Volume 9 No. 9 December 2009 HOUSEHOLD LEVEL DETERMINANTS OF FOOD INSECURITY IN RURAL AREAS OF DIRE DAWA, EASTERN ETHIOPIA

Transcription

1 HOUSEHOLD LEVEL DETERMINANTS OF FOOD INSECURITY IN RURAL AREAS OF DIRE DAWA, EASTERN ETHIOPIA Bogale A 1 * and A Shmels 2 Ayalneh Bogale *Correspondng author emal: ayalnehb@yahoo.com 1 Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow, Humboldt Unversty of Berln, Phlppstrasse 13, Berln, Germany 2 Researcher, Somal Regonal Pastoral and Agropastoral Research Insttute, Jjga, Ethopa 1914

2 ABSTRACT Even though the struggle to acheve food securty at the household level n the rural areas of Ethopa dates back a long perod, t has remaned as a challengng goal even today. Makng ther lvng on margnal, mosture stressed, heavly degraded and less productve land, households n rural areas of Dre Dawa face persstent food shortages. The desgn and mplementaton of effectve measures to reduce household food nsecurty n the regon depends on n-depth understandng of ts covarates. Ths study seeks to address these ssues by assessng locaton specfc soco-economc factors that nfluence food nsecurty of households n rural areas of Dre Dawa Admnstratve regon. The analyss s based on survey data gathered from randomly selected 115 sample rural households n the study area. A bnary logt model was used to dentfy the factors nfluencng household level food nsecurty. A total of thrteen explanatory varables were ncluded n the emprcal model. The emprcal results estmated usng the survey data to dentfy the determnants of food nsecurty among rural households n the study area revealed mxed mpressons. Among varables consdered, famly sze, annual ncome, amount of credt receved, access to rrgaton, age of household head, farm sze, and lvestock owned showed theoretcally consstent and statstcally sgnfcant effect. However, estmated coeffcents of number of oxen owned and dependency rato showed theoretcally nconsstent and statstcally nsgnfcant effect on the probablty of household to be food nsecure.. Estmated coeffcents of sex of household head, total off-farm ncome, educaton of household head and amount of food ad receved were not found to be statstcally sgnfcant n determnng household food nsecurty n the study area. The fndngs mply that mprovement n food securty stuaton needs to buld assets, mprove the functonng of rural fnancal markets and promote famly plannng. These areas could provde entry ponts for polcy nterventon to reduce hunger and augment household and communty lvelhood opportuntes. Key words: Food Insecurty, Bnary Logt, Ethopa 1915

3 INTRODUCTION Even though developng countres have acheved relatvely faster agrcultural growth durng the last four decades, the progress has been domnated by sgnfcant gans n Asa [1]. Agrcultural growth n sub-saharan Afrca averaged nearly 3 percent over the past 25 years. Ths s partly attrbuted to ther agro-clmatc potental, poor nfrastructure and the dsmantlng of publc agrcultural nsttutons for research, extenson, credt and marketng [2]. To counter these years of neglect and concerned about global food securty, the Unted Natons, heads of states and Government and nternatonal and regonal organzatons, called for urgent acton [3]. A number of ntatves have emerged or are emergng to address ths mportant challenge [4]. Such ntatves nclude the Allance for an Afrcan Green Revoluton and a proposed Global Fund for Smallholder Agrculture [5]. The reason for such ntatves also ncludes ensurng sustanablty of agrcultural growth n countres experencng t. Despte the above efforts, deepenng food crses n several developng countres specally those n sub-saharan Afrca (SSA) s stll the concern of many researchers, planners, donors and nternatonal development agences, who have gven hgh prorty to the study of food systems and the problem of food securty [6]. Despte the avalablty of resources and the efforts made by governments n most of these countres, food nsecurty and declnng food producton per capta remaned among the most crucal ssues. The attanment of an ncrease n food gran producton above the populaton growth s stll a challenge for most SSA countres [7]. Wth a populaton projected to reach 80 mllon n 2010 and about 45 percent lvng below the poverty lne and most vulnerable to food nsecurty, ensurng food securty remans a key ssue for the Government of Ethopa [8]. In order to combat threats of famne and pervasve poverty and thereby ensure food securty for ts populaton, the government strategy has rested on ncreasng the avalablty of food grans through sgnfcant nvestments n agrcultural technologes (hgh yeldng varetes of seeds, fertlzer), servces (extenson, credt, nputs), and rural nfrastructure (roads, markets). The mpacts of these polces, however, have been shadowed as there are stll mllons of people who experence extreme hunger n the country. Food securty s the condton n whch all have access to suffcent food to lve healthy and productve lves [9]. Food securty s dependent on agrcultural producton, food mports and donatons, employment opportuntes and ncome earnngs, ntra-household decson-makng and resource allocaton, health care utlzaton and carng practces [10]. It s a mult-dmensonal development ssue that needs cross-sectoral ntegrated approaches. However, because there are concerns that such approaches can be too costly, too complcated or take too long to show results, nsttutons may not nvest ther scarce resources n mplementng them. Moreover, household food securty ssues cannot be seen n solaton from broader factors such as physcal, polcy and socal envronment [11]. The physcal factors play a large role n determnng the type of actvtes that can be undertaken by rural households. Government polces, on the other hand, have a strong effect on the desgn and 1916

4 mplementaton of household food securty nterventons. Lkewse, the presence of socal conflct expressed n terms of mstrust of other socal groups or even outrght volence, s also an mportant factor n the desgn and mplementaton of nterventons n a gven regon. Makng ther lvng on margnal and mosture stressed, and heavly degraded and less productve land, households n rural areas of Dre Dawa are facng unrelentng food shortages. On top of ever decreasng land holdng sze and ncreasng populaton, recurrent drought and resource (land, water, forest, rangeland) degradaton n the study area have made the food securty stuaton worse. Realzng ths ssue, many governmental and non-governmental organzatons are ntervenng at least to lessen the adverse effects of the food problem, but there s yet lttle success. Cognzant of these facts, ths study was desgned to dentfy locaton specfc factors that contrbuted to household food nsecurty, and through that make recommendatons to mprove the effectveness of nterventons. METHODOLOGY Source of data A two-stage random samplng procedure was used to select 115 rural households n rural areas Dre Dawa. At the frst stage, 5 peasant assocatons (PAs) were selected randomly. In the second stage, probablty proportonal to sze samplng technque was employed to draw sample households from the selected sample PAs. A structured survey questonnare was desgned and pre-tested to collect the prmary data. The household head was the man respondent. The questonnare tred to encompass nformaton on demographc characterstcs, crop and lvestock producton, farmng systems and productve resources, land use, access to servces, as well as copng strateges employed by the households durng tme of food shortage [12]. The analytcal model Food securty at the household level s best measured by drect survey of ncome, expendture and consumpton and comparng t wth the mnmum subsstence requrement [13]. The government of Ethopa has set the mnmum acceptable weghted average food requrement per adult equvalent (AE) per day at 2100 kcal [8, 14, 15]. The determnaton of the adult equvalent takes nto account the age and sex of each household member [16]. Hence, for ths study 2100 kcal per adult equvalent per day s employed as a cut-off value between food-secure and food-nsecure households. Thus, those households who have energy per AE below the mnmum subsstence requrement (2100 kcal) are deemed to be food nsecure, and those who managed to attan the 2100 kcal per AE per day are consdered to be food secure households. Once the groups are categorzed as food-secure and food-nsecure, the next step s to dentfy the soco-economc factors that are correlated wth food-nsecurty. It s hypotheszed that some farm and household characterstcs such as household sze, 1917

5 land sze and level of agrcultural producton have got relatve mportance n determnng whether a household s food secure or not. A varety of statstcal models can be used to establsh the relatonshp between these household characterstcs and food nsecurty. Conventonally, lnear regresson analyss s wdely used n most economc and socal nvestgaton because of avalablty of smple computer packages, as well as ease of nterpretng the results. However, results derved from lnear regresson analyss may lead to farly unreasonable estmates when the dependent varable s dchotomous. Therefore, the use of the logt or probt models s recommended as a panacea of the drawback of the lnear regresson model [17]. Whch model to choose between logt and probt s, however, dffcult for they are smlar n most applcatons, the only dfference beng that the logstc dstrbuton has slghtly fatter tals. Ths means that there s no bndng reason to choose one over the other but for ts comparatve mathematcal and nterpretatonal smplcty many researchers tend to choose the logt model [18]. Therefore, ths study employed the logt model followng the footstep of these researchers. The dependent varable n ths case, food nsecurty, was a bnary varable whch took a value one f a household was found to be food nsecure, zero otherwse. The cumulatve logstc probablty model can be econometrcally specfed as [19]: P = F ( Z ) = ( α + β ) 1+ e 1 X Where P s the probablty that an ndvdual s beng food nsecure gven X X represents the th explanatory varables α & β are regresson parameters to be estmated. e s the base of the natural logarthm For ease of nterpretaton of the coeffcents, a logstc model could be wrtten n terms of the odds and log of odd. The odds rato s the rato of the probablty that an ndvdual or household would be food nsecure (P ) to the probablty of a household would not be food nsecure (1- P ). That s, (1) P = 1 P Z e (2) and takng the natural logarthm of equaton (2) yelds: P ln = Z = + β X + β X 1 P α β m X m (3) 1918

6 If the dsturbance term U s taken nto account, the logt model becomes: m Z = α + β X + U =1 The parameters of the model, α and β, can be estmated usng the maxmum lkelhood (ML) method [19, 20]. Varables and workng hypothess Revew of lterature, past research fndngs, experts and authors knowledge of the food nsecurty stuaton of the study area were used to dentfy the potental determnants of household food nsecurty. Therefore, the followng varables were selected to analyze whether they explan a household s food nsecurty or not. As famly sze ncreases, obvously the number of mouths to feed from the avalable food ncreases. Hence, t s hypotheszed that famly sze and food nsecurty are postvely related. Age of household head also matters for household food securty. Rural households mostly devote ther lfetme or base ther lvelhoods on agrculture. The older the household head, the more experence s/he has n farmng and weather forecastng. Moreover, older persons are more rsk averters, and mostly they tend to dversfy ther producton actvtes. As a result, the chance for such a household to be food nsecure s less. Moreover, n a household where productve age groups are hgher than the non-productve age groups, the probablty of a household to be n shortage of food would be less, provded that the area provdes good workng atmosphere and producton potental. Snce male-headed households are n a better poston to pull more labor force than the female-headed ones, sex of the household head s an mportant determnant of food nsecurty n the study area. Educaton equps ndvduals wth the necessary knowledge of how to make a lvng. Lterate ndvduals are keen to get nformaton and use t. Hence, t s supposed that households who have had at least prmary educaton or nformal educaton are the ones to be more lkely to beneft from agrcultural technologes and thus become food secure. Ownershp of assets such as cultvated land and lvestock as well as access to rrgaton decreases the lkelhood that the household wll be food nsecure. As ncome determnes the household s ablty to secure food, t remans to be an mportant varable whch explans the characterstcs of food secure and food nsecure households. Income earned from any source mproves the food securty status of the household. Households whch manage to secure larger ncome from any source have better access to the food they need than those households whch do not. Credt may also serve as an mportant source of ncome. Those households whch receve the credt they requested have better possblty to spend on actvtes they wsh. Ether they purchase agrcultural nput (mproved seed and/or fertlzer) or they purchase lvestock for resale after they fattened them. (4) 1919

7 EMPIRICAL RESULTS Table 1 below shows summary statstcs and scores of sample household groups on the contnuous and dummy varables ncluded n the model. The results revealed that food nsecure and food secure household groups have statstcally sgnfcant dfference wth respect to mean of the varables such as famly sze (FASZ), total annual ncome (TINC), annual off-farm ncome (TOFFI), age of household head (AGE), dependency rato (DPR), and amount of credt receved (AMDT). Categorcal varables such as educaton of the household head (EDUC) and access to rrgaton (IRGN) were also found to be statstcally dfferent for the two groups of households (Table 1). In order to dentfy the most mportant factors whch determne household food nsecurty from the hypotheszed potental varables, bnary logt model was estmated by employng SPSS Verson 10.0 statstcal package. Snce the lkelhood rato test statstcs exceeds the ch-square crtcal value by 13 degrees of freedom, the hypothess that all coeffcents of the model except the ntercept are equal to zero s rejected. Another measure of goodness of ft used n logstc regresson analyss s the count R 2, whch ndcates the number of sample observatons whch are correctly predcted by the model. The count R 2 s based on the prncple that f the estmated probablty of the event s less than 0.5, the event wll not occur and f t s greater than 0.5, the event wll occur [20]. In other words, the th observaton s grouped as food nsecure f the computed probablty s greater than or equal to 0.5, and as otherwse food secure. The model results showed that the logstc regresson model correctly predcted 97.4 percent of the sample households. The senstvty (correctly predcted food nsecure) and the specfcty (correctly predcted food secure) are found to be 98.9 percent and 92.9 percent, respectvely (Table 2). Out of the thrteen varables hypotheszed to nfluence household food nsecurty, seven were found to be statstcally sgnfcant. The maxmum lkelhood estmates of the logstc regresson model showed that famly sze, annual household ncome, amount of credt receved, rrgaton use, age of the household head, cultvated land sze and total lvestock owned measured n Tropcal Lvestock Unt (1 TLU = 250 kg lve weght of lvestock) were mportant factors dentfed to nfluence household food nsecurty n the study area. DISCUSSION Famly sze s found to be hghly sgnfcant to determne household food nsecurty n the study area. Ths household factor revealed a postve relatonshp wth food nsecurty ndcatng that the odds rato n favor of the probablty of beng food nsecure ncreases wth an ncrease n the famly sze. More specfcally, the odds rato n favor of food nsecurty, cetrs parbus, ncreases by a factor of as the famly 1920

8 sze ncreases by one member. The lkely explanaton s that n an area where households depend on less productve agrcultural land, ncreasng household sze results n ncreased demand for food. Ths demand, however, cannot be matched wth the exstng food supply so ultmately end up wth food nsecurty. The amount of household ncome was hypotheszed to have negatve nfluence on food nsecurty. In agreement wth the hypothess, ts coeffcent came out to be negatve and statstcally sgnfcant. Households that have access to better ncome opportuntes are less lkely to become food nsecure than those households who had no or lttle access. The odds rato n favor of food nsecurty decreases by a factor of as ncome ncreases by one unt. The sgn of the coeffcent of age of the household head shows a negatve relatonshp wth food nsecurty whch s statstcally sgnfcant. Ths means that an ncrease n the age of the household head decreases the lkelhood for the household to become food nsecure. Ths s possble because as rural households acqure more and more experence n farmng operatons, accumulate wealth and use better plannng, they have better chances to become food secure. Ths result agrees wth the pror expectaton. The odds rato, keepng other factors unchanged, n favor of food nsecurty decreases by a factor of when age of the household head ncreases by one year. Cultvated land sze was hypotheszed to nfluence food nsecurty negatvely. The results of the logt model ndcated that sample households whch had larger farm sze had less rsk of beng food nsecure. Ths s confrmed by statstcally sgnfcant negatve coeffcent of the varable. The possble justfcaton s that farm households whch had larger farm sze had better chance to produce more, to dversfy the crop they produce and also have got larger volume of crop resdues. The result of the logt model showed that amount of credt receved has a sgnfcant and negatve nfluence on food nsecurty n the study area. Ths result s completely n agreement wth the pror expectaton. Ths mght be due to the fact that households whch have the opportunty to receve credt would buld ther capacty to produce more through purchase and use of agrcultural nputs. It would also be possble for the households to spend the credt on some other ncome generatng actvtes so that the ncome from these actvtes poston households on a better status to escape vulnerablty to food nsecurty. Use of rrgaton showed a statstcally sgnfcant and negatve relatonshp wth food nsecurty. The negatve relatonshp ndcates that usng rrgaton reduces the rsk of food nsecurty among the sample households. Ths can be justfed by the fact that n mosture stressed areas lke the rural areas of Dre Dawa, gettng access to rrgaton would mprove the stuaton and help to boost agrcultural output. It s mportant to note that by defnton, odds rato mples the rato of the probablty of occurrence to the probablty of non-occurrence. In ths case, t s the rato of the probablty of beng food nsecure to the probablty of beng food secure. Here, odds rato wth 1921

9 respect to rrgaton varable was zero. Ths means that the probablty of a household to be food nsecurty s zero f a household has access and uses rrgaton. The relatonshp between the amount of lvestock holdng n tropcal lvestock unt and food nsecurty turned out to be negatve and statstcally sgnfcant. Ths s an ndcaton that ownershp of lvestock acts as a hedge aganst food nsecurty n the study area. Lvestock, besdes ts drect contrbuton to subsstence need and nutrtonal requrement, s a vtal nput nto crop producton by provdng manure and serves to accumulate wealth that can be dsposed durng tmes of need, especally when food stock n the household deterorates. The odds rato n favor of food nsecurty decreases by a factor of when the amount of lvestock owned by a household rses by one TLU. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION A number of studes have sought to examne the extent and determnants of food securty and poverty n rural Ethopa [21, 22, 23]. Soco-economc varables such as asset holdng (manly cultvated land, farm ncome and lvestock holdng) and access to servces lke credt are found to be mportant correlates whch affect household food securty favourably. Whle controllng for all other varables, households wth better access to rrgaton are found to have sgnfcantly hgher wellbeng and so more lkely to be food secure. However, among demographc varables consdered n ths study only household sze was found to have a negatve and statstcally sgnfcant effect on household food securty. Contrary to usual expectaton, the coeffcent of educaton level of the household head was not statstcally sgnfcant. Ths may mply that educaton of household head has not yet enhanced households capabltes to adopt better producton technologes, accept techncal advce from extenson workers and dversfyng ther source of ncome than the llterate ones whch would have reduced the rsk of food nsecurty among households. The results also suggest that both food secure and food nsecure households have the same access to food ad resources. Thus, food ad targetng should be a concern durng nterventon. The statstcally nsgnfcant coeffcent for oxen ownershp clearly ponts out to the dfference n lvelhood actvtes between the hghlands of Ethopa and the study area. As stated elsewhere n ths paper, the rural areas of Dre Dawa are largely mosture stressed and drought prone where cultvaton of crop s rudmentary. Therefore, t s the number of total lvestock whch s domnated by cows and goats that makes a dfference rather than ownng oxen for plowng. 1922

10 Table 1: Code, defntons and descrptve statstcs of varables ncluded n the logt model Varable code Varable type Varable defnton Food nsecure (N = 87) Food secure (N = 28) Overall sample (N = 115) t- (ch-square) value Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD FASZ Contnuous Famly sze n number *** DPR Contnuous Dependency rato ** CLSZ Contnuous Cultvated land sze TLU Contnuous Total lvestock holdng n TLU OXEN Contnuous Number of oxen owned AMDT Contnuous Amount of credt receved * TOFFI Contnuous Total off farm ncome earned *** FAID Contnuous Food ad obtaned AGE Contnuous Age of household head n years ** TINC Contnuous Total annual household ncome *** EDUC Dummy# 1, f the household head s lterate; 0, otherwse (23) (12) (35) 2.794* SEX Dummy 1, f the household head s male; 0, otherwse (77) (24) (101) IRGN Dummy 1, f the household used rrgaton; 0, otherwse 4.60 (4) (22) (26) 30.27*** Note: SD: Standard Duraton; # Mean for dummy varables ndcates percent wth value 1 and numbers n the parenthess represent frequency dstrbuton; ***, ** and * s sgnfcant at 1%, 5% and 10% probablty level, respectvely. 1923

11 Table 2: The maxmum lkelhood estmates of the logt model Estmated Varables Coeffcent Odds rato Wald Statstcs Constant ** FASZ *** DPR CLSZ * TLU * OXEN AMDT ** TOFFI FAID AGE * TINC * EDUC SEX IRGN ** Pearson Ch-square *** - 2 Log lkelhood Correctly Predcted (Count R 2 ) 97.4 Senstvty 98.9 Specfcty 92.9 Note: ***, ** and * s sgnfcant at 1%, 5% and 10% probablty level, respectvely. 1924

12 REFERENCES 1. World Bank. Agrculture for Development. World Development Report Washngton DC: The World Bank Dennng G, Kabambe P, Sanchez P, Malk A, Flor R, Harawa R, Nkhoma P, Zamba C, Banda C, Magombo C, Keatng M, Wangla J and D Sachs Input subsdes to mprove smallholder maze productvty n Malaw: toward an Afrcan Green Revoluton. PLOS Bology 2009; 7(1):e Anonymous. L Aqula jont statement on global food securty. L Aqula Food Securty Intatve (AFSI): Food Securty 2009; 1(3): Negn J, Remans R, Karut S and J Fanzo Integratng a broader noton of food securty and gender empowerment nto the Afrcan Green Revoluton Food Securty 2009; 1(3): Sanchez A, Dennng L and G Nzguheba The Afrcan green revoluton moves forward. Food Securty 2009; 1(1): Gezahegn K Agrcultural Marketng Polces and Food Securty n Ethopa. In: D Mulat, A Wolday, S Ehu and Z Tesfaye (eds.). Food Securty, Nutrton and Poverty Allevaton n Ethopa: Problems and Prospects Proceedngs of the Inaugural and Frst Annual Conference of the Agrcultural Economcs Socety of Ethopa. Adds Ababa Kdane W, Maetz M and P Dardel Food Securty and Agrcultural Development n sub-saharan Afrca: Buldng a case for more publc support (Man Report). Subregonal offce for the southern and east Afrca, Food and Agrculture Organzaton of the Unted Natons, Rome MoFED. Mnstry of Fnance and Economc Development. Ethopa: Sustanable Development and Poverty Reducton Program. Adds Ababa World Bank. Poverty and Hanger: Issues and Optons n Developng Countres. A World Bank Polcy Study, Washngton, D.C Maxwell S and TR Frankenberger Household Food Securty: Concepts, Indcators and Measurements. A Techncal Revew. Unted Naton Chldren's Fund and Internatonal Fund for Agrcultural Development, New York and Rome Hoddnott J (ed) Method for Rural Development Projects. Food Securty n Practce, Volume 1, Internatonal Food Polcy Research Insttute, Washngton DC

13 12. Shmels A and A Bogale Dmensons of Food-nsecurty and Lvelhood Strateges among Rural Households n Dre Dawa, eastern Ethopa. Tropcal Scence 2007; 47(2): Braun J von, Bous H, Kumar S and R Pandya-Lorch Improvng Food Securty of the Poor: Concept, Polcy, and Programs. Internatonal Food Polcy Research Insttute. Washngton, DC Kfle L and G Yosef The Food Securty Stuaton n Ethopa. Concept, Status and Trends. In: T Assefa (ed.) Food Securty through Sustanable Land Use. Proceedngs of the Frst Natonal Workshop of Novb Partners (Forum on Sustanable Land Use). Adds Ababa FDRE. (Federal Democratc Republc of Ethopa) Food Securty Strategy. Updated verson. Adds Ababa Gassmann F and C Behrendt Cash Benefts n Low-Income Countres: Smulatng the Effects on Poverty Reducton for Senegal and Tanzana. Dscusson Paper No. 15, Issues n Socal Protecton. Geneva, Swtzerland: Internatonal Labour Offce Gujarat DN Basc Econometrcs. Fourth Edton. McGraw- Hll, New York Hosmer DW and S Lemeshew Appled Logstc Regresson. A Wley- InterScence Publcaton, New York Pndyck S and L Rubnfeld Econometrc Models and Economc Forecasts, Second Edton. McGraw-Hll, New York Maddala GS Lmted Dependent and Quanttatve Varables n Econometrcs. Cambrdge Unversty Press Bgsten A, Kebede B, Shmels A and M Taddesse Growth and poverty reducton n Ethopa: Evdence from households panel surveys. World Development 2007; 31 (1): Dercon S Economc reform, growth and the poor: Evdence from rural Ethopa. Journal of Development Economcs 2006; 81 (1): MoFED. Mnstry of Fnance and Economc Development. Ethopa: Buldng on Progress - A Plan for Accelerated and Sustaned Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) (2005/ /10) Volume I: Man Text, Adds Ababa