18: Percentage of households who employed livelihood-based coping strategies Figure 19: Ease of access to main cooking fuel Figure 20: Percentage of households who have 1 member with a bank account Figure 21: Percentage of households who received food assistance in preceding 12 months. 33 Figure 22: Percentage of households affiliated with 1 group/ association/ cooperative v

6 Acknowledgements A survey such as the Food Security and Vulnerability Survey (FSVS) is the product of many contributions. The 2016 FSVS, from the planning of the survey to the report dissemination, was organized by the FAO Representation in Nigeria, with the support of Nigeria Food Security Sector partners and partners involved in the implementation of Cadre Harmonisé in Nigeria. FEWS NET is especially appreciated for the contribution of human resources to the survey. FAO is very grateful to the National Bureau of Statistics for mobilizing enumerators, training them, and collecting the data for the survey. The assistance of the State Ministries of Agriculture and Health in the 16 states; the States Agricultural Development Programmes; the States Emergency Management Agencies and Bureaus of Statistics; and the States Cadre Harmonisé cells is greatly appreciated. The cooperation of the selected communities and households in completing the survey was crucial and very much appreciated. The Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS) seconded Williams Massaoud for the analyses of the survey data. The FSVS was funded by European Commission s Humanitarian Aid Organization (ECHO) as a major activity of the project OSRO/NIR/602/ECHO, to provide data for the Cadre Harmonisé. The survey team in the FAO country office was led by Louise Setshwaelo, FAO Representative in Nigeriaand Nourou Macki Tall, FAO Representative a.i.; as well as Rabe Mani, the Assistant FAO Representative for Programmes. Members of the survey team at FAO were Amadou Diop, Olutayo Adeyemi, Danjuma Garba Saleh, Christopher Okonjo, Abibu Tamu, and Omondi Odoyo. vi

7 Acronyms CAPI CH CILSS EA ECHO FAO FCS FEWS NET FSVS HDDS HH HHS IDPs LCSI LGA NBS rcsi WFP Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing Cadre Harmonisé Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel Enumeration Areas European Commission s Humanitarian Aid Organization Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Food Consumption Score Famine Early Warning System Network Food Security and Vulnerability Survey Household Dietary Diversity Score Household Household Hunger Scale Internally Displaced Persons Livelihood-Based Coping Strategy Index Local government area National Bureau of Statistics Reduced Coping Strategy Index World Food Programme vii

8 Executive Summary There is a continued need for food security information of households, both for famine early warning purposes and to be able to plan and target interventions appropriately. This need has become even more urgent with the prolonged Boko Haram insurgency in North East Nigeria and the widespread economic recession across the country. The Food Security and Vulnerability Survey (FSVS) aims to meet this need. The first FSVS was conducted in 2014 with 174 households in five states, while the 2015 FSVS sampled 3736 households in eight states. In the 2016 FSVS, 9237 households in the 16 Northern Nigeria States of Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger, Plateau, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe, and Zamfara were sampled. The specific objectives of the 2016 FSVS were to provide estimates of food security indicators, determine the status of livelihoods, and furnish data for additional analyses such as the Cadre Harmonisé (CH) analysis for classifying the severity of current and projected food insecurity and the Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA). Households sampled in the FSVS were selected using two stage cluster randomized sampling and the frame of enumeration areas demarcated by the National Population Commission for the 2006 Housing and Population Census. Enumeration areas were randomly selected in each of the three senatorial zones in each state, and 10 households were randomly selected in each enumeration area. It is important to emphasize that the survey was designed to be representative at the state and senatorial zone level, but not at the local government area (LGA) level. The same sampling technique was used in all of the states, including the conflict affected states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe. No attempt was made in these states to specially sample internally displaced persons (IDPs) or returnees or refugees. Thus, the survey is a reflection of the general situation in the states and not the situation of any particular population group such as IDPs. The main finding from the survey was that food security and livelihood vulnerabilitiesare considerable across the 16 states included, howbeit to varying degrees from state to state. Food availability: There were 8 of the 16 states where 70% of households produced crops and livestock in 2016, even though the livelihood zones in the states are agrarian. Still, the anticipated harvest from households that have produced food can meet the food needs in all of the states except one, if there is equitable access and minimal postharvest losses. In Borno State, only 24% and 35% of households produced crops and livestock respectively. Even if there were minimal postharvest losses and all of the food produced was equitably shared, there will still be at least a 34% deficit in food needs. At the time of the FSVS 50% of households across the 16 states had any food stocks and even these stocks were not expected to last more than one month or two months at the maximum. Food access: Physical access to food was generally high, with 80% of households in the states reporting access to functional markets where they find the foods they need. Economic access to food was however poor. Median income per person per day in the households ranged from N46 in Borno State, to N133 in Niger State, among households that had livelihood sources. Across the states, food had accounted for more than 40% of household expenditure in the month preceding the FSVS. As may be expected, food consumption was quite inadequate. In nearly viii

9 all of the states, more than 10% of households had a poor or borderline food consumption score (FCS). In 7 states the percentage of households with poor or borderline FCS was more than 20%, reaching a high of 42% and 43% in Yobe and Borno States respectively. Household dietary diversity score (HDDS) was even worse. In all of the 16 states, at least 29% of households had HDDS 4. In Kebbi State, it was 53%, and 54% in both Borno and Yobe States. Further, nearly 20% of households across the states had not had enough food or money to buy food in the 7 days preceding the FSVS, ranging from 4% of households in Kano to 37% of households in Borno. Similarly, the prevalence of moderate to severe hunger ranged from 3% in Kano to 34% in Borno. Food utilization: Access to safe drinking water was very low in most states. Less than 40% of households had access to improved drinking water sources overall. This ranged from 10% in Benue State to 82% in Jigawa. Access to health services was more prevalent with nearly 80% of households overall having access to a health facility. However, this was also highly variable across the states. Whereas in Bauchi, only 56% of households reported having access to a health facility, in Katsina, it was 93%. Food stability: Households did not have stability of food supply. Among those households who had produced crops in 2016, food from their own production was expected to meet their household needs for just 7 months on the average. Livelihoods: Agriculture remained the primary livelihood source for most households in all states, except Borno. Households generally depended on one or two livelihood sources, but some households in all of the states had up to four livelihood sources. In Borno, 20% of the households reported having no livelihood source. The percentage of households with no livelihood source in the other states ranged from 0.4% to 2.5%. Still, many households had deployed crises to emergency livelihood-based coping strategies in response to shocks, in the 12 months preceding the FSVS. Zamfara State had the least percentage of households deploying crises to emergency livelihood coping strategies (8%) and Borno State had the highest percentage (71%). What these results mean is that in the states with greater vulnerabilities, many households had to deplete livelihoods and assets to achieve some measure of food intake even if they are not food secure. In states where not many households have depleted livelihoods and assets, food consumption is inadequate and there is the risk that any exposure to further shocks can lead households to irreversible livelihood-based coping strategies and/or asset depletion. Consequently, there is a need to intervene for improved food security and greater resilience in all the states, and especially Borno State needs emergency intervention The Cadre Harmonisé (CH) analyses for classifying food insecurity and vulnerability conducted in October 2016 was mostly based on the FSVS data and findings. This CH analyses concluded that in the current situation (October to December 2016), 4.95 million people are in need of assistance in the six (6) North East states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. For the three states most affected by Boko Haram insurgency (Adamawa, Borno and Yobe)and targeted for assistance by the Food Security Sector, 4.67 million people are ix

10 estimated to be in phases 3 (crisis) to 5 (famine); including 2,800,539 in crisis (phase 3); 1,817,286 in emergency (phase 4); and 55,013 people in famine (phase 5). The current population in famine is located exclusively in newly liberated and inaccessible LGAs in Borno State. It is recommended that agricultural support be provided in all of the states to increase and diversity food production and consumption. Livelihood support activities are necessary in areas where many households have depleted livelihoods and/or assets, and these livelihood support activities should consider all of the assets necessary for sustainable livelihoods. Very importantly, urgent food assistance is necessary in states where food insecurity and livelihood depletion is most alarming (Borno, Yobe, Taraba, Adamawa, and Plateau States). The food assistance in these states will need to be sustained until affected households are able to build or rebuild livelihoods. x

11 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0 Background High prevalence of food insecurity and vulnerability has historically been reported in Nigeria, although there has been little empirical evidence to quantify the situation. This poor food security situation has been exacerbated by the Boko Haram insurgence in North East Nigeria which has led to thousands of death, displacement of more than 2 million people, and significant reductions in food production and availability. The need to intervene to prevent hunger, malnutrition, and further deaths has led to an increasing call for data to describe the food security situation across the country; in order to guide appropriate action. Consequently, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) commenced the conduct of an annual Food Security and Vulnerability Survey (FSVS) in Nigeria. The first FSVS was conducted in December 2014 with a sample size of 30 to 40 households each in five states (Adamawa, Borno, Gombe, Taraba, and Yobe). With funding from the European Commission s Humanitarian Aid Organization (ECHO) and support of Food Security Sector partners, this was scaled up in 2015to a survey of 3,736 households (300 to 500 households each) in eight states Adamawa, Borno, Jigawa, Kano, Katsina, Sokoto, Yobe, and Zamfara. In 2016, again with funding from ECHO, the FSVS has been further scaled up to 16 states. This report presents the findings of the FSVS in the 16 states. 1.1 Objectives of the Survey The overall objective of the FSVS was to provide information about the food security and livelihood status of the population in the surveyed states, with a particular focus on food consumption and livelihood evolution. Specifically, the FSVS aimed to: 1. Determine the status of livelihoods among households across the states, including main livelihood activities, incomes, expenditures, shocks, and livelihood coping strategies; 2. Provide estimates of food security indicators, including food availability, food access, food utilization, and food stability indicators; and 3. Furnish data for additional analyses such as the Cadre Harmonisé (CH) analysis for classifying the severity of current and projected food insecurity and the Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA). The report is organized in five chapters. Following this introduction which describes the background to the survey and the objectives of the survey, the second chapter describes the methods used for the conduct of the survey. Chapter three presents the results of the survey at state level, and chapter four discusses the results. Conclusions and recommendations are highlighted in chapter five. The report ends with supplementary tables that detail the results at the level of senatorial districts within each state. 1

12 CHAPTER TWO METHODS The terms of reference for the survey and the survey questionnaire were prepared by FAO and the Food Security Technical Group. The survey design, data collection, and data processing were done by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). The survey was designed to be representative at both state and senatorial district level in each state. The 2016 FSVS was conducted in the 16 Northern Nigeria states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger, Plateau, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe, and Zamfara. These states include all the states in the North East and North West geopolitical zones of Nigeria, and three states in the North Central geopolitical zone. 2.1 Sampling A two stage cluster randomized sampling was used to select households included in the survey. In the first stage clusters, enumeration areas were randomly selected in each of the three senatorial districts in each of the states. The frame of enumeration areas (EAs) demarcated by the National Population Commission for the 2006 Housing and Population Census was used. Twenty (20) EAs were selected in each of the three senatorial districts in each state, making a total of 60 EAs per state. The EAs included both urban and rural EAs. In each selected EA, ten households were randomly selected from the already listed households. Thus, 960 EAs and 9600 households were planned for the survey. A list of selected households was given to enumerators for each selected EA. Each EA list also contained replacement households, in case a selected household was unavailable. Where a selected EA could not be accessed due to insecurity or lack of physical access (for instance due to flooded roads), the closest accessible EA was selected to replace the EA. Household selection in the EAs was done using the names of the household heads. If a selected household was found to have moved, the household currently living in their previous dwelling was included in the survey. Replacement households were only used if nobody was available to participate in the survey in the dwelling of the selected household. It is important to emphasize that the FSVS was designed to reflect the food security and livelihoods situation in senatorial districts and states, and not the situation of any particular population group within the districts and states. The same sampling technique was used in all of the states, including the conflict affected states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe. No attempt was made in these states to specially sample IDPs in the FSVS. 2.2 Data Collection Data collection was done using computer assisted personal interviewing devices (CAPI). There were three data collection teams in each state, one (1) per senatorial district. Each team comprised a supervisor and four enumerators. The activities of the teams were monitored at three levels within each state. There was a NBS State Coordinator to monitor team movement and activities, a NBS monitor from the Federal level, and a monitor from the Food Security Sector. Key Food Security Sector partners involved in the process were FEWS NET and WFP. Data collection was conducted for ten days, from the 4th to the 14th of October, 2016 Prior to the data collection, a two day training of trainers was held in Abuja for the NBS and Food Security Sector monitors, as these monitors also served as trainers of enumerators and 2

13 supervisors at the state level. The training covered the survey design, the use of survey instruments, and the design/implementation of a monitoring plan. The survey instruments included paper copies of the household survey questionnaire, CAPI modified versions of the questionnaire, EA maps, and household selection sheets. Following the training of trainers, state level training was held concurrently in all of the 16 states. The state level training was conducted for three days, and included both classroom simulation and field practice of the household questionnaire using the CAPI. The household questionnaire collected data in fifteen sections: 1. Household head information 2. Demographics 3. Household livelihoods/income 4. Expenditure 5. Crop production 6. Livestock production 7. Food consumption 8. Household hunger scale 9. Shocks 10. Coping strategies 11. Ownership of possessions 12. Housing and facilities 13. Access to market, services and credit 14. Social support 15. Nutritional status of children 6 to 59 months old 2.3 Data Processing and Analyses Completed household questionnaires were uploaded to a central server at the end of each day. In areas where poor telecommunications network did not allow upload of some or all of the questionnaires, physical upload was done when the CAPIs were returned to Abuja at the end of the data collection. The data was downloaded from the server and cleaned by NBS. Data analysis was done by a statistician provided by the Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS), with support from a food security and nutrition technical staff at the FAO Nigeria country office. Data analysis was done using SPSS 19.0 and Stata 12. Each indicator was computed/summarized using validated methods. The findings of the report presents the situation with food security and livelihoods based on 14 of the sections included in the survey. The section on nutritional status of children 6 to 59 months old was not presented. Unlike the data on food security and livelihoods, the nutrition data was collected not to establish the prevalence of malnutrition, but to provide indirect and contributory evidence for the CH analysis only. Data collection for the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) was ongoing at the same time as data collection for the FSVS. MICS (conducted by UNICEF and NBS) is designed to among other things, provide estimates about the prevalence of malnutrition in the states. Thus, the nutrition information collected in the FSVS is not presented in this report, but in the CH analyses report from each of the 16 states. 3

14 CHAPTER THREE FINDINGS 3.0 Distribution of Households Sampled by State and Zones Table 1 presents the sample size that was actually achieved for the FSVS by geopolitical zone, state and senatorial zone. In general, almost100% of the estimated required sample size in each state was surveyed. The three exceptions were Plateau, Zamfara and Kano States where 76%, 85% and 89.9% respectively had been surveyed. Table 1: Sample Size of the FSVS by State and Senatorial Zone Senatorial Zones Actual Sample Size as % of Total States Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Estimated Required North Central Geo-Political Zone Benue Niger Plateau North East Geo-Political Zone Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe North West Geo-Political Zone Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Sokoto Zamfara Demographic Profile of the Sample Population Household Head Information The household heads in more than 95% of the households surveyed were male (Table 2). Benue State had the highest percentage of female household heads (11%), followed by Plateau and Borno States (7% each). On the average, male household heads were between 45 and 50 years old across the states. Female household heads appeared older in most of the states, with average ages ranging from 43 years to 72 years. However, there was a lot more variation in the ages of female household heads. The percentage of household heads who had ever attended school varied across the states, from a low of 48% in Kebbi State, to a high of 89% in Kano State. Among household heads that had ever attended school, Islamic education was the highest education qualification obtained by the majority of household heads in all except in six states 5

15 (Table 3).In Benue, Gombe, Kaduna, Plateau, and Taraba, a secondary education was the highest qualification reported by the highest proportion of respondents. Adamawa was the only state where a higher education was the most reported category of education qualification. Sex of household Head (%) Table 2: Household Head Characteristics Age of Household Head (Years) % of Household Head that have Ever Attended School Sample Size Male Female Male Female Mean S.E.M. Mean S.E.M. Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara Table 3: Highest Education Level of Household Heads who Attended School State Primary Secondary Higher Islamic Vocational None Sample Size Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara

16 3.1.2 Resident Status of Households The overwhelming proportion of households sampled were resident households (Table 4). Adamawa and Borno states were the only states where there were an appreciable proportion of non-resident households. In Adamawa, 29% of the households sampled were returnee households. Borno had 6% IDP households, and 3% each of returnee and refugee households. Furthermore, 35% of resident households in Borno had at least one IDP or returnee living with them. There were almost no IDP households included in the sample surveyed in Yobe State. However, 10% of the resident households in Yobe had at least one IDP or returnee living in the household. In Plateau, Jigawa, and Adamawa States, at least 4% of households also reported having one or more IDP/returnee living with them (Table 4). The average length of stay of households in their current location ranged from 19 years in Borno to 43 years in Kano. Table 4: Resident Status of Households Resident Status of Households (%) % of Resident Resident IDP Returnee Refugee Households with an IDP or Returnee Living in Household Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara Household Size and Composition The average household size was between 7 and 9 in all of the states, except Kebbi which had an average household size of 5 (Figure 1). Generally, the variation around household sizes was similar, except for Borno State where the standard deviation appeared much higher. In Borno, Yobe, Plateau, Jigawa, and Adamawa States which had a significant proportion of households reporting having IDPs or returnees living with them, the average number of IDPs/returnees in the households ranged from 2 in Jigawa to 7 in Borno. Adamawa and Plateau States had an average number of 3 IDPs/returnees in the affected households, while Yobe had an average of 4. Again, there was high variability around these figures, especially in Borno State. 7

17 Within the households, adults between the ages of 18 and 60 years old made up the largest proportion of the household, except in Borno, Kano, Katsina, and Kebbi where children 5 to 17 years old were the largest proportion. Generally, adults older than 60 years made up the least proportion, followed by children under 5 years. Table 5: Age Distribution of Household Population (%) STATE < 5 years 5 17 years years > 60 years Sample Size Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara

18 3.2 Food Security Food Availability a) Crop Production In all the 16 states, except for Gombe where there appeared to be a slight decrease, the percentage of households who produced crops in 2016 increased from 2015 or remained the same (Figure 2). Changes in the land area planted from 2015 to 2016 were not systematic (Figure 3). In Benue, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, and Plateau States, there appeared to be no change in the average land area cultivated per household; while in Kebbi, Niger, and Taraba, the land area cultivated appeared to decrease by around a quarter of a hectare in On the other hand, the average land area cultivated by households in Borno increased by 1.4 hectares in 2016, while there was about a quarter of a hectare increase in Yobe. Adamawa and Sokoto also saw increases in the land area cultivated. Still, Borno State had the lowest prevalence of households cultivating crops in both 2015 and 2016, with 24% of households producing crops in 2016; whereas Zamfara had the highest percentage of household producing crops. The reverse was the case for land area cultivated. While households in Borno State had the highest average land area cultivated per household, Zamfara had the lowest. Among households who did not cultivate crops, the major reason in all of the states, except the conflict affected states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe, was a lack of access to land (Table 6). In these three conflict affected states, insecurity was the major reason for not producing crops, and was reported by 70% of the non-producing households in Borno. Lack of seeds and/or fertilizer was also a considerable challenge in several states, as was inaccessibility of land. Adverse weather was reported as a challenge in relatively fewer states. It should however be noted that more than 70% of those who did not cultivate crops in all the states also reported no desire to cultivate crops in On the average, households cultivated 2 or 3 staple crops across the states. In each of the states, the staple cereal cultivated by the majority of households was sorghum; after which millet, maize and rice occupied varying positions of importance, based on the state. The proportion of households producing legumes (cowpeas and groundnuts) was generally not as high as those producing cereals, but the legume with the most producing households varied from state to state. The average yield of each of the assessed staple crops and the total proxy calorie provided per capita is presented in Table 7. 9

19 Lack of Access to Land Table 6: Reasons for Lack of Crop Production Adverse Weather Lack of Seeds Lack of Fertilizer Inaccessibility of Land Insecurity Sample Size Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau

20 Lack of Access to Land Adverse Weather Lack of Seeds Lack of Fertilizer Inaccessibility of Land Insecurity Sample Size Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara Table 7: Average Staple Grain Production per Household and Calorie Proxy Caloric Percent of Sorghum Millet Maize Rice Groundnut Cowpea Proxy Standard kcal/ person/ kg kg kg kg kg kg % day Adamawa 1,755 1,452 2,187 2,238 1,672 1,190 2, Bauchi 1,712 1,718 2,020 1, , Benue , , Borno 933 1,395 2,687 1,389 1,016 1,689 1, Gombe 2,035 1,841 2,223 1, ,051 4, Jigawa 1,533 1,377 1,056 2, , Kaduna 1,154 1,012 3,082 2, , Kano 1, ,177 1, , Katsina 2,483 1,141 4,069 3,357 1,049 1,345 9, Kebbi 1,751 1,859 1,365 2,341 1, , Niger 2,783 2,337 3,070 2,728 3,218 2,940 7, Plateau 1,573 1,582 2,121 3,479 1, , Sokoto 969 1, , , Taraba 1, ,059 3,258 1, , Yobe 2,921 3, , ,041 5, Zamfara 2,979 2,235 2,371 2,611 2,606 1,500 6, b) Livestock Production With the exception of Niger, Taraba, Borno, and Kaduna States, more than 60% of households in the states kept some livestock (Figure 4). Goats, poultry and sheep were the most common livestock produced across the states. Cattle were commonly produced in some states, but not so much in others. Across the states, the average number of animals kept by households ranged between 4 and 14 for cows; 4 and 12 for sheep; 5 and 12 for goats; and 7 and 34 for poultry (Table 8). With the exception of one or two states in each instance, very few households had camels, horses, donkeys, or pigs. In addition, fishing was an important activity in some of the states. Katisna had the lowest prevalence of fishing in the three months preceding the FSVS (0.3%). Adamawa, Bauchi, Kaduna, Kano, Sokoto and Zamfara had between 2% and 3% of households engaged in fishing over the past three months. The other states had between 4% and 16% of households engaged in this activity Table 8). 11

21 Table 8: Major Livestock Produced in the Survey States STATE Average Number of Major Animals Reared by Households % Households Cows Sheep Goats Poultry Engaged in Fishing Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara

22 3.2.2 Food Access a) Access to Market More than 80% of households across the 16 states had access to functional markets, except in Bauchi where it was 78% (Figure 5). Most of the markets accessed by households were weekly markets (50% to 81% of the markets across the states), except in Benue where 60% of households accessed markets that are open 2 5 days a week. Households in Adamawa, Borno, Kaduna, and Taraba had the highest access to daily markets (39% to 43% accessed daily markets in these states). Nearly all of the households who had market access reported finding the foods they need on the market (Figure 5). The two exceptions were Jigawa and Taraba, where 9% of households who accessed markets could not find the food needed. Nearly all households who reported that they cannot find the foods they need, in the markets they access, cited high food prices as the reason for the unavailability. When asked about their perceptions of the current market variations in the availability of staple food commodities, the greater proportion of households in all of the states perceived that the quantity of staple foods in their market is increasing (Figure 6). In addition, more than 85% of all households surveyed reported that they can sell agricultural produce in the markets they access. Of these households, at least 58% in each state reported being satisfied with the prices they get for their produce. Regarding the ease of getting to the market, Table 9 shows the percentage of households that access markets through various means of transportation, as well as the average number of minutes required to access the market via any of the means. Although many of the households in each state are able to walk to the markets they access, the percentage of households who have to take some form of transportation is significant. In addition, households require at least an average of 20 minutes to get to the market, regardless of the mode of transport. 13

23 Table 9: Transportation Means of Market Access and Average Number of Minutes Required to Get to Market Percentage (%) of Households who Access markets through Various Average Number Means of Transportation of Minutes State Camel/Donkey/ Needed to get to Walking Motorbike Tricycle Bicycle Vehicle Horse/ Cow Market Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara

24 b) Food Consumption There appeared to be little differences in food consumption between adults and children under 5 years of age, and between males and females. In every state, adults and young children and males and females ate similar number of meals in the 24 hours preceding the survey (2 3 meals across the states). Food Consumption Scores (FCS) were especially poor in Borno and Yobe States. In these two states, little more than half of the households (57.1% and 57.9% respectively) had an acceptable food consumption score in the 24 hours preceding the FSVS. Jigawa, Kaduna, Kebbi, Niger, and Taraba all had acceptable FCS of between 74% and 79%. The other states had acceptable FCS 82%, with Sokoto and Zamfara having highs of 93%. Although Borno and Yobe States had similar prevalence of households with acceptable FCS, there were differences in the prevalence of borderline and poor FCS (Figure 7). In Borno, more than 26% of households had poor FCS, whereas in Yobe, it was 18%. Jigawa, Kaduna, and Kebbi were other states with at least crises level of poor FCS ( 10%). The food groups most frequently consumed by households were starchy staples, especially cereals (Table 10). Cereals were consumed at least 6 days a week in all states except, Benue, Borno, Kaduna, and Niger States. Households consumed cereals and/or starchy roots and tubers every day of the week, except in Borno, In Borno, cereals were consumed an average of 5 days a week and tubers were consumed 1 day. The consumption of legumes, including beans and groundnuts was quite low. On the average, households consumed legumes 2 to 3 times a week across all of the states, except in Bauchi, Gombe, Kano, and Katsina where they were consumed 4 days a week. In general, the consumption of micronutrient rich foods such as fruits, vegetables, and animal source foods was quite low. 15

25 STATE Cereals Tubers & Roots Table 10: Average Weekly Consumption of Food Groups Legumes Vegetables Fruits Meat & Meat Products Eggs Dairy Sugar & Sweets Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara Fats & Oils Seafood Miscellaneous Households mostly sourced cereals consumed from purchases or from their own production. Whereas purchases was the main source of cereals for 45% of households overall, 48% obtained their cereals from their own production. Sokoto, Zamfara, and Kebbi States had the highest percentage of households who had sourced their cereals from their own production ( 70%). Borno State had the least percentage of households sourcing from own production (13%) and 78% of households in the state had purchased their cereals in the 7 days preceding the FSVS. Other sources of food, including gifts of food and food aid were negligible (0 2%) sources in all of the states. c) Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) The situation with HDDS was worse than that of FCS. In Borno and Yobe States, only 46% of the households had a HDDS greater than 4 food groups. However, whereas 11% of the households in Yobe had consumed 2 food groups, in Borno it was 17%. HDDS in Kebbi State was also very poor. Forty seven percent (47%) of the households had consumed 5 food groups, 30% had consumed 3 to 4 food groups, and (worse than in all other states) 23% had consumed 2 food groups. Gombe State had the highest proportion of households consuming 5 food groups (71%). Figure 8 depicts the distribution of HDDS for all the 16 states. The available food security information has further been synthesized in Box 1 for Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe States. 16

26 d) Food Shortages and Reduced Coping Strategy Index In the week prior to the conduct of the FSVS, there was a considerable prevalence of food insufficiency among households. Figure 9 shows the percentage of households who did not have enough food or money to buy food in the 7 days preceding the FSVS. Kano state had the lowest percentage (4%), followed by Bauchi, Benue, Kebbi, and Sokoto (8% 9%). In the other states, more than 10% of households had not had enough food, with a high of 37% in Borno State. 17

27 The common coping strategies most frequently used when there was not enough food or money to buy food were to eat less preferred foods, limit portion sizes at mealtimes, or to reduce the number of meals eaten in a day (Table 11). Among the households that had had to deploy these coping strategies, a significant percentage in several of the states had high levels of the reduced Coping Strategies Index (rcsi). Figure 10 shows the percentage of households that had three different levels of rcsi, ranging from 0 to 21. In half of the states, less than 10% of households with food insufficiency had rcsi 21. However, in Adamawa and Yobe, around 20% of the households had rcsi 21. The figure increase to 34% and 38% in Niger and Plateau States respectively; while in Borno and Taraba States, it was 58% and 52% respectively. Table 11: Average Number of Days Households Deployed Specific Coping Strategies in 7 Days Preceding FSVS STATE Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods Borrow food or rely on help from a friend or relative Limit portion size at mealtimes Restrict consumption by adults in order for children to eat Reduce number of meals eaten in a day Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara

28 e) Household Hunger Scale In ten states, at least 90% of the households reported no or low hunger. In the other 6 states, more than 10% of households reported moderate hunger (crises levels). Indeed, in Adamawa, Taraba, and Yobe States, around 20% of households reported moderate hunger; while in Borno State, 33% of households reported moderate hunger. Nevertheless, severe hunger was not prevalent, with <2% of households in all the states reporting it. Figure 11 illustrates the hunger situation in the different states. 19

29 Box 1: Food Security and Livelihoods Evolution in North East Nigeria North East Nigeria, especially Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe States, has been severely affected by the Lake Chad crisis as a result of Boko Haram insurgency which has affected nearly 15 million civilians and caused more than 2.3 million IDPs and refugees. An estimated 2,000 7,000 people have gone missing, including abducted girls and women. A World Bank led Recovery and Peace Building Assessment that place in February March 2016 indicated that the economic impact of the crisis is substantial, reaching nearly US$ 9 billion across all six North East states. Twothirds of the assessed damages are located in Borno (US$ 5.9 billion), the most affected state, followed by Adamawa (US$ 1.6 billion) and Yobe (US$ 1.2 billion). The impacts on agriculture (US$ 3.5 billion) and housing (US$ 3.3 billion) make up three-quarters of the overall impact. With this staggering impact on agriculture and the economy, food availability has reportedly been very constrained in Borno, Yobe, and certain parts of Adamawa for more than two years. Few households are able to access what food is available because of a lack of financial resources, and in some cases physical insecurity. The findings of the 2016 FSVS corroborate the gravity of the situation in these three states. The food security and livelihoods situation is worrisome in these states, but overwhelmingly alarming in Borno State. Around half of the households in Borno and Yobe had poor diet quality as evidenced by the FCS and HDDS, while in Adamawa the situation was a little better. At least 20% of the households in the three states had reduced diet quantity (food shortages), but again Borno was the worst, with about 35% of households experiencing moderate to severe hunger. Yet, food production had been extremely low in Borno (a historically agrarian state), with less than a quarter of households growing any crops, and only about a third rearing livestock. Adamawa and Yobe States had better production figures, but still 30% of households in these two states did not grow crops or rear livestock. Further, many households have already engaged in crises or emergency livelihood-based coping strategies and some no longer have any livelihoods or assets to deplete. Already in Borno State, 20% of the households had no livelihood source. The FSVS was conducted using a random sample of all households in the states and was not focused on displaced households. In Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe, the percentage of resident households sampled was 70%, 87%, and 100% respectively. Even as the food security and livelihood situation was so bad among this predominantly resident household sampled, evidence from other assessments indicate that the situation among IDPs can be expected to be considerably worse. There is therefore a need for urgent food assistance in these states, especially Borno. Such food assistance will need to be sustained until households are able to recommence food production and rebuild livelihoods. Summary of Food Security and Livelihood Situation in Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe States based on the FSVS % HH % HH with % HH % HH with food % HH with % HH % HH % HH % HH crises or with poor/ shortages with moderate with that that with no emergency borderline in food produced produced livelihood livelihood HDDS 4 to severe FCS preceding stocks crops livestock source coping hunger 7 days strategies Adamawa Borno Yobe

30 3.2.3 Food Utilization Drinking Water Source Except for Jigawa, Kano, and Yobe States, less than 50% of households in the state used an improved drinking water source (Figure 12). Even fewer households used any means to make their drinking water safer (Figure 12). Among households that did employ strategies to make their drinking water safer, the use of alum, filtration, and boiling were the most common methods used. In all the states, households required less than 20 minutes on the average to walk to their drinking water source, fetch water, and return Food Stability On the average, food from households own production was expected to last around 7 months. At the time of the FSVS, a considerable percentage of households in all the states did not have any food stocks. Figure 13 shows the distribution of households that had food stocks (from any source) at the time of the FSVS. The figures range from 22% in Borno to 87% in Sokoto. In other words, 78% of the households in Borno did not have any food stocks at the time of the FSVS. Other states with very high prevalence of households without food stocks were Adamawa (67%), Kaduna (66%), and Yobe (65%). In the other 12 states the percentage of households without food stocks is still alarming, but is not as high as these four states. 21

31 3.3 Livelihoods and Income Livelihood Sources Figure 14 depicts the number of livelihood sources that households have. In all the states, the majority of households have between 1 and 2 livelihood sources. The percentage of households with more than two livelihood sources ranged from 4.5% in Niger State to 26% in Katsina. Overall, very few households did not have a livelihood source, but in Borno, 20% of the households did not have a livelihood source. The predominant types of activities from which households derive their main livelihoods are summarized in Table 12. In all of the states, crop production was the most common activity from which households obtained their main livelihood. Skilled salaried employment, trading, and services were other common sources of main livelihoods. In general, rearing of livestock as a main livelihood source was not as common as these other livelihood sources. These activities included in Table 12 covered the main livelihood activities of more than 80% of households in each of the states, except Borno State. In Borno, crop production was still the most common activity, but only 23% of households had it as their main livelihood source. As already noted, 20% of household in Borno had no livelihood source. Smaller percentages of other households in the state engaged in a diverse range of activities, including those not common in other states, such as forestry and hunting; support from children and relatives; unskilled salaried employment; and construction. 22

32 Table 12: Distribution of Main Livelihood Source by State Products from Crop Farming and Gardening Livestock and Poultry Raising Wholesale and Retail Trade Skilled Salaried Employment Transportation, Petty Trading and Services Daily/ Common Labourer Manufacturing/ Handicraft Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara

33 Many households have changed their livelihoods in the past year (Table 13). Borno State was most affected, with more than 50% of the households having changed their livelihoods. On the contrary, households in Sokoto and Zamfara States had experienced very little livelihood changes. Among households who had changed their livelihoods, lack of capital and/or agricultural inputs were the most common reasons for livelihood change in all states except for Borno and Yobe. In Borno and Yobe, insecurity was the main reason for livelihood change. Displacement was another important reason for livelihood change in these two states. Table 13: Prevalence of Livelihood Change and Associated Factors Livelihood Reasons for Livelihood Change Change in Adverse Lack of Lack of Loss of Sample Past Year Insecurity Displacement Weather Inputs Capital Employment Size Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara Income Household income from all the livelihood sources was generally low. For all those who had at least one livelihood source, the median total household income in the 12 months preceding the survey ranged from N140,000 in Benue State to N350,000 in Niger State. Mean income values reflected large variations in income and many outliers, and were 1.5 to 2.9 times higher than median income values. The mean income ranged from N306,037 again in Benue State to N528,361 in Niger State. When the income in the year preceding the survey was divided by 12, the median estimated monthly income ranged from N11,667 to N29,167 (Figure 15). 24

34 3.3.3 Expenditure Among households who had reported any expenditures in the 30 days preceding the FSVS, the average expenditure ranged from N43,281 in Zamfara to N119,217 in Benue (Table 14). However, the data varied widely and there were many outliers. The median values ranged from N26,255 in Zamfara to N68,600 in Sokoto. These median values indicate that in reality, in Zamfara for instance, 50% of the households spent less than N26,255 even though the average total expenditure was N43,281. Figure 16 presents the average percentage of household expenditure that was spent on food in the 30 days preceding the survey. With the exception of Benue State in particular, 40% of household expenditure in all states was for food. Table 14: Average Household Expenditure in 30 Days Preceding FSVS STATE Mean S.E.M. Median Sample Size Adamawa 106,221 5,882 68, Bauchi 61,991 3,286 38, Benue 119,217 7,219 65, Borno 115,963 23,604 52, Gombe 103,715 5,999 66, Jigawa 68,883 3,356 41, Kaduna 48,462 2,536 31, Kano 75,668 3,878 47, Katsina 94,266 7,737 53, Kebbi 56,943 4,460 34, Niger 87,663 8,006 47,

35 STATE Mean S.E.M. Median Sample Size Plateau 118,777 7,432 67, Sokoto 111,396 7,483 68, Taraba 72,326 4,149 44, Yobe 86,802 7,733 45, Zamfara 43,281 2,677 26, Shocks Nature and Scale of Shocks Many of the households surveyed in the FSVS had experienced shocks in the past year (Figure 17). Households in Kano had least experienced shocks (12%), followed by households in Sokoto (21%) and Kebbi (25%). Households in Borno had and Zamfara had reported the highest prevalence of shocks (61% and 57% respectively). Among households who experienced shocks, the primary shock experienced in all the states was high food prices (Table 15). Depending on the state, drought/late rains, floods, lack of agricultural inputs, insecurity, and loss/death of household members were other very important shocks. In addition to these shocks, which are listed in Table 15, around 3% of households in Benue, Kano, Niger, and Zamfara reported weeds/pests as a shock. Another 6% in Benue and 4% in Kebbi and 3% in Taraba reported crop failure as a shock. Loss/death of livestock was reported as a shock in 3% of households in Adamawa, Gombe, Kano, Niger, Plateau, and Zamfara States, with a high of 6% in Kano. In Borno, 3% of households had reported an inability to repay loans as their primary shock. 26

36 Drought or late rains Table 15: Primary Shocks Experienced by Households Floods High food prices Lack of agricultural inputs Insecurity/ violence Household member chronically ill Death of a working household member Sample size Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara

37 3.4.2 Livelihood-Based Coping Strategies Apart from short term strategies to cope with food insufficiencies, households had also deployed livelihood coping strategies and depleted assets to achieve food consumption. Table 16 highlights the percentage of households that had engaged in different livelihood coping strategies, while Figure 18 presents the percentage of households that used different categories of the livelihoods based coping strategies index (LCSI). Borrowing more money than usual was the most common livelihood strategy employed in nearly all the states. Reducing expenditure on health, education, and agricultural inputs; and selling more animals than usual were also some of the more common livelihood coping strategies (Table 16). The sale of last female animals or all animals, migration of entire household, withdrawing children from school, and sale of land were the least employed coping strategies. However, in Borno State, more than 40% of all households had deployed each of the livelihood coping strategies, including the least popular ones. Taraba was the other state where the deployment of livelihood coping strategies was relatively unusual. At least 10% of households in Taraba had deployed each of the livelihood coping strategies. The livelihoods based coping strategies index (LCSI) revealed that at least 50% of the households in all of the states had not deployed any livelihood coping strategies, with the exception of Borno State. In Borno, only 20% of households had not deployed any livelihood coping strategy. Although Taraba had a significant percentage of households deploying each livelihood coping strategy, 59% of households had not deployed any of the strategies. Benue State had the least percentage of households deploying livelihood coping strategies (17%). Among households who had deployed livelihood coping strategies, stress and crises coping strategies were the most prevalence across the states, with fewer households deploying emergency coping strategies. In Adamawa, Borno, Gombe, Katsina, Taraba, and Yobe States however, more than 10% of households had deployed 28

38 emergency coping strategies. Indeed, nearly 60% of households in Borno had deployed emergency coping strategies (Figure 18). Table 16: Percentage of Households who have Used Specific Livelihood Coping Strategies State Sold more animals than usual Reduced expenses on health and education Reduced expenses on agricultural inputs Borrowed more money than usual Withdrew children out of school Sold last female animals Sold productive assets Entire household migrated Sold all animals Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara Sold land 3.5 Other Assets of Sustainable Livelihoods Ownership of Possessions At least 99% of households in all the survey states had some possessions, except Borno State. In Borno, 9% of the households did not have any possessions. The most common possessions owned by households were basic household items mattress, cooking utensils, chair, table, radio; as well as agricultural implements. Furthermore, at least two thirds (67%) of households in each state had at least one radio, except in Borno where it was 54% of households. More than 50% of households in all the states had mobile phones, except for Kebbi State where only 37% of household had them. Motorcycles were also owned by at least 30% of households in every state but Borno (13%) and Yobe (4%). However, the prevalence of bicycle ownership was higher in Yobe than in any other state (52%). Possessions such as fans, television, jewellery, iron, computer, sewing machine, grinding machine, refrigerator, motor vehicle, and generator were not commonly owned by households. 29

39 3.5.2 Sources of Cooking Fuel Firewood/charcoal/crop residue was the main type of cooking fuel used by more than 90% of households in all of the states except two. Among the 14 states where firewood use was over 90%, kerosene was the next most common main fuel, and was used by 1% to 7% of households in these states. The two exceptions were Borno and Kaduna States. In Borno, 89% of households reported firewood as the main fuel, while 10% reported that they do not cook or that they use no cooking fuel. In Kaduna, the use of fuels other than firewood was higher than in any other state. While 78% of households in Kaduna used firewood, 16% used kerosene, 3% used gas, and 2% reported not cooking. In the other 14 states, 1% of households reported not cooking. Figure 19 depicts households ease of access to their main cooking fuel. In six states, more than 10% of households found it very difficult to access their main cooking fuel. In Adamawa, Bauchi, Kaduna, and Yobe States, it was 11% of households each. In Borno and Kebbi, it was 41% and 26% respectively Access to Basic Services Access to functional primary schools and health facilities was not as prevalent as market access (Table 17). Primary school access ranged from a low of 66% in Bauchi State, to a high of 97% in Benue State. Access to health facilities was even lower, with Bauchi again having the lowest access at 56% and Katsina having the highest access at 93%. More than 80% of households in each state could walk to the primary school they had access to. Other households had to take motorcycles or bicycles to get to the primary school they accessed. On the average, it took households 11 minutes to 22 minutes to get to the primary school they accessed. The percentage of households who could not walk to their closest health facility but had to use some other means of transportation ranged from 16% in Bauchi State to 45% in Jigawa State. The average 30

40 number of minutes needed to get to the health facility using any means was from 12 minutes to 32 minutes across the states (Table 17). Very few households had access to hygienic refuse disposal. The majority of households disposed of their refuse by throwing it in a bush or on a heap, or by burning it. State Table 17: Household Access to Basic Education and Health Services % Households with Access to Primary School Average Number of Minutes Needed to get to Primary School % Households with Access to Health Facility Average Number of Minutes Needed to get to Health Facility Adamawa Bauchi Benue Borno Gombe Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Kebbi Niger Plateau Sokoto Taraba Yobe Zamfara Access to Credit Access to formal financial services was quite poor across the states. Figure 20 illustrates the percentage of households that had at least one member with a bank account. The figures were as low as 10% in Kebbi State, and the best performing state was Adamawa with 49% of households being linked to a bank account. In the 12 months preceding the FSVS, at least 10% of households in 14 states had borrowed money (Table 18). Among these 14 states, Adamawa, Benue, and Borno had the highest percentage of households who had borrowed money, 29%, 28%, and 30% respectively. In each of the other two states, Gombe and Kebbi States, 8% of households had borrowed money (Table 18).Among households who had borrowed money, the most common sources of borrowed money were friends and relatives. The use of local lenders was only common ( 10% of households) in Benue and Taraba States. Borrowing money from cooperatives was only common in Benue, Kebbi, and Plateau States, and borrowing from banks was only common in Gombe State (Table 18).Borrowed money was predominantly used for food purchases, health expenses, and agricultural needs (Table 18). Other uses not listed in Table 18, such as livestock purchase and rents were reported by very few households (0% to 31

41 5%). On the average, households borrowed between N29,000 and N56,000. Adamawa, Benue, and Borno, the three states with the highest percentage of households who had borrowed money also had the highest average amount of money borrowed. Table 18: Percentage of Households who Borrowed Money, the Sources and Uses of Borrowed Money, and the Average Amount of Money Borrowed % Sources of Borrowed Money (%) Uses of Borrowed Money (%) Average Amount State Borrowed Local Cooper Food Health Agricultural Borrowed money Relative Friends Bank Education lender atives purchases expenses needs (N) Adamawa ,168 Bauchi ,178 Benue ,835 Borno ,074 Gombe ,467 Jigawa ,654 Kaduna ,610 Kano ,900 Katsina ,790 Kebbi ,944 Niger ,084 Plateau ,868 Sokoto ,200 Taraba ,289 Yobe ,372 Zamfara ,355 32