Presentation Agriculture and Rural Transport in Ethiopia (2)
FOOD SECURITY AND ITS DETERMINANTES IN RURAL ETHIOPIA
-
Upload
bilbomelkamu -
Category
Documents
-
view
188 -
download
0
description
Transcript of FOOD SECURITY AND ITS DETERMINANTES IN RURAL ETHIOPIA
ETHIOPIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
FOOD SECURITY AND ITS DETERMINANTES IN RURAL
ETHIOPIA: THE CASE OF KAMBA DISTRICT IN
GAMO GOFA ZONE
BY
MELKAMU MADA DILNESHU
June, 2011
Addis Ababa
Food security and its determinants in the rural
Ethiopia: the case of Kamba district in
Gamo Gofa zone
A Thesis submitted to the Department of Development Economics
Institute of public management and Development Studies
Ethiopian Civil Service University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for MSc Degree in Development
Economics
By
Melkamu Mada
June, 2011
Addis Ababa
Ethiopia Civil Service University
School of Graduate Studies
As members of the Examining Board of the Final M. Sc. Open Defense, we certify
that we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by: Melkamu Mada Entitled:
Food security and its determinants in the rural Ethiopia: the case of Kamba district
in Gamo Gofa zone and recommended that it be accepted as fulfilling the thesis
requirement for the degree of: Master of Science in Development Economics.
Approved by Board of Examiners:-
Chairman, Department Graduate Committee Signature
___________________________________ Date _____________
Major Advisor Signature
___________________________________ Date _____________
Internal Examiner Signature
___________________________________ Date _____________
External Examiner Signature
___________________________________ Date _____________
2
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis manuscript to both my uncle MELESSE DILNESHU, for he brought up us after the sudden death of our mother, and to
our mother HETEKE DUSSO whom we lost at our infancy
i
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADLI Agricultural Development Lead Industrialization
AE Adult Equivalent
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
DAP Di-ammonium Phosphate
DAs Development Agents
DPPA Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency
ECA Ethiopian Central statistics Authority
EGS Employment Generation Scheme
EHNRI Ethiopia Health and Nutrition Research Institute
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FEWS Food and Early Warning System
FGT Foster, Greere and Thorbecke
FSCO Food Security Coordination Organization
FTCs Farmers Training Centers
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HFS Household Food Security
HH Household
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
ICRA International Crop Research Agency
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute
Kcal Kilocalorie
Kg Kilogram
Km Kilo meter
LDCs less Developed Countries
m.a.s.l Meter above sea level
ML Maximum Likelihood
ii
MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
NGOs Non Governmental Organizations
PAs Peasant Associations
PASDEP A Plan for Accelerated and Sustain Development to End Poverty
PSNP Productive Safety Net Programme
RBS Regional base line survey
RDFS Rural Development and Food Security
RR10 Rural Rode
SD Standard Deviation
SNNPR South Nations Nationalities Peoples Region
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
WB World Bank
WFP World Food Programme
WoA Woreda Agricultural Office
iii
BIOGRAPHY
Melkamu Mada was born in Dorze, Chencha woreda, Gamo Gofa zone of South Nations
Nationalities Peoples Region on November, 1976. He attended his junior and secondary
education (9-12) at Chencha High School. He joined the then Jimma College of Agriculture in
1999 and graduated in diploma in Agriculture (Horticulture) on July 2000. After graduation, he
was employed by the Ministry of Agriculture in the Kamba woreda and served for about two
years. Then, he joined the then Alemaya University of Agriculture (AUA) in 2003 and graduated
with B.Sc. Degree in Agriculture (Agricultural Economics) on July 2007. The author served as
disaster prevention and preparedness expert and woreda agriculture Office Head from October
2000 to until he joined the school of graduate studies at Ethiopian Civil Service University on
September 2009/2010 to specialize in Development Economics.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deep gratitude to my research advisor Tadesse Kuma (Ph.D.) for his
professional suggestions, thought guidance and over-all assistance from the beginning of the research
proposal up to the end of thesis write up. Thus, I am very much indebted to him for all his support
and willingness to advise me on my day-to-day efforts, and this has enabled me to finalize the study.
I wish to greatly acknowledge the financial support provided by Ethiopian Civil Service University
for sponsoring and covering the costs associated with data collection for the thesis work.
My special thanks also go to the Kamba woreda administration and agriculture office without whose
permission to join the M.Sc. program and without whose support this research document would have
not been able to be materialized. My appreciation and thanks are also extended to Mr. Monaye
Mosole, Mr. Asrat Agoze, Mr. Debebe Mulgeta, Mr. Alene Abeje and Dr. Tsgalem H/Mikael for
their positive and immediate response and provision of computer facility. My genuine appreciation
goes to all Kamba woreda agriculture office employees for their unreserved and unforgettable
assistance and encouragements during my study and data collection campaigns.
I would like to extend my special thanks to Kamba woreda development agents Abraham Gamo,
Asire Ayele, Andargachew Jemaneh, Mesafint H/Michael, Reta Wolde, Said Khalifa, Takele
Mukulo, Tirunesh Lema, Wogaso Gassa, Zena Ali, Zena Dea who devoted their precious time for the
data collection of this thesis. I am also very much grateful to 200 rural farmers for their
participation and for devotion of their precious time in answering the research interview questions.
No words can suffice to express my feelings of gratitude to my brother Ato Mitiku Mada(LLM) and
his wife weizero Senait Tadesse and Akililu Mada for their financial and moral support which they
offeried to me throughout the duration of study years.
Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to my wife Marta Beyene who had shown tremendous patience,
made sacrifices, and shouldered the social, economic and family affairs including nursing of my sons
during the time of my graduate program study.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS……………………………………………………………….....I BIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………… ........................................ III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …………………………………………………… ........................................ IV
TABLE OF CONTENT…………………………………………………………………………………...V
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………………VIII
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………….. ........................................ IX
1 CHAPTER ONE ………………………………………………………………………………………....1
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………...…..1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Objectives of the Study .................................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................................. 7
1.6 Organizations of the Study ............................................................................................................. 8
2. CHAPTER TWO ………………………………………………………………………………………..9
REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………………………………………………………9
2.1 Definitions and Overview of Food Security .................................................................................. 9
2.1.1 Food security defined .............................................................................................................. 9
2.1.1.1 Sufficiency ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1.2 Access ................................................................................................................................ 10
2.1.1.3 Security .............................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.1.4 Time .................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.1.5 Vulnerable ......................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Household food security: An economic perspective ................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Determinants of Household food Insecurity ............................................................................... 12
2.2. Measures taken to overcome the food security problem ............................................................... 17
2.2.1 Agricultural Extension Services............................................................................................. 18
2.2.2 Agricultural Research ............................................................................................................ 18
2.2.3 Food Security Programme ..................................................................................................... 19
2.2.4 Productive Safety Net Programme ......................................................................................... 20
2.2.5 Voluntary Resettlement Programme ...................................................................................... 20
2.2.6 Water harvesting ................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.7 Expansion of Small-scale irrigation ....................................................................................... 21
vi
2. 3 Main challenges that affect the success of food security .............................................................. 22
2. 3.1 Climate change .................................................................................................................... 22
2.3.2 Technology adoption problem ............................................................................................... 22
2. 3.3 Rapid and unhindered population growth.............................................................................. 23
2.3. 4 Poor Input and output market system .................................................................................... 23
2.4 Empirical Literature ..................................................................................................................... 24
2.5 Methodologies of measuring food security: .................................................................................. 27
2.5.1 Household Caloric Acquisition .............................................................................................. 28
2.5.2 Method for generating data .................................................................................................... 28
2.5. 3 Advantages of this method ................................................................................................... 28
2.6 Expected Contributions of the study ............................................................................................. 29
2.7 Comments on the Reviewed Literatures………………………………………………………….....29
CHAPTER THREE ……………………………………………………………………….……………....30
RESEARCH METHODOLGY…………………………………………………………………………....30 3.1 Description of the study area …………………………………………………………………………30
3.1.2 Livelihood Strategies in the study area .................................................................................. 30
3.1.3 Population ............................................................................................................................. 31
3.1.4 Religion ................................................................................................................................ 32
3.1.5 Agriculture ............................................................................................................................ 32
3.1.6 Crop Production ................................................................................................................... 33
3.1.7 Livestock and Poultry Production .......................................................................................... 33
3.1.8 Agricultural Extension .......................................................................................................... 34
3.1.9 Input Supply ......................................................................................................................... 34
3.1.10 Rural road ........................................................................................................................... 34
3.1.11 Market……………………………………………………………………………………......35 3.12 Unexploited opportunities that exist in the woreda…………………….……….……………...35 3.2 Methods and Sources of data collection…………………………………………………….………...35
3.2.1 Methods of data collection………………………………………………………………………35 3.2.2 Method of data analysis…............................................................................................................37 3.3 Theoretical model ............................................................................................................................ 38
3.4 Empirical model .............................................................................................................................. 42
3.5 Variables and working hypothesis…………………………………………………………………….43
3.6 The dependent variable of the model….................................................................................................44
3.7 Independent variables………………………………………………………………………………....44
3.8 Interpretation of the coefficients of the logistic regression model……………………………………49
vii
3.9 Marginal effects result in logistic model ........................................................................................... 50
3.10 Testing Multicollinearity………………………………………………………………………...50
3.11 Measuring intensity of Food security …………………………………………………………....51 4. CHAPTER FOUR ……………………………………………………………………………………...52
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………..52
4.1 Measuring food security status of households .............................................................................. 52
4.2 Demographic and socio-economic characteristics ......................................................................... 53
4.3 Incidence of food security by households’ factors………………………………………………….66
4.4 Extent of Food security………………………………….................................................................68 4.5 Summary of mean difference and household scores……………………………………………… 68
4.6 Analysis of determinants of food security……………………………………………………….. 70
4.7 Discussion on the Significant Explanatory Variables .................................................................... 73
4.8 Major Agricultural Problems ........................................................................................................ 78
4.9 Extension services ...................................................................................................................... 79
4.10 Coping Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 80
CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................................................... 84
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION………………………………………………………………83
5.1 Summary of findings ................................................................................................................. 83
5.2 Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 87
Reference………………………………………………………………………………………….....……91
Appendices ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 96
Appendix 1:- Conversion Factors to Estimate Tropical Livestock Unit equivalents …….................96 Appendix 2: Conversion Factors Used to Compute Adult-Equivalent (AE)…………………… ….96
Appendix 3: calorie value of food items consumed by sample households………………………...97
Appendix 4: Summary of the Survey Questionnaire……………………………… ……………….98
viii
LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 - population growth rate of Kamba woreda………………………………………….. ......... 31
Table 2-Religion distribution of the study area………………………………………………….. ..... 31
Table 3- Types, codes and definition of variables in the logit model……………………………….49
Table 4- Food security status of sample households………………………………………… .......... 53
Table 5-Distribution of sample households by family size in number……………………….. ......... 54
Table 6- Household food security by sex of household head………………………………. ............ 55
Table 7- Household food security by educational status of household head………………. ............. 56
Table 8- Distribution of sample households by number of months food item purcased…………….57
Table 9- Distribution of sample household heads by age……………………………………. .......... 58
Table 10 - Distribution of sample households by farm size per household(in hectare)……………..59
Table 11- Distribution of sample households by Livestock Holding by TLU…………….. ............. 60
Table 12- Distribution of sample households by oxen……………………………………… ........... 61
Table 13- Distribution of households by amount of food aid received in Kg…………… ................ 62
Table 14- Distribution of sample household by status of use of technology………………………...63
Table 15- Distribution of sample households by off-farm income in birr…………………………...64
Table 16- Distribution of sample households by irrigation farm size in hectare……………………65
Table 17- Distribution of sample households by infrastructure distance in Km ............................. 66
Table 18:- Incidence of food security by sample households’……………………………………….67
Table 19- Summary Statistics of continuous variables included in the descriptive statistics……….69
Table 20: Summary statistics of discrete variables included in the descriptive statistics .................. 70
Table- 21 VIF value of continuous variables……………………………… .................................... 71
Table 22- Contingency coefficient for discreet variables………………………………………...….71
Table 23- The maximum likelihood estimates of the logit model………………………….. ............ 72
Table 24-Major agricultural problems encountered in the study area ……………….. ..................... 79
Table 25:- Coping strategies common in Kamba woreda…………………………………… ........... 81
ix
ABSTRACT
A better understanding of the factors that affect the status of food security at household level is
required for the organization of technical research for formulation of the development of policies
and for shaping the direction of action for food self-sufficiency. Consequently, this study is
expected to generate ideas that would be useful to reveal the seriousness of the problem and
identify the determinants of household food security and coping strategies and recommendations.
In order to achieve these objectives biophysical, demographic and socio-economic data were
collected from 200 randomly selected households in Kamba woreda of Gamo Gofa Zone in South
Nations Nationalities Peoples Region. A two stage sampling procedure was used to select 13
PAs, and 200 sample respondents from a total of 38 PAs in the woreda. A survey was conducted
to collect the primary data from sample respondents. Supplementary, secondary data were
collected from various sources. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics like mean,
standard deviation, percentage and frequency distribution. Univariate analysis such as T-test
and Chi-square (χ2) tests were also used to describe characteristics of food secure and food
insecure groups. The survey results show that only 39.5% of sample farmers were food secure. A
logistic regression model was fitted to analyze the potential variables that affect households'
food security status in the study area. Among 13 explanatory variables included in the logistic
model, 10 of them were significant at less than 5% level of significance. These were, family size,
farm size, number of livestock owned, total annual off-farm income, educational level of
household, technological adoption of household head, household head participation in public
meeting, household head extension contact trend, number of months food purchased and quality
of land .The estimated model correctly predicted 96.5% of the sample cases, 96.1% food secure
and 96.7% food insecure. Thus, identifying, analyzing and understanding those factors that are
responsible for household food security status and its determinants is important to combat the
problem of food security at the household level. The study findings suggest that in selecting
priority intervention areas, the food security strategy should consider statistically significant
variables as the most important areas.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Ethiopia, as one of the low income countries of the world, is facing repeated macro-and micro
level food insecurity coupled with environmental degradation and depletion. In the last three
decades, it has not been possible to produce adequate food to meet the needs of the fast growing
population, attributed mainly to fragmented land holdings, successive droughts, untimely and
unpredictable rainfall, antiquated farm technology, lack of farm input, low producer prices and
other ecological factors. Earlier studies have estimated Ethiopia’s food insecure people to be
around 40-50 percent of total population and at least 50% of farm house production does not
satisfy basic needs and most of them face a hunger season every year (Yohannes, 2002;
Devereux, 2001).
The proportion of people who are unable to attain their minimum nutritional requirement is
reported to be thirty three (33%) for rural and thirty (30%) for urban population (IFPRI, 2009).
In Ethiopia, food insecurity is seen as the most important feature of development challenges.
Every year, more than 4 million people, particularly in the rural areas have problems of getting
enough food for themselves (Tassew, 2004). Currently, 5.23 million people will continue to
require emergency food assistance up to December 2010 according to the Joint Government and
Humanitarian Partners’ February 2010. Report of FAO/WFP in 2004, 2007 and 2011 shows the
existence of bumper harvests at the national level. But achieving food security at national or
regional level does not necessarily guarantee food security at district or households’ level. There
exists disparity among districts and households’ in production function and motives for
productivity. Even if a households’ is food secure it does not ensure that each member of the
households’ is food secure due to discrimination in food distribution within households'. The
geographical, environmental and medical factors that affect food security are important for their
respective fields but social factors are significant for policy making and use by development
practitioners.
2
Food insecurity in SNNPR remains a multifaceted and complex problem in which lack of access,
as well as availability and quality of food still play an essential role. Several factors should be
taken into consideration including extreme poverty, poor access to infrastructure, lack of
productive assets, weaknesses in the marketing system and transport bottlenecks and others.
According to a recent estimate, about 59 percent of the households’ in the region are labeled as
food insecure (RDFS 2009).Regional average per capita calorie availability is about 1800 which
is less than the international minimum standard of 2100 calories and much less than the standard
for an adequate diet of 2400calories (SNNPR Regional base line survey,2007). Despite the
overall improvement in alleviate food security, most poor and very poor households’ in these
areas (20 to 35 percent of the total population) face chronic food shortages due to very high
population density, shortage of land, and declining soil fertility. According to the regional
baselines, even in a normal year, the poor and very poor in most of these regions rely on food aid
(emergency or PSNP programs) to meet 5‐25 percent of their basic food requirements (FEWS
NET 2010). In the region, population growth is as high as 3.6% in some years, far above the
national average of 2.9%, implying population may have exceeded the carrying capacity of the
already fragile environment production capacity (SNNPR Regional base line survey, 2009). This
shows that in the region food supply and demand are not moving in equal pace.
Kamba woreda, where this research was done is one of fifteen woredas of Gamo Gofa zone. It
has 38 peasant associations (PAs) with total population of 155,748. Out of this, 5,612(3%) live in
urban and 150,132 (97%) live in rural (CSA, 2007). It has three agro-ecologies: highlands
(dega), midlands (woinadega) and lowlands (kola). It is about 635kms away from Addis Ababa
and 105km from Arbaminch, zonal town.
Kamba woreda is one of the major food deficit and famine-prone woreda in Gamo Gofa zone:
SNNPR. Food insecurity, poverty and vulnerability to livelihood crises have increased in the
woreda since the drought years of the middle 1980s and early 1990s (WFP 2003). Despite the
overall improvement in the level of food security in the region and in the country, most poor and
very poor households’ in Kamba face chronic food shortages due to very high population
density, shortage of land, poor access to infrastructure and declining soil fertility. According to
3
the livelihoods baselines survey (1994/95), even in a normal year, the poor and very poor in
Kamba woreda rely on food aid (emergency or PSNP programs) to meet 5‐25 percent of their
households’ food requirements. A review of food aid recipients in the different kebeles of the
woreda shows that the number of households’ that depend on seasonal food assistance has
increased from year to year. According to Kamba woreda agricultural office early warning report
(2003-2009) the number of food aid recipient increased from year to year, 14,200 beneficiaries in
2003 and 22,062 beneficiaries in 2009. Food security problem in Kamba derived directly from
dependence on undiversified livelihoods based on low-input, low-output, full dependence on rain
fed agriculture, decreasing land holding size and increasing population, week agricultural
extension services, recurrent drought and natural resource degradation (land, water, forest, and
rangeland), persistent livestock disease and lack of market access, lack of alternative off-farm
employment and others in the study area have made the food security situation worse. Kamba
woreda is not among those areas that are showing agricultural growth and technological change
in the region. Rather, Kamba agrarian conditions represent continuity more than change, as
demonstrated by its inability to meet the food demand of the woreda’s rapidly growing
population.
The dominant factors that contribute for the chronic food insecurity problem in the Kamba
woreda are poor crop and pasture production, infrastructure problem mainly road, abnormal food
price and livestock disease. The poor performance of the agricultural sector in the area directly
creates supply problems and indirectly creates demand problems by contradicting the producer’s
access to sufficient income. The agricultural productivity in the area strongly depends on rain
fed, which mostly behaves an irregular start and end (poor distribution). In that area, below
normal rain is common and leads to poor harvest, poor pasture and poor food availability.
Kamba woreda is known with its road problem. Before fifteen years, the woreda faced serious
drought and due to road problem life saving rations were dropped from air. Even nowadays no
food crops are transported in to the woreda and out of the woreda. Households’ in the area face
unusual prices during normal time and farmers cannot get fair price for their products during
good harvest seasons.
4
Food self-sufficiency has remained the declared goal for federal, regional and woreda
government of Ethiopia. Similarly, the problem of food security has continued to persist in the
rural areas like Kamba. The Kamba woreda administration and different NGOs implement food
security programs like productive safety net, voluntary resettlement, provision of improved
technologies for the farmers, water harvesting programs have been implemented in the area. But
the progress is not significant, so assessment of food security challenges at woreda and
households’ level to identify the major determinants is fundamental. Having this background,
this study tries to investigate the food security and it’s determinates in rural households’ in
Kamba woreda, Gamo Gofa zone: SNNPR.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Over the past ten decades, Ethiopia has been challenged by food insecurity problem. In Ethiopia,
the trend in growth of domestic food production matched population growth only in the 1960s
(Markos, 1997). In spite of the fact that Ethiopia has abundant natural resources, most of its
socioeconomic indicators are extremely low and discouraging. Numerous studies have confirmed
that there is a problem of food security in Ethiopia with wide range of area to be covered and
large number of people to be attended for different identified causes of food security problem.
Among these causal factors, per capita land holding with increasing population growth, livestock
availability, education, per capita income of the households’ from agricultural and non
agriculture activities, soil fertility, conflict, under-funded agriculture are the major and
commonly mentioned factors (Gebre-Selassie, 2005, Negatu, 2004,Ramakirshina et al, 2002,
Madeley 2000).
Ethiopian government and international donors have been implementing different categories of
responses to attain food self–sufficiency and to reduce food aid dependency. These categories are
based on supply based responses (increasing the level and stability of production, increasing food
reserve, and influencing international food markets), demand based responses (improving
income, productive assets available to vulnerable groups, and other market and non-market
transfer), and disaster prevention and preparedness capabilities having adequate early warning
systems (IFPRI, 2003). Despite such efforts, food insecurity remains the main challenging
5
problem in our country and the need for food aid has been increasing. This shows that there is
mismatch between food demand and supply.
In the last two decades, Kamba woreda have been identified as chronically food insecure area
and that cannot adequately feed its rapidly growing population .In the woreda, farmers do not
produce enough food even in good harvest seasons to meet their own consumption requirements.
Therefore, they have continued to depend on relief assistance to fill the food deficit. As a
result of this annual food deficit people migrate from highlands every year in search of jobs
outside the district and within the district. High dependence on relief assistance and the existence
of migration shown there is high annual variability in food production and availability, which
confirms the existence of food security problem among the households’ of the district. Making
their living on marginal, moisture stressed, heavily degraded and less productive land,
households’ in the Kamba woreda have been facing persistent food shortages. On top of the ever
decreasing size of land holding due to increasing population, continuously decreasing per-capita
production, high dependence on rain fed agriculture, recurrent drought and natural resource
(land, water, forest, and rangeland)degradation, lack of infra-structures, lack of access to market,
persistent animal diseases, week extension system(absence of credit service, lack of improved
technologies, absence of crop diversification), low family income, lack of alternative off-farm
employment, practicing bad cultural habits and others in the study area have made the food
security situation worse. Realizing this issue, many governmental and non-governmental
organizations are intervening at least to decrease the adverse effects of the food security
problem. But, there is yet little success. Aware of these facts, this study was designed to identify
the factors that contribute to households’ food insecurity problem and to the severity of the
problem in the rural areas of Kamba woreda, and through that make recommendations to
improve the effectiveness of interventions. Having this background in mind the study has put
forward the following research questions.
6
Research questions:
• What is food security? What efforts have been made by the international and national
governments to eradicate the problem? What are the success stories and the challenges
that have been faced?
• What are the determinant factors that affect food security problem in the rural
households’ in the Kamba woreda?
• What coping strategies do food insecure households’ uses to make their livelihood during
time of sever food shortage?
• What is the contribution of governmental and non- governmental programs to address the
problem?
To address the above research questions, the study has applied logistic regression method of
analysis by using data generated from 200 households’.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this study is to analyze the food security status of the rural households’
and its determinants in the Kamba woreda of Gamo Gofa zone: SNNPR. The specific objectives
of this study include:
1. To investigate how households’ level socio-demographic structure affect food security.
2. To identify the major factors that contribute for some households’ attain food security
while others not.
3. To record coping mechanisms of households’ during adverse covariant shocks.
4. To investigate how households’ food security status is related to households’ food intake
and dietary diversity.
5. To identify policy measure those improve the households’ status of food security problem
in the area.
1.4 Significance of the Study
Population growth coupled with environmental degradation, drought, a largely stagnant
agricultural technology, poor institutional arrangements, inefficient output and input markets,
inadequate infrastructure and external factors have all contributed to the aggravation of food
security problem in the study area. The woreda administration of the woreda study area has been
7
trying to increase food security at both households’ and woreda levels through these small-scale
farmers. Despite all these efforts, majority of households’ in the area have been facing series
food security challenges. Identifying determinates of households’ food security problems have
been studied by many researchers in the country. This study has focused on assessing
determinates of households’ food security problem in Kamba woreda in which no similar
research has been done to the best of own knowledge. The various factors that affect
households’ food security status were discussed so that recommendations can be made for the
adoption of better strategies and actions to assist small-scale producer farmers to address
households’ food security problem in the woreda. This study helps to identify gaps in small-
scale farmers and come up with reasons why small- scale farmers are food insecure.
The result of the study provides policy related information that helps to prioritize among the
many possibilities depending on the relative extent of influences of its determinants. More
specifically, it helps concerned bodies in their effort to formulate policies and develop
intervention mechanisms that are tailored to the specific need of the study area. Furthermore, this
study attempts to make further contribution to the previous studies and can be used as a source
material for further studies.
1.5 Limitations and scope of the study
The study specifically has focused on identifying major determinants of food security problem at
households’ level by comparing direct calorie consumption per adult equivalent with the
minimum requirement by classifying sample households’ as food secure and insecure and then
looking at the extent of food security problem in Kamba woreda. The study covers only 13 of the
38 PAs of the study area. Moreover, the study deals with a limited number of households’ and
focused on the dimensions and determinants of food security problems. Besides to this, the data
were collected at one time period and during the time of food shortage faced by the households’
in the study area. The scope of this study was limited by time, budget and other resource
limitation. Even if the study was restricted in terms of its coverage its outputs can be used as a
spring board for more detailed and area specific studies.
8
1.6 Organization of the study
The rest of this thesis is organized in six chapters. Chapter two deals with review of literature
that includes theoretical frameworks of food security and empirical studies made in the country
and elsewhere in the world. Chapter three presents a brief description of the study area while
chapter four deals with methodology of the research. Results obtained are discussed in detail in
chapter five. Chapter six presents summary and conclusions of the study.
9
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2. 1 Definitions and Overview of Food Security
This section reviews the literature on food security. This will be done in four sub-sections.
Section one provides brief definitions of what food security is and determinants of households’
food security are discussed in this section. In section two much of the discussion will revolve
around what efforts have been made at global, regional and at country level to close down the
food security problem and what are success and failures of the past efforts. In section three a
brief discussion of empirical research that has been carried out on food security in the country
and outside the country, and in the last section how food security has been measured and
expected contribution of this study for the literature world is discussed.
2.1.1 Food security defined
Food security is defined in different ways by international organizations and researchers.
According to Smith et al. (quoted in Maxwell, 1996), there are close to 200 definitions of food
Security but the one most commonly used and this study concentrates is the one given by the
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) which states that, “Food security exists when all
people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to
meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO 1996, Rome
Declaration 1996, page 8). Food security may be generally understood as, "Secure Access to
Sufficient Food at All Times.” This definition integrates access to food, availability of food, and
the biological utilization of food as well as the stability of all these. These details are provided
below:
2.1.1.1 Sufficiency: Sufficiency is commonly understood and measured by the number of
calories an individual requires to live an active and healthy life (S. Maxwell & M. Smith,
1992).Although daily caloric requirements for men, women and children have been estimated by
nutritionists, the broad applicability of these caloric intake standards has been questioned(K.
10
Bagachi et al,2002).An individual's perception of his/her own hunger and the amount of food
required to live an “active and healthy” life have been found to vary greatly(J. Coates, et al,
2002).Despite these debates, food sufficiency is generally understood as the amount of food
required by an individual to meet dietary energy requirements as defined by the Food and
Agricultural Organization(R. Gardiner, 2002).
2.1.1.2 Access: Access to the means of acquiring food, whether through production, purchase
or exchange, is central to contemporary definitions of food security. The key determinants of
food access are physical, economic, political and socio-cultural. Human and physical capital,
households’ assets, property resources, markets, and a variety of social contracts at the
households’, community and state levels, directly affect an individual’s level of access (S.
Maxwell & M. Smith, 1992).Access to the means of food acquisition is highly dependent on
gender biases and social forces.
2.1.1.3 Security: Security refers to the extent to which the access to the means of acquiring
food is vulnerable. Vulnerability is a function of risk and insurance. Asset ownership, human and
social capital, government safety nets, and the activities of non-governmental organizations
(NGO's) all contribute to an individual or household level of insurance, while variability in crop
production, changes in food prices and food supply, employment, and wages all influence the
risk profile (S. Maxwell & M. Smith, 1992).
2.1.1.4 Time: Food insecurity may be chronic, cyclic or transitory based on factors such as
seasonal patterns and income regularity. Households’ or individuals that are continually unable,
or are at risk of being unable, to meet caloric needs are categorized as chronically food insecure.
Households’ experiencing a temporary decline in the ability to meet caloric needs is categorized
as having transitory food insecurity. Households’ experiencing re-occurring, regularly timed
periods of food insecurity (e.g. hunger seasons) are understood to be facing cyclic food
insecurity (S. Maxwell & M. Smith, 1992).
2.1.1.5 Vulnerable: Vulnerability is strongly related to the concept of food insecurity,
highlighting the element of risk that households’ face in their production, income, and
11
consumption activities. Vulnerability can be defined as the likelihood that a specific population
group will experience an acute decline in their food access. In addition to the risks that
households’ face, vulnerability further implies that these groups are unable to sufficiently cope
with those threats to effectively protect their basic food access. Female-headed households’, the
aged, the disabled, and other disadvantaged groups with low levels of households’ labor and
insufficient means of support from family members and the community are also typically
included as being among the most food insecure and vulnerable as well. Other households’ are
vulnerable because they live in areas susceptible to natural or man-made disasters. households’
under the extreme threat of conflict, drought, and other risks, particularly those households’
lacking a diversified income and asset base to cope with those risks, are also considered among
the most food insecure and vulnerable groups.
2.1.2 Households’ food security: An economic perspective
Economic approaches to food security have traditionally focused on assessing aggregate levels of
food supply, agricultural production, and the balance of agricultural trade (World Bank1986). In
the 1970s, food security was defined at the macro level as the ability to avoid short-term deficits
in aggregate food supply (Staatz JM Econ 1990) and it was directly linked to grain stocks at the
global and national level (Holmboe-Ottesen G1990). During the 1980’s, this macro-level
understanding was replaced by a focus on individual-level and households-level concepts of food
security, emphasizing access, vulnerability and entitlements (S. Maxwell & M. Smith.1992).
This shift was largely influenced by the pioneering work of economist Amartya Sen.
From an economic perspective, malnutrition was increasingly recognized as the individual-level
manifestation of a complex combination of households’, community, regional, national, and international
factors (Marek T, 1992). Seminal work on the phenomenon of famine by Sen (an essay on entitlement
and deprivation,1981) brought attention to the issue of access to food by households’ and by individuals,
which could be constrained by economic, social, and cultural factors and was most often a chronic, not
transitory, condition at the households’ level. Food insecurity could occur at the households’ level, and
was occurring, in the absence of regional and national food insecurity.
The neoclassical economic theory of households’ production added further to the concept of food
security by emphasizing the decision-making processes within the households’ that determine
12
how scarce resources are allocated. Since households’ have limited access to resources and
struggle to fulfill a variety of basic needs, procurement of food competes with acquisition of
health services and other goods and services. Therefore, food needs are necessarily the most
dominant basic needs for a given households’ subsistence or survival (Maxwell S, Frankenberger
TR 1992).
Macro-level food security focused on food availability (supply), most of the recent households’
food security frameworks are concerned primarily with households’ access to food, although all
recognize that access is just one component of households’ food security as discussed above. At
the households’ level, food security is determined by a household’ current food supplies, past
stable food supply, and potential future supply.
2.1.3 Determinants of households’ food insecurity
To obtain their food, households’ typically either: (a) grow it and consume from their own
stocks; (b) purchase it in the marketplace; (c) receive it as a transfer from relatives, members of
the community, the government, or foreign donors; or (d) gather it in the wild. The factors that
limit the ability of households’ to grow, store, purchase, gather or receive transfers of food will
vary by location, across socio-economic groups, and over time. Once the basic sources of food
have been identified, it is necessary to investigate the often complex interaction of agro-physical
and socio-economic processes that limit a households’ ability to obtain sufficient quantities of
food from each source.
Food security is generally affected by two major determinants: Availability of food and
accessibility to it (Andersen, 1997). The Same source also showed that human resource
development, non-food factors, including education, health care, and clean water, population
growth, urbanization and displacement of people greatly influence food insecurity and human
nutrition. This source further stipulated that natural resource and agricultural inputs are critical
determinants of food security. Food insecurity is due to a variety of reasons, and the FAO/UNDP
(1987) cited in Getachew (1995) suggested, i) the relatively high density of human and livestock
populations and the resulting squeeze of land resources; ii) the inability of agricultural practices
to sustain the required productivity levels of land; iii) insufficient level of adoption of modern
13
farm technology; iv) extensive and often irreversible levels of land degradation; v) the value
placed on livestock, specially cattle, in the social economic system and the accomplishing desire
to maintain large livestock holdings.
According to Hoddinott (2001) households’ food security (HFS) issues cannot be seen in
isolation from broader factors. He viewed these factors as physical, policy and social
environment. And he argued that the physical factor play a large role in determining the type of
activities that can be undertaken by rural households’. Government policies on the other hand
toward the agricultural sector will have a strong effect on the design and implementation of
households’ food security interventions. Likewise the presence of social conflict, expressed in
terms of mistrust of other social groups or even outright violence, is also an important factor in
the design and implementation of interventions. Hoddinott (2001) expressed that resources or
endowments that food security of households’ can be divided into two broad categories: labor
and capital. Labor refers to the availability of labor for production. It incorporates both physical
dimension-how many people are available to work as well as“knowledge” and human capital
dimensions. On the other hand, capital refers to those resources such as land, tools for
agricultural and non agricultural production, livestock, and financial resources; that when
combined with labor produce income. In turn the house- holds allocate these endowments across
different activities such as food production, cash crop production and non-agricultural income-
generating activities in response to the returns each activity generates. In addition, households’
may receive transfer income from different sources, which determines households’ income.
Hoddinott (2001) further described that households’ face a set of prices that determine the level
of consumption that can be supported by the given level of income. Accordingly, consumption is
divided between those goods that affect households’ in individual food security and all other
goods. Goods that affect food security include food consumption at the households’ level
(referred to as food access in much of food security literature), goods directly related to health
care; and goods that affect the health environment. These three goods affect illness & individual
food intake, which in turn generates nutritional status or food utilization. Finally Hoddinott
14
(2001) noted that food security is not static over time. There are second rounds, or feedback
effects.
Lathan (1997) has clearly indicated that income received from cash crops or wage earnings and
prices paid for purchased items influence a rural population’s food security. Further, the author
stated that inadequate land holdings; landlessness and sharecropping are all powerful causes of
family insecurity. Lathan has also identified that a ‘shock’ often precipitates households’ food
insecurity. The shock can adversely influence food production (suddenly threatening farm food
availability). There are many different kinds of shocks, like serious illness, which may result in
reduced agricultural production in a farm family; loss of rural job; farm production crises, such
as failure of the rains, or a plague of locusts or some other agricultural catastrophe. Any crisis
that has an adverse impact on the livelihood of the family may also result in households’ food
insecurity.
In the Horn of Africa, for example, a leading determinant of food insecurity is low levels of per
capita food production. The primary constraints to improved food production in the region are a
combination of low and erratic rainfall, high population densities, deforestation and, as a result,
an accelerated deterioration in soil quality and crop yields. Poor market infrastructure and an
unfavorable policy environment which leads to high and variable prices for inputs and low
producer prices further undermine productivity in many countries in the region (Frank Riely,
Nancy Mock1999).
A case study of resource and food security of Wobera District of East Hararghe Zone
(Getachew, 1991) showed that sufficient conditions exist for chronic and transitory food
insecurity among the households'. These conditions are: first, land, one of the most important
resources for food production, is scarce among the study households’. Second, other households’
resources such as livestock have fallen dramatically. Third, due to climatic hardship, even cereal
major producing areas remain deficit, leaving both cereal and cash crop dependent households’
in a disadvantaged food supply position. Fourth, the administrative apparatus of Ethiopia (both
15
past and present) neglected the rural sector with no or realistic development strategies to reduce
risks of food insecurity.
The same source further showed that agro-ecological induced variation of holding size and plot
distribution and ox-ownership, as an important factor in determining households’ resource
endowment and the ability to perform agricultural activities, came out to be factors which
determine the food security situation among the sample households’. Moreover, other factors that
were given due attention in the study were labor, land-to-man ratio, ability of the area to offer
cash crop and off-farm income, grazing land, households’ indebtedness, cash block (off farm
employment income, cash crop income, livestock income and borrowing), market price,
households’ expenditure (obligation to the state, rural institution, the households’ itself and
other households’).
In a case study of Social and Demographic Characteristics Habro woreda, using logistic
regression model, Getachew (1993) showed that there is a statistically significant relationship
between resources held by a households’ and its level of food security. It was confirmed that
those households which hold land less than three Timad, do not own any oxen, have a small
households’ adult equivalent size and earn non-farm income of less than Birr 500 (or nothing at
all) are those most at risk of food insecurity among the sample population. Consequently, the
researcher showed that the levels of income and farm size are the most important resources
determining food security when other factors such as favorable climatic conditions and low pest
outbreak are satisfied. In other words, a larger land size and high income increase the chances of
maintaining food security. Poor target groups often lack access to institutions and services which
could help them in improving their subsistence production and income (SLE, 1999; cited in
Ayalneh 2002).
Moreover, it is a combination of availability, access and the chance of receiving external
assistance that determines the households’ food security. As explained in FAO (1991) the
problem of households’ food security is not simply one of agricultural output, but encompasses
all factors affecting a households’ access to an adequate year round supply of food. Thus, the
16
problem of households’ food security is not simply one of next season’s crops, but can also
include factors as diverse as deforestation, seasonal variations in food supply, availability of
fodder and other forest foods, shifts from subsistence to the cash economy, and even the timing
of cash needs as school fees.
Ayalneh (2002) in his study of Land Degradation, Impoverishment and Livelihood Strategies of
Rural households in Ethiopia, showed that factors that have contributed to transitory and chronic
food insecurity in rural Ethiopia are various and varied, ranging from political and socio-
economic to environmental. Among the political factors he listed inappropriate agricultural and
marketing policies, and political conflict both at national and local level. Among the socio-
economic factors are demographic characteristics of rural households’ inadequate resource
endowments, inadequately developed infrastructure such as school, hospital and roads, etc. The
same source further stated that food security concerns in rural households’ depend to a large
extent on the size and age structure of households’ members. The number of the households’
member capable of contributing to food production and/or who can be employed in non-farm
income earning activities will greatly determine households own production and its capacity to
acquire food through enhancing exchange entitlement.
Further, while Ayalneh (2002) explaining the feature of food insecure groups, he also implicitly
explained the factors that determine food insecurity. In that the largest group of food insecure
households’ is those who live on the edge of subsistence, often located in remote areas far from
markets. They lack the important asset of good quality land and access to productive assets. Lack
of draught power severely handicaps farmers, lack of access to credit, agricultural input and
technology. Lack of male labor in female-headed households’ is another important constraint.
They usually work in an insecure and low productivity occupation. Another determinant of food
insecurity is gender discrimination. Subordination of women in society, their over-burdening and
the greater difficulties faced by female-headed households’ contribute to food insecurity (Lathan,
1997).
17
On the other hand Gezahegn (1995) explained that the major causes of transitory food insecurity
are failure in agricultural production or instability in food supplies resulting from stochastic
shocks such as recurrent draught, lack of incentives to small scale food producers, and poor
extension services for the small peasant households’. The weak system of marketing and
transport operations to procure and collect agricultural products from widely dispersed rural
producers and to distribute essential agricultural inputs on time contributes not only to the fall in
production in some years, but also to the problems caused by failure to move the available food
itself to needy areas.
Getachew (1993) in a case study of Adama Boset Using logistic regression model he showed that
there is statistically significant relationship between food insecurity and its determinants except
farming system. He also reported that there are statistically multiple relationships between
resources owned by a household and level of food security. Accordingly, it was confirmed that
amongst the sample population it is those households’ which hold land less than or equal to 3
Timads, do not own any oxen, have a small households’ adult equivalent size, are unable to use
fertilizer, and earn a non-farm income of less than Birr 500 (or none at all) which are most at risk
of food insecurity. Thus ox-ownership, level of income and land size is the most important
resources determining food security when other factors such as favorable climatic conditions and
low pest out break are satisfied. In other words, an increased size of land, ox-ownership, high
income and use of fertilizer increase the chances of maintaining food security. In his study using
logistic model of Kembata and Hadiya district Getachew (1993) tested the significance of the
relationship between households’ resources and food security. For the test he included six
variables farming systems, land size, production output, livestock, households’ size and fertilizer.
Moreover, in this study all the variables are negatively related with food insecurity except
households’ size.
2.2. Measures taken to overcome the food security problem
The government of Ethiopia has implemented a policy response specific to Ethiopia's food
security and agricultural productivity challenge, including the Agricultural Development Led
Industrialization (ADLI) strategy. This policy strategy divides the country into three main agro-
18
ecological zones, which include regions with adequate rainfall, moisture stress areas, and
pastoral areas. In regions with adequate rainfall, the focus is on exerting all possible efforts to
efficiently utilize available rainwater to bring about the maximum possible rate of agricultural
development, and promoting irrigation in areas where it is feasible. In moisture stress areas,
major activities undertaken to enhance food security are focused on increasing off-farm income
opportunities, and voluntary resettlement to more productive areas. In terms of pastoral areas,
special efforts are made to enhance specialization in livestock production and marketing through
the provision of water supply for the community and their livestock as well. Major interventions
in this area also include improving livestock quality, expansion of animal health services, water
points, feed production and improvement of breeds and development of market infrastructure.
Specific policy measures practiced by the government to improve food security and show
positive results include: Agricultural extension and research, food security programme
Productive safety net programme, Voluntary resettlement Programme, water harvesting
programme, expansion of small-scale irrigation.
2.2.1 Agricultural Extension Services: A key feature of this innovative policy measure is the
employment of medium level trained extension workers to every rural kebele in Ethiopia to
facilitate sustained knowledge and skills transfer to smallholder farmers through the
establishment of Farmers Training Centers (FTCs) to transfer improved agricultural technologies
and give adequate services at a closer reach. Throughout the planning period, all of the female
headed households have access to extension services and an estimated 30% of women in male-
headed households will also get access to training and extension services in the type of
extension packages that will benefit those most. This has contributed to increased agricultural
productivity particularly for cereals, pulses, and oil seeds and decreased the number of food
insecure farmers (UN- development strategies).
2.2.2 Agricultural Research: Effective agricultural research is also at the core of improving
food security. The major outputs of the public research system are varieties with improved
agronomic and protection practices that can be used in crop and livestock diversification and
specialization, for both traditional food crops and livestock, as well as high value crops such as
vegetables, spices and other horticultural crops. Research is also conducted on food science,
19
socioeconomic and post harvest technology as well as farm implements. The research centers
maintain improved varieties and multiply breeder and pre-basic seeds and seedlings of released
varieties of crops, and distribute them to farmers. Those farmers who applied improved inputs
increased their productivity per area and decreased vulnerability to food insecurity (UN-
development strategies 2009).
2.2.3 Food Security Programme: The National Food Security Programme rests on three pillars:
increasing the availability of food through domestic (own) production; ensuring access to food
for food deficit households’ and, strengthening emergency response capabilities. But Ethiopia is
constantly dependent on international aid for nearly 10% of its annual food need. This figure at
times reaches about 25% in periods such as the drought years. This means that 4 to 5 million
people are living in continuous risk of food shortage and their existence is directly related to
external help.
The effort to reduce food insecurity problem is a central part of the PASDEP strategy. Measures
are being put in place to reduce the variance in crop production and food availability overall -
through more irrigation and water control, diversification of crops, and better integration of
markets, transport, and information links. Maintaining macroeconomic stability; expanding off-
farm employment and income-earning opportunities, and better functioning credit markets,
improving health services and nutrition, and, innovative measures, such as experiments with crop
and weather-based insurance mechanisms -are key components of these measures.
The Government tries to strengthen and expand rural micro financing institutions and
cooperatives to provide banking services especially in food insecure areas. The Government of
Ethiopia recognizes the importance of improved credit services for food insecure rural and urban
households’ in order to address both supply and demand side problems. The Government will
continue to increase the availability of rural financing and provide special support in reducing the
credit administration cost extended to food insecure communities. Cooperatives are expected to
play a big role in this regard.
Furthermore, the Government has gradually shifted away from food assistance (assistance in
kind) towards financial assistance for the purchase of food from the domestic market. This has
20
helped augment the stocks of food security reserve in good times. This in turn contributed to the
creation of effective demand through stabilization of prices.
Since the launching of the Programme, remarkable achievement has been made in narrowing
overall food gap from domestic production. The recent report by the Disaster Prevention and
Preparedness Agency (DPPA) shows that the number of people requiring emergency assistance
stood at 2.3 million in 2010/11from5.2 million in 2009 /10, evidence that the food security
situation in the country has improved significantly (FEWS NET 2010).
2.2.4 Productive Safety Net Programme: The Productive Safety Net Programme is intended to
bridge the income gap of chronically food insecure households and engage such households in
community asset building efforts especially during the lean season and times of drought. Priority
for households’ asset-building interventions is given to beneficiaries of the Safety Net
Programme.
The programme started in 2005 and covers 287 woreda. It has two components - labor-intensive
public works and direct support for labor-poor households’. The able-bodied are engaged in
public works for which they are paid a minimum amount, while the labor poor are provided the
same amount free. A key feature of the Safety Net Programme is its households’ focus. It is
linked to the households’ asset-building efforts of the Food Security Programme in that the
priority for households’ asset building interventions is assigned to those covered by the Safety
Net Programme, as they are the chronically food insecure. The Safety Net Programme through
its predictable transfer of resources will help prevent asset depletion, which is an important
factor for the attainment of food security. This is in addition to the community assets it helps
build.
2.2.5 Voluntary Resettlement Programme: Over the years, a large portion of the country's
population has lost the productive capacity mainly due to land degradation and high population
pressure, while at the same time Ethiopia has a considerable amount of land suitable for
agriculture currently under-utilized. To rationalize resource use, and thereby help food insecure
households’, the Government is supporting voluntary resettlement as part of its food security
21
programme. To date, over 149,000 households’ have been resettled. Resettlement is on a purely
voluntary basis, and each settler households’ is guaranteed a package of assistance that includes
provision of up to 2 hectares of fertile land, seed, oxen, hand tools, tools, and food rations for the
first eight months. Settlers are also provided access to essential social infrastructure (clean water,
health post, feeder road), and logistics support.
2.2.6 Water harvesting:- In the area of water harvesting, the technique is considered to be one
of the major interventions to overcome the challenges of households’ food insecurity in the
country. In this regard, efforts are in progress to construct water-harvesting structures across the
country. Water harvesting schemes are generally viable, with an economic rate of return of
32.7%, and an annual earnings of about ETB 6,400 households’ /annum. Accordingly, 139,462
different types of water harvesting structures with different capacities have been constructed in
the four major regions. These structures are at households’ level and are meant for life saving
irrigation for field crops as well as for vegetable gardening where conditions are favorable.
Extension and training programmes are also designed to pay particular attention to enhancing
farmers' capacity to use water resources efficiently, and to boost productivity for both
households’ consumption and for market.
2.2.7 Expansion of Small-scale irrigation: The most direct and significant contribution to an
improvement in food security for rural households’ has been made by the support furnished for
small-scale irrigation development. Some 31,000 households in densely populated drought-prone
areas have been reached through the support provided for small-scale irrigation projects, and
many of these households are gradually seeing an improvement in their incomes. Findings
suggest that increases in crop yields over the traditional yields are in the range of from 25 to 40
percent, and in cases where irrigation facilities have been built around springs, the increases have
been between 75 and 100 per cent. Thanks to these irrigation developments, the targeted
irrigation farmers’ physical and financial assets have started to increase, although experience
suggests that it may take six or more years for irrigation farmers to experience the full benefits
(IFAD 2009).
22
2.2.3 Main challenges that affect the success of food security:
The extent of the food insecurity has become sound the alarm. As much as 45 percent of the
population is affected during drought years. The serious and accelerating problems of food
insecurity in Ethiopia are now considered a national security threat. So breaking the cycle of
food insecurity problem has remained one of the difficult challenges towards poverty reduction
in Ethiopia. Factors that may aggravate the situation are:-
2.2.3.1 Climate change: is an immediate and unprecedented threat to food security of millions
of households’ that depends on small-scale agriculture for their livelihood. Climate change in
Ethiopia affects all four dimensions of food security: Food production and availability, stability
of food supplies, Access to food and Food utilization. ILRI (2006) and Stige et al. (2006)
identify Ethiopia as one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change. Climate affects food
production directly through changes in agro-ecological conditions and indirectly by affecting
growth and distribution of incomes, and thus demand for agricultural produce. Greater
fluctuation in crop yields and local food supplies can adversely affect the stability of food
supplies and food security. Climatic fluctuations will be most pronounced in semi-arid and sub-
humid regions and are likely to reduce crop yields and livestock numbers and productivity which
increase vulnerability. Climate change decrease access to food due to food price increases and
declining rates of income growth. Climate change may initiate a vicious circle where infectious
diseases, including water-borne diseases, cause or compound hunger, which, in turn, makes the
affected population more susceptible to those diseases. Results may include declines in labour
productivity and an increase in poverty, morbidity and mortality (Schmidhuber and Tubiello
2007).
2.2.3.2 Technology adoption problem: The country extension system inability to transmit
improved technology and farming practices to producers in participatory and accountable ways
worsen the food insecurity. Over the years, many development agendas and practices were
prescribed in a top-down approach to the rural people and farmers. Potentially well designed
programs and practices usually failed simply because farmers were not given the chance to ask
“why”, “where”, “how” and “when” they should adopt these practices. Extension workers
23
mandated to persuade or teach farmers at grassroots level are quite often practically unskilled or
even irresponsible.
2.2.3.3 Rapid and unhindered population growth: “ Rapid and unhindered” population growth
is a significant factor in exacerbating food shortages in Ethiopia – the second most populated
country in Africa – according to a 2009 report by the UN Emergencies Unit for Ethiopia. That
year, 20 percent of the population was dependent on foreign-supplied food aid. Of the country’s
current 80 million people, an estimated 12 million Ethiopians are facing serious threats from
food insecurity and famine. More than half of the country’s children under five years of age are
stunted in growth and 47 percent are underweight. With one of the highest birth rates in the
world, Ethiopia’s population is projected to increase by 20 million in the next 10 years and
double by 2045. Forty-five percent of the population now is under age 15. Each Ethiopian
woman gives birth to an average of six children, and 36 percent of married couples that desire to
use contraception to space or limit childbirths do not have access to contraceptives. Population
growth is putting unprecedented and increasing pressure on vital natural resources, including
cropland and fresh water. Dozens of countries already have reached alarmingly low levels of
available cropland. Currently, 17 million people live in countries with less than 0.5 hectare of
cropland per person – the minimum cropland capable of supplying a vegetarian diet for family
(starvation plot).
2.2.3.4 Poor input and output market system: Lack of efficient and effective input and output
market systems is a major obstacle to the Ethiopian agriculture and food security. In Ethiopia,
surplus food may be produced in some parts of the country, but because of weak transport and
market links it cannot be easily transported to food deficit areas. The country’s high transport
costs and poor infrastructure aggravate the food insecurity situation for poor farmers. Studies on
the grain market (Mulat et al. 1998) and input use confirm the existence and consequences of
these problems. Improvement in market policy and investment in infrastructure is necessary to
reduce food transaction costs and enhance the incentive to produce more and improve food
security situation in the country.
24
2.4 Empirical Literature
Food insecurity could be caused by several factors. Following the usual practice, we classify
them into two broad categories- immediate and underlying community conditions. Under
immediate conditions, we have low rates of agricultural production; low access to food resulting
from low income; poor roads and infrastructure facilities. On the other hand, underlying
community conditions include existing factors which could interrupt availability, accessibility,
utilization, and stability of food. For example, if a community is characterized by poor
infrastructural conditions, productive capabilities of farmers could be hampered as they will have
limited access to new technologies, to credit, and also to storage and transportation facilities for
inputs and outputs. Subsistence farming is also characterized by low yield and growing levels of
soil fatigue as people remain in one area for extended periods and become less peripatetic than in
the past.
The food security status of the community could also be affected negatively by bad local and
international market conditions which could result from ill-designed domestic and international
trade policies. These could reduce access to food by the community from local as well as outside
sources. In addition, the food security status of the community could be frustrated by HIV and
AIDS and other pandemics that harm economically productive sections of the society.
Studies show that food prices have increased sharply over the past five years. This has been
attributed to a number of factors: rising energy prices and subsidized bio-fuel production; income
and population growth; globalization and urbanization; land and water constraints
underinvestment in rural infrastructure and agricultural innovation; and lack of access to inputs
and water disruptions (FAO, 2008). This has made poorer households’ highly vulnerable to food
insecurity by decreasing their purchasing power. Food constitutes the lion’s share of poor
households’ expenditure or budget.
Study made in Zimbabwe on determinates of households’ food security in the semi-arid areas of
lupine and hwange districts by (Misery Mpuzu 2008) using logistic regression conclude that
having access to irrigation by communal farmers has a positive and significant effect on
25
households’ food security. Farmers who are on irrigation schemes are more likely to be food
secure than dry land farmers. Thus, the hypothesis “Irrigation farming in communal areas
enhances households’ food security” is accepted. Access to irrigation does not only increase crop
production but also increases incomes that can be used on non-farm goods and services. The
same study further found that lack of access to credit and cash crop production displace food
crops and households’ consumption of own production is reduced. Thus the households’
vulnerability to food insecurity tends to increase. However another study in Malawi by Diagne
.A. (1998) found that formal credit has marginally beneficial effects on households’ annual
income. However, these effects are very small and do not cause any significant difference
between the per capita incomes, food security, and nutritional status of credit program members
and non-current members.
Choosing timing and volume of maize harvest as an indicator (Shiferaw T.Feleke 2005) in
southern Ethiopia to assess determinates of food security by using regression model: he found
that based on results from tests of the full/reduced models and the magnitude of changes in
conditional probabilities of food security, he conclude that the supply-side variables are more
powerful than the demand-side variables. Results also show that an increase in per capita
aggregate production is not necessarily translated into households’ food security at the
households’ level. The study highlights the deterioration of rural households’ food security due
to the income effect of declining prices associated with increased per capita aggregate
production. The same study also future confirmed that based on the positive and significant
relationship between technology adoption and households’ food security, adopters of improved
technology are more likely to be food secure than no adopters. Since the effect of technology
adoption can be explained through increased income, it can be argued that technology adoption
can also have an important effect on the distribution of benefits through increased demand for
nonfarm goods. Although the study shows that technology adoption improves households’ food
security through increasing food availability or households’ cash incomes in the short run, we
cannot infer that this positive relationship will hold in the long run or at the macro level. This is
because with increased adoption of improved technologies, the proportion of marketed surplus
will generally increase, as non adopters become adopters. However, given a very low overall
price elasticity of demand for cereals in developing countries, the increase in marketed surplus
26
causes prices to fall further, and eventually makes the producers worse off. This was inferred
based on the negative relationship between per capita aggregate production and households’ food
security.
Studies done to assess determinates of households’ food security(Bartfeld & Dunifon, 2006;
Kidane, Alemu, Khundhlande, 2005; Shiferaw, et al. 2005; Abebaw & Ayalneh, 2007) found
that demographic factors also play a influential role in households food security status.
households’ whose heads are educated are often more likely to be food secure; on the contrary,
households’ with relatively more mouths to feed (i.e. with a higher dependency ratio) are more
likely to face food insecurity (Bartfeld & Dunifon, 2006; Shiferaw et al. 2005; Abebaw &
Ayalneh, 2000); women-headed households’ face gender specific obstacles, adversely affecting
their ability to produce food (FAO, 2008; Bartfeld & Dunifon, 2006). And even if they are
employed, they don’t earn as much as their male counterparts. They also spend much of their
time doing unpaid work in the households’ and chances are slimmer for households in affluent
neighborhoods (higher income earners) to be food insecure (Bartfeld & Dunifon, 2006; Kidane,
et al., 2005; Shiferaw, et al. 2005).
Amhara regional state of Ethiopia, the case of North Wollo, the data analysis was based on food
balance sheet and aggregate food security index reveal that the north wello zone is highly food
insecure area and the majority of the sampled households’ depends on famine relief assistance.
In addition they tried to find the cause of food insecurity using logit model and found that cereal
production, education, fertilizer consumption, livestock, land size, reduce the probability that
households’ food insecure while, family size increase the probability of insecurity (Ramakrishna
et al 2002).
Off-farm employment opportunities in rural Ethiopia are limited in both availability and income-
generating potential. Only 44% of rural households’ surveyed by the Ministry of Labor in 1996
reported any non-agricultural sources of income and these contributed only for 10% to
households’ income (Befekadu and Berhanu 2000). Another survey in Hararghe Region
confirmed that off-farm activities generated only petty incomes: women collect and sell firewood
and forage, men and women seek irregular, low-paid work as farm laborers, and some men
27
migrate seasonally (ICRA et al. 1996). In a survey conducted in the Amhara region, 25% of
households’ had one or more members migrate during the dry season in search of work, mostly
to nearby rural areas. One in three migrants had difficulty securing employment, while half
brought back no food or income for their families (FSCO 1999).
A number of studies have been taken by (Bigsten A, Kebede B, Shimelis A and M
Taddesse2007, Dercon S 2006, MoFED 2006) to examine the determinants of food security and
poverty in rural areas of Ethiopia using logistic regression and found that. Socio-economic
variables such as asset holding (mainly cultivated land, farm income and livestock holding) and
access to services like credit are found to be important correlates which affect households’ food
security favorably. While controlling for all other variables, households’ with better access to
irrigation are found to have significantly higher wellbeing and so more likely to be food secure.
However, among demographic variables considered in this study only households’ size was
found to have a negative and statistically significant effect on households’ food security.
Contrary to usual expectation, the coefficient of education level of the households’ head was not
statistically significant. This may imply that education of households’ head has not yet enhanced
households’ capabilities to adopt better production technologies, accept technical advice from
extension workers and diversifying their source of income than the illiterate ones which would
have reduced the risk of food insecurity among households. The results also suggest that both
food secure and food insecure households’ have the same access to food aid resources.
2.5 Methodologies of measuring food security
The next section outlines four ways of measuring households’ food security outcomes: individual
intakes, households’ caloric acquisition, dietary diversity, and indices of households’ coping
strategies. This ordering of methods is deliberate, moving from methods that are very time and
skill-intensive but are regarded as being more accurate, to those that can be implemented
quickly, are relatively undemanding in terms of the skills required by the implementers, but are
more impressionistic. In this study households’ caloric acquisition will be applied.
28
2.5.1 Households’ Caloric Acquisition: This is the number of calories, or nutrients, available
for consumption by households’ members over a defined period of time. The principal person
responsible for preparing meals is asked how much food she prepared over a period of time.
After accounting for processing, this is turned into a measure of the calories available for
consumption by the households’ (John Hoddinott 1999).
2.5.2 Methods for generating data: A set of questions regarding food prepared for meals over a
specified period of time, usually either 7 or 14 days, is asked to the person in the households’
most knowledgeable about this activity(John Hoddinott 1999). There is no consensus regarding
the optimal recall period between 7 and 14 days. In our experience, 7 days seemed to be the most
appropriate. A shorter recall period would have risked missing foods served infrequently, say on
Fridays (in Muslim areas) or Sundays (in Christian areas). A longer recall period has proved
problematic as difficulties of remembering what was prepared appear to increase. However,
other organizations such as the World Bank in its Living Standard Measurement Surveys have
used the 14-day recall period.
In constructing these questions, the following considerations should be borne in mind: it is
extremely important that the list of foods specified in the questionnaire is detailed and
exhaustive. Experience has shown that using short lists typically leads to an understatement of
consumption on the order of 25 to 75 percent (Deaton and Grosh 1998); the phrasing of the
questions needs to be unambiguous in the sense of distinguishing between the amount of food
purchased and the amount prepared for consumption and the amount of food served; and it is not
uncommon for individuals to report consumption in units other than kilograms or liters. In such
cases, it is necessary to obtain information on the size of a "kirchat" or the quantity contained in
a "Silicha" or whatever units are used locally.
2.5.3 Advantages of this method: This measure produces a crude estimate of the number of
calories available for consumption in the households’. It is not obvious to respondents how they
could manipulate their answers. Because the questions are retrospective, rather than prospective,
the possibility that individuals will change their behavior as a consequence of being observed is
29
lessened. The level of skill required by enumerators is less than that needed to obtain information
on individual intakes. On average, it took around 30 minutes per households’ to obtain these
data, an amount of time considerably less than that required to obtain information on individual
intakes (John Hoddinott 1999).
2.6 Expected Contributions of the study
Ethiopia is an agrarian economy with more than 80 percent of its people dependent on
agriculture. The Government of Ethiopia has been trying to achieve food security at both
households’ and national level through these small-scale farmers. Identifying determinates of
households’ food security has been studied by many researchers in the country. This study
focuses on assessing determinates of households’ food security in Kamba woreda in which no
similar research has been done. Methodological gap and variables not included in previous
studies were taken as the gap that this research going to fill. Various factors contributing to
households’ food insecurity will be discussed so that recommendations can be made for better
strategies and actions to assist small-scale producer farmers to address households’ food
insecurity challenge in the study area.
2.7 Comments on the Reviewed Literatures
Much of the reviewed literature on household food security concentrated on describing
qualitatively and quantitatively the extent of household food security and identifying the factors
and examining their implications. Almost all reviewed studies applied logistic regression in
modeling relationships between variables. However, the central task of regression analysis: the
parameter estimation techniques and variable selection methods were not addressed. Most of the
reviewed model did not check model adequacy: detection and treatment of outliers, influence
diagnostics and multicollinearity. Almost all reviewed studies did not examine the sustainability
issues in detail. Hence, in this study in addition to the prediction, a sustainability issues will be
used taking into account the limitations described in the reviewed literature.
30
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLGY
3.1 Description of the Study Area
The study area, Kamba woreda, is found in Gamo Gofa zone, which is located in the Southern
part of SNNPR. Wolayta and South Omo administrative zones border the zone in the north and
south, respectively. Kamba is one of the 15 administrative woreda of Gamo Gofa zone. It is
bordered by Bonke woreda in the East, Zala woredas in the West, Daramalo woreda in the North
and South Omo zone in the South.
According to annual report of the Office of Agriculture (2002), Kamba has an estimated total
land area of 118,054 hectares of which only 50,787 hectares are arable. From arable land 20,345
hectares are used for annual crops 2,722 hectares are used for perennial crops and 27,720
hectares of arable land is the potential for the future and 22,364 are forest covered 27,664 are
pasture land, and 5,300 are unclassified. The woreda has nine big rivers of which three of them
have been used as source of modern irrigation.
Kamba, the capital of the woreda, is located 105 Kms from the zonal capital, Arbaminch and 635
kms away from Addis Ababa. The agro-ecological classification of this woreda consist of low
lands(kola), middle altitude(weynadega) and high lands(Dega).The woreda has 27% mid-
altitude,28% highland and 45% lowland agro-ecological zone. The top of the escarpment is
approximately 3340 m.a.s.l and the foothills and ridges raise to700 m.a.s.l
3.2 Livelihood Strategies in the study area
Mixed farming, both rain fed and irrigation based, agriculture is the primary source of livelihood
with mainly maize, wheat, sweet potato and enset grown as staple food crops, vegetables
predominantly onion and Shiferaw, coffee and corerrima are some of perennial cash crops.
However, even though all these crops are grown in the area, the livelihood of the farm
households’ heavily depend on the success and failure of maize production. The other important
livelihood activity, which plays an indispensable role in the mixed farming operation, is
31
livestock production. Of the different livestock species in the production system holders pay
greater emphasis to the large and small ruminants, cow, ox, sheep and goat, production. Because,
their capacity generate income in a shorter period is very high. In other words, a household who
has large number of livestock, especially chattels, deserves greater respect and influential power
in the locality.
3.3 Population
Based on the 2007 population and housing census results the Gamo Gofa zone has a total
population of 1,595,570 (CSA, 2007). From this, 1,436,601 (90%) of the population lives in the
rural areas depending on agriculture, while the remaining 106,234 (10%) lives in the urban areas.
The population distribution of Gamo Gofa zone is the combined effect of temperature, rainfall,
and soil fertility. The central highlands of the zone that have enough rainfall and other suitable
natural conditions for cultivations support large number of population. On the other hand, the
surrounding lowland, which is characterized by insufficient rainfall, high temperature, and higher
incidence of diseases such as malaria has very small number of population or sparsely populated
(2007). Hence, population distribution in Gamo Gofa is uneven. According to the same source,
the average population density of the zone is 85 persons per Km2. Children less than 15 years
accounts for 46.9%, the economically active population aged 15 to 64 accounts for 50.9 % and
those aged 65 and above constitute 2.18%. Thus about half of the population of the zone is under
the category of the independent age group. However, the dependency ratio of the zone in terms
of percentage is 97, which is quite high.
The total population of the study woreda is 155,748 of which 49.2% are women and 50.8% are
men (CSA, 2007). According the same source, children whose age is 14 or less account for
46.1%, this is similar to the situation in the zone average. Economically active population ages
between 15 and 64 accounts for 51.6% and those aged 65 and above are 2.3 %, which is also
similar to the zone average. According to Gamo Gofa Planning and Economic and Development
Office (2001), the average households’ size of the zone was 6.34, which is more than the
national average of 5. And, the average households’ size of the study area is 6.65, which is more
than the zonal average. The average population growth rate in the study area is also above the
32
country average growth rate (2.8% CSA, 2006). Table 1 shows the woreda population growth
rate in the past ten years as compared to country growth rate.
Table 1: - Population growth rate of Kamba woreda
Growth rate Growth rate
Year Kamba Country Year Kamba Country
2001 3.4 2.65 2006 3.0 2.60
2002 3.8 2.62 2007 5.2 2.59
2003 3.0 2.60 2008 3.2 2.59
2004 3.2 2.56 2009 3.4 2.58
2005 3.2 2.56 2010 2.9 2.45
Source: - World Bank2008 report and Kamba Woreda council
3.4 Religion
Religion in the woreda is classified and presented in Table 2. As it is indicated in the Table,
majority of the population are Protestants (about 58%). Next to Protestant Orthodox Christian
accounts about 24.5 percent and households’ with no religion 16%. There is no conflict among
different religion followers. Therefore, food security problem due to religion conflict is not
observable. Food source and feeding habit of all religion is basically similar
Table 2:- Religion distribution of the study area
Religion Percentage
Orthodox 24.5% Protestant 58% Muslim 1.5% No religion 16%
Source:-Woreda council 2010/11
3.5 Agriculture
As elsewhere in the country, agriculture is the major occupation of people living in the study
woreda. Except for few, the livelihood of the population (residents of both rural and urban areas)
in the woreda depends directly or indirectly on agriculture. More specifically, agricultural
production (livestock and/or crop production) is the main source of income and employment to
the society, though the degree of importance varies from one Keble to another.
33
The farming system of the study woreda is governed by the agro-ecology of the area, which
consists of highlands, midlands, and lowlands. In the highlands, mixed farming is practiced
which cultivate cereal as their annual major crop and enset as their perennial crop and animal
rearing as their minor on-farm activities. In the midlands, mixed farming is also practiced but
their main farm activities are cash crop and animal rearing. In the lowlands, mixed farming is
also common farming practice but focusing on maize production and animal rearing as major
activities. Pastorals depend strongly on animal rearing and to some extent on sorghum farming.
3.6 Crop Production
The major crops produced in the Gamo Gofa zone in general and Kamba woreda in particular are
cereals, roots and tubers, vegetables, and fruits and spices. Maize, wheat, barley, and teff are the
dominant cereal crops and sweet potato, Irish potato and enset are also the dominant roots and
tubers produced in the woreda. Coffee and coriander (corerrema) are also mostly produced
spices. The distribution of these major crops varies from place to place depending on crop
suitability factors (soil, rainfall, temperature, etc). For example barley, wheat and Irish potato are
cool weather crops, and are predominantly grown in the highlands above 1500 m.a.s.l where the
average annual rainfall ranges from 1000 mm to 2000 mm. Maize and sorghum are warm
weather crops they grow under rainfall of 800 mm to 1500 mm in midlands and lowlands. Pulses
such as haricot bean and field peas are widely grown in the study woreda and usually
intercropped with maize, sorghum and perennial crops like enset and coffee.
3.7 Livestock and Poultry Production
According to Kamba woreda Agricultural Development Department (2002), the Worde’s total
population of livestock and poultry is estimated to be 338,011. Among this, cattle population
accounts for 107,338(32%), followed by poultry 94,686(28%), sheep 78,368 (23%) and goat
45,796(13%). The proportion of the horses, donkeys, and mules are 2.5, 0.5 and 1percent
respectively. Here, cattle are the major source of farm power for plowing, threshing as well as
for manure supply. The highest concentration of goats is found in the lowlands of the woreda
where pastoralists live. Largest number of sheep and equines are mainly found in the highlands
because of disease problem in the lowlands. According to zonal agricultural department annual
report (2002) the study area is the main sources of meat livestock’s, especially for oxen and got.
34
3.8 Agricultural Extension
Agricultural extension is one of the most important inputs, which encourages farmers to use
improved techniques and creates an enabling environment for agricultural input and output
markets in the case of Gamo Gofa in general and Kamba woreda in particular. Agricultural
extension focuses on use of improved hybrid seeds, fertilizer, animal husbandry, and soil and
water conservation to increase farmers’ productivity. The agricultural extension serves in the
woreda also focus mainly on crops, livestock and natural resource development activities.
There are118 Development Agents (DAs) serving 23,420 farming households’ in Kamba woreda
(WoA, 2002). The development agents have diploma level education and recruited from the
community and live within the community to provide extension services. The ratio of
households’ to DA in the study area is 1:198. This ratio is more than double compared to the
national ratio of 600. This is one of the issues to be considered.
3.9 Input Supply
Key agricultural inputs used by farmers in Kamba woreda are improved seeds, chemical
fertilizer, improved chicken and protection chemicals. Improved seeds include maize and wheat.
Chemical fertilizers commonly used are DAP and urea. Plant protection chemicals are pesticides
and herbicides. The ten years average of fertilizer use in the woreda is 825 quintals DAP per
annum and 19 quintals of urea (WoA 2002); the quantity used per households’ is almost 3.5kg
of DAP and very small amount of urea per households’ which is too small to bring about a
change in production of the woreda in general (WoA 2002).
3.10 Rural road Road network is not well developed and the majority of the existing roads are not in a position to
function in wet seasons. Due to this problem the movement throughout the woreda is restricted
and the development effort is hampered. Until the year 2003 there were a total of 48km of roads
in the woreda out of which only 20 km were RR-10 standard roads all weather rode. According
to Kamba woreda council road network problem has been number one problem in the study area
for the problem of food security. Food transportation is very costly and farmers and consumers in
the study area pay abnormal price during normal production seasons.
35
3.11 Market There are three dominant and high monetary exchange market places located in open rural
villages. These markets are traditional in nature and are characterized by inadequate marketing
facilities and services. Particularly, feeder roads and roads linking rural areas with urban
consumption centers are inadequate. Thus, the majority of the areas are inaccessible by vehicles
making it imperative to use pack animals (such as donkeys).
3.12 Unexploited opportunities that exist in the woreda
Agriculture and livestock development are almost certainly the only viable alternatives for
improving the food security status of kamba poor majority people. Kamba district has three
constructed irrigation scheme covering 470 hectares and there are more than four big rivers
feasible for irrigation scheme with potential covering about1,200 hectares. The woreda has one
of the largest livestock populations in the zone and Kamba woreda is the known supplier of meat
livestock’s. According to Kamba woreda tax office report in each year averagely 8,000 oxen and
15,000 goats have been transported from the woreda for export or local consumption. The
woreda has all the three agro-ecologies and known coffee producer next to Mallo woreda in the
Gamo Gofa zone. The woreda agricultural office report shows that about 13,456 hectares are
suitable for coffee and Correrima production. In the highland farmers are producing highland
fruit, especially apple. The woreda has 27,720 hectares arable land which is suitable for
agriculture and still not owned by farmers.
3.2 Methods and Sources of data collection
3.2.1 Methods of data collection
A detailed households’ survey was conducted to collect both primary and secondary data on the
dimensions of food security and livelihood strategies in Kamba woreda. The woreda has three
agro-ecological zones Dega (14PAs), Woynadega (10PAs), and Kola (14PAs).The data collection
was done efficiently through a structured questionnaire to collect the required data from selected sample
households’ during the 2010/1011 production year. The questionnaire was first pre-tested and modified
before the execution of the survey (See the questionnaire in Appendix 4). For this study Development
agents (DAs) wear used to collect primary data after two days training on the questionnaires,
selection was based on their work performance, their ability to local language and their interest
36
to collect the data in the selected PAs. To ease and keep uniformity among enumerators,
standardizing unit on local measurement of different food items and codes for some questions
were provided to each enumerator. The enumerators who are stationed in the survey areas
administered the structured questionnaires under the continuous supervision of the researcher. The survey
was carried out on March 2011. The primary data were supplemented by secondary data whenever
necessary from governmental organizations.
Sample Size Determination:-There are several approaches to determine the sample size. These include
using a census for small populations, imitating a sample size of similar studies, using published tables,
and applying formulas to calculate a sample size. This study applied a simplified formula provided by
Yamane, (1967) to determine the required sample size at 95% confidence level, degree of variability = 0.5
and level of precision =9%.
n = ------------------------------------------------- (1)
Where n is the sample size, N is the population size (total households’ size), and e is the level of
precision. The above formula required a minimum of 123 responses but this study was carried out on 200
respondents.
Sampling Technique:-For this particular study a two-stage random sampling procedure was
implemented to select 200 rural households’ in the woreda. To increase the precision of estimates
households’ were stratified by agro-ecological zone of the peasant associations (PAs) they live
in. At the first stage, 13 peasant associations (PAs) were selected randomly out of 38 PAs which
constitute about 34% of the total PAs in the study area. Thirteen PAs wear selected by applying
size to agro-ecology proportionality across the three zones. This was done by selecting 34% of
the total PAs in each zone, by doing this from both “Kola” and “Dega” zones 5 PAs were
selected randomly and from “Woynadega” 3 PAs were selected also randomly. In the second
stage, considering the PAs households’size, random selection of households’ equal to probability
proportional to households’ size sampling technique was employed to draw sample households’.
From randomly selected PAs maximum 34 households’ from larger kebeles and 10 households
from smaller kebeles were selected and in each kebele two reserve households selected
randomly, if the households’ is not present in the kebele at the time of interview.
37
At the second stage of sampling, sample frame (tax payment list for land holding) was applied to
pick out targeted households’ using lottery system. Responses from 200 households’ were
however found useful for this study. Secondary data was mainly collected from woreda
government offices.
The questionnaire helped to draw out information related to the different aspects of the
households’ and individual characteristics including: households’ food habit and consumption,
households’ demographic and socio-economic characteristics, consumption pattern, households’
income and expenditure, labor input in agriculture and non-agricultural activities, crop and
livestock production, farming systems and productive resources, land use, access to services,
access to infrastructure, amount of farm and off-farm income as well as coping strategies
employed by the households during time of food shortage. Before analysis of households’ data
was started, quantity of each item consumed during the last seven days were converted into their
equivalent kilocalorie using ENHRI food composition table for use in Ethiopia (ENHRI 1968-
1997) and households’ members to their adult equivalent(see appendix 3).
3.2.2 Method of data analysis
Food security at households’ level is best measured by the direct survey of dietary intake (in
comparison with appropriate adequacy norms). The level of, and changes in socio economic and
demographic variables can be properly analyzed, and can serve as proxies to indicate the status
of and changes in food security (Von Braun et al, 1992).
A set of questions regarding food prepared for meals over a specified period of time, for this
study for the last seven days, excluding interview day meals was asked to the person in the
households’ most knowledgeable about this activity and other socio-economic and demographic
data’s wear also used to analyze data. The response on food consumption was changed to
international unit (if local unit was used) and converted to calorie availability and compared with
calorie demand or minimum calorie requirement. The government of Ethiopia has set the
minimum acceptable weighted average food requirement per adult equivalent (AE) per day at
2100 kcal. The determination of the adult equivalent takes into account the age and sex of each
38
household’s member (Gassmann F and C Behrendt 2006) (see appendix 3). Hence, for this study
2100 kcal per adult equivalent per day was employed as a cut-off value between food-secure and
food-insecure households’.
Once the groups wear categorized as food-secure and food-insecure, the next step was to identify
the socio-economic factors that are correlated with food security. A variety of statistical models
can be used to establish the relationship between these households’ characteristics and food
security. Conventionally, linear regression analysis is widely used in most economic and social
investigation because of availability of simple computer packages, as well as ease of interpreting
the results. However, results derived from linear regression analysis may lead to fairly
unreasonable estimates when the dependent variable is dichotomous (Ayalneh Bogal and A.
Shimelis volum9 No9 2009).Therefore, the use of the logit or probit models is recommended as a
universal remedy of the drawback of the linear regression model (Gujarati DN Basic
Econometrics, Fourth edition. McGraw- Hill, New York 2003).Which model to choose between
logit and probit is, however, difficult for they are similar in most applications, the only difference
being that the logistic distribution has slightly fatter tails. This means that there is no binding
reason to choose one over the other but for its comparative mathematical and interpretational
simplicity many researchers tend to choose the logit model (Hosmer DW and S Lemeshew
Applied Logistic Regression New York. 1989). Therefore, this study applies the logistic
regression model due to dichotomous behavior of dependent variable.STATA10 package was
also used to see the dominant factors that significant affect food security in the study area.
3.3 Theoretical model
Gary Becker’s idea about family economy, households’ production function and family time
allocation is the inspiration of agricultural households’ models (Becker, 1965). Agricultural
households’ is a worker, a producer and a consumer all together, with his ultimate aim of
maximizing utility. The models can also be used to address consumption and related nutrition
policy issues (Strauss, 1984). The existence of imperfect market is common in the LDCs; one
common cause of market imperfection is the existence of transaction costs. For the same food
product, households’ typically sells it for a lower price than the price at which he can purchase in
39
the market. Thus, it is the budget constraint for the agricultural households’. With this budget
constraint in mind, we have a clear picture of utility maximization for the agriculture
households’.
In Ethiopia, a households’ food security model was used to look at the importance of the supply
side against demand side variables in determining households’ food security in Southern
Ethiopia (Feleke et al., 2005). From the results, it was established that the supply side variables
are more powerful determinants of households’ food security than the demand side variables.
The extent of households’ food security in this study will be modeled within the framework of
consumer demand and production theories following the modeling of production and
consumption behaviors of a rural and Agricultural households’ models by Singhand
Shiferaw(1986) and T. Feleke (2005). Following Agricultural households’ models 1986 by
Singhand Shiferaw and T. Feleke 2005, the households’ utility function is specified as:
U = U (Fi, Fm, L; Dh) -------------------------------------------- (2)
s.t
G (Qi , L, A0, K0) = O
PmFm = Pi (Qi - Fi ) - w(L-Lf) + N=0
T=Lf + ℓ
Where U is a utility function that is assumed to be well behaved (twice differentiable, increasing
in its arguments, and strictly quasi-concave); Fi is a vector of home-produced goods and
consumed by the households’; Fm is a vector of market-purchased goods consumed by the
households’; and L is leisure. The utility that the households’ derives from various combinations
and levels depends on the preferences of its members, which are shaped by the characteristics of
the households’, Dh.
40
As indicated in the Agricultural households’ Models 1986 by Singhand, Shiferaw and T. Feleke
2005, the households’, as both producer (firm) and consumer, is assumed to maximize its utility
from the consumption of these goods subject to farm production, income, and time constraints
specified as
where G(·) is an implicit production function that is assumed to be well behaved (twice
differentiable, increasing in outputs, decreasing in inputs, and strictly convex); Qi is a vector of
quantities of goods produced on-farm; L is total labor input to the farm; A0 is the households
fixed quantity of land; K 0 is the fixed stock of capital; Pi is the price of good i; Pm is the price of
a market-purchased good; (Qi−Fi) is the marketed surplus of good i; w is the wage rate; Lf is the
households’ labor supply for on-farm use; N is nonfarm income that adjusts to ensure that Eq.(3
) equals zero; and T is total time available to the households’ to allocate between work and
leisure. The income and time constraints can be combined by incorporating the constraints
equations.
PmFm = Pi (Qi – Fi) – w (L –T + ℓ) + N …………………… (3)
Rearranging Eq. (3) gives
PmFm + PiFi + wℓ = PiQi + wT – wL + N …………………(4)
The left-hand side of Eq. (6) is the households’ expenditure on food and leisure, and the right-
hand side is the full income equation. The expenditure side includes “purchases” of its own farm-
produced good i (PiFi), the households’ purchases of the market good (PmFm), and the
households’ “purchases” of its own leisure time (wℓ). The full income side consists of the value
of total agricultural production PiQi, the value of the households’ entitlement of time wT, the
value of labor on the farm, including hired labor wL, and nonfarm income N.
From the first-order conditions of the maximization of the constrained utility function, the
relationship between production and consumption can be established in such a way that
production decisions are made first and subsequently used in allocating the full income between
41
consumption of goods and leisure (Strauss, J., 1983).This is based on the assumption that all the
relevant markets function. It is important to have this assumption because we are considering
that consumption (food security) depends on the production variables, but not vice versa. If the
markets for inputs, product, and labor do not function, farm production decisions cannot be made
separately from the consumption decisions. When a commodity has an incomplete market, or if a
households’ is at a corner (i.e., if it consumes all of its output), there will exist a virtual (or
shadow) price, which will be endogenous to the households’ (Singh et al., 1986).
Given the assumption of separability between the production and consumption decisions, Pi and
Pm are exogenous, the utility function to be well-behaved. We can mathematically derive the
production-side and consumption-side equations separately. Starting with the production side,
the first-order conditions can be solved for input demand (L*) and output supply (Q*) in terms of
all prices, the wage rate, fixed land, and capital as
L* = L* (Pi, w, A0, K0), --------------------------------------------------- (5)
and
Q* = Q* (Pi, w, A0, K 0), ------------------------------------------------- (6)
These solutions involve the decision rules for the quantities of labor input used and outputs
produced (production side). Once the optimum level of labor is chosen, the value of full income
when profits have been maximized can be obtained by substituting L* and Q* into the right-hand
side of the income constraint (Eq. 6) as
Y* = PiQi* + wT – wL* + N ------------------------------------------- (7)
and
Y* = wT + π*(Pi, w, A0, K0) + N ---------------------------------- (8)
42
Where Y* is “full” income under the assumption of maximized profit π*.
The first-order conditions can be solved for consumption demand in terms of prices, the wage
rate, and income as
Fk = Fk (Pi, Pm, w, Y*), ------------------------------------------------- (9)
Where k=i, m.
These solutions involve the decision for the quantities of goods and leisure consumed
(consumption demand side). Equations (5), (6) and (9) give us a complete picture of the
economic behavior of the farm households’. They are combined through the profit effect,
because income is determined by the households’ s' production activities, implying that changes
in variables influencing production also changes income, which in turn affects consumption
behavior. Incorporating the households’ characteristics that shape its preferences (Dh), the
demand for food indicated in Eq. (9) can be rewritten as
Fk = Fk [ Pi , Pm ,w , Y* (w , A0 ,K0 ,N ) ,Dh ] ---------------------------(10)
Where k=i, m.
3.4- Empirical model
Determining the demand for both home-produced and market-purchased goods, we can now
calculate the amount of calories (Ci) available in the respective food items. Then, the extent of
households’ food security is determined by the difference between caloric availabilities and
needs. Defining C* i=Ci−γi, where Ci is caloric availabilities and γi is the consumption needs for
the ith households’, C* i≥ 2100 kcal indicates that the households’ is food secure while C* i < 2100
kcal indicates that the households’ is food insecure, implying that the same independent variables
identified in Eq.(10) can be used in a food security model. Assuming a linear function, we can
write the food security equation as
43
Pi= F(Zi) =F(α + ∑ βiX i) = -------------------------------- (11)
Where e is the base of the natural logarithm, i represent the ith explanatory variables Pi is the
probability that an individual is being food insecure given X i, α and βi are regression parameters
to be estimated.
The dependent variable (food security) is measured using a proxy that the households’ observed
to be food secure (Zi= 1) is assumed to have C* i≥2100 kcal; while the households’ observed to
be food insecure (Zi= 0) is assumed to have C* i <2100 kcal. Since the dependent variable Zi is a
discrete variable, the food security model can thus be cast as a qualitative response model where
Pi is the probability of food security, which can be written as
Zi = ln( ) =α + β1X1 + β2X2 + -------βmXm-------------------------(12)
ln( ) = β0 +∑ βjX ij+ εi
here Pi is the conditional probability of food security; βj's are parameters to be estimated;
(X1)Family size, (X2) farm size, (X3) livestock owned(TLU), (X4) total off-farm income (X5)
education of households’ head,( X6) amount of food aid received,( X7) technological
adoption,(X8) access to infrastructure,( X9) participation in public meeting,( X10) extension
service adoption, (X11) land quality (land quality measured by farmers’ perception of the fertility
of their farmland),( X12) saving,( X13) number of month food purchased, (X14) age of
households’ head, (X15) sex of households’ head,( X16) access to irrigation are identified
potential variables that determines households’ food security problems in Kamba woreda.
3.5 Variables and working hypothesis
The number of variables that would be included in the model should deliver optimum possible
information. In this study the selection of the variable for the final logistic model was made by
44
looking the association between each predictor variables with the response variable. A minimum
of 10 events per independent variable has been recommended for sample size and dependent
variable efficiency (Hosemer-Lemeshow, 1989). The separate effect of each predictor variable in
explain the outcome variable was made by postulating the null hypothesis that H0: βi=0 against
the alternative H1: βi ≠ 0 for at least on i=1, 2, 3----n. The significance test for each coefficient in
the model was done using the Wald-chi-square ([β/s.e(β)]2 which is distributed as a chi-square
with degree of freedom) and likelihood ratio test. A likelihood ratio (LR) chi-square test was also
employed to examine the importance of each predictor variables to the outcome variable.
Therefore, the following sixteen independent variables wear selected to analyze the hypothesis
whether they explain a households food security status or not. Review of literature, working as
an expert in the agricultural office in the study area, degree of attention given by the government
policy, existence of chronic food security problem, unpublished local NGOs and local
government reports wear used as important sources to identify the potential determinants of
households’ food security in the study area. Some variables like access to irrigation, oxen
ownership, age of households’ head and sex of households’ head are more used in descriptive
rather than in logit model.
3.6 The dependent variable of the model (HFST): The households’ food security status is a
discrete variable representing the status of households’ food security. It was represented in the
models by two possible alternative ways: 1 for food secure and 0 for food insecure households’.
The information, which identifies the food secure from the food insecure, is obtained by
comparing the total food calorie available for consumption in the households’ per AE to the
minimum level of subsistence requirement per AE (2100 kcal). Households’ beyond this
threshold is said to be food secured, otherwise not.
3.7 Independent variables: households’ socio-economic characteristics such as households’
size, farm size, livestock ownership, total off-farm income, educational status of households’
head, food aid received, technology adoption, access to infrastructure, sex of households’ head,
age of households’ head, participation in public meeting, application of extension service,
45
saving, land quality and number of months food purchased are selected potential variables for the
logistic model and descriptive analysis.
Family size (FASZ):- Family size is measured by the number of family members in the households’.
As family size increases, obviously the number of mouths to feed from the available food
increases. Hence, it is hypothesized that family size and food security are negatively related. The
existence of large number of family members with limited resources could affect the food
security status of the households’. This is due to increasing demand for food with limited food
supply. Evidence in the literature indicates that larger family size have negative impact on food
security (Mulugeta Tefera, 2002; Abebaw Shimeles, 2003 and Ayalew Yimer, 2003).
Farm size (FRMS): Farm size is the total farmland owned by the households’ measured in hectares.
Losses of farm land to other uses because of population pressure and limits to the amount of
suitable new land that can be brought in to production is one of the constraints of food
production (Brown et al., 1990). Fertile farmland is often sacrificed to meet the growing
demands of population growth (Ehrlich et al., 1993). As the cultivated land size increases,
provided other associated production factors remain normal, the likelihood that the holder gets
more output is high. This variable represents the total cultivated land size of a households’ in
hectare. It was hypothesized that farmers who have larger cultivated land are more likely to be
food secure than those with smaller area.
Livestock holding (TLU): livestock holding refers to the total number of livestock holding of
the farmer measured in tropical livestock units (TLU). Livestock production constitutes a very
important component of agricultural economy, a contribution that goes beyond direct food
production to include multipurpose uses such as skins, fertilizer and fuel, as well as capital
accumulation. Furthermore, livestock are closely linked to the social and cultural life of farmers
for whom animal ownership ensures varying degrees of sustainable farming and economic
stability (Sansoucy, 1995). Therefore, it was expected that a higher possession of livestock
increase the probability to be food secure.
46
Access to infrastructure (INFRA ): Physical access to the infrastructure is measured by the amount of
Km required to reach the nearest local infrastructure. Nearness to infrastructure creates access to
additional income by providing access to increase productivity, easy access to inputs,
transportation and off-farm employment opportunities. The shortest distance to the infrastructure
was used in this study to determine how often the farmers used the infrastructure to sell and
purchase their produce. It was, therefore, expected that households’ nearer to infrastructure have
better chance to improve households’ food security status than who do not have proximity to
infrastructure centers. Proximity to infrastructure centers was measured in kilometer. Mulugeta
Tefera (2002) reported that market distance has no significant effect on food security. In this
study market distance was the main focus relative to other infrastructures.
Age of the households’ head: Age matters in any occupation. Rural households’ mostly devote
their lifetime or base their livelihoods on agriculture. It was argued as the age of the households’
head increases the farmer acquires more knowledge and experiences with possible negative
impact on food insecurity. In other ways, it was expected that younger farmers are more likely to
be food insecure than the older farmers that the older ones due to better possession of resources
accumulation. In light of this, it is hypothesized that ages of the households’ heads and food
security are positively correlated.
Irrigation: In areas like in Kamba where agriculture is the prime source of livelihood of the
society, soil moisture is very crucial. Even if the climatic condition in a given area is conducive,
then it would be far better to be supplemented with irrigation so that increased output could be
attained. However, in the study area drought, erratic rainfall patterns and other factors limit the
output per hectare, and made it one of the food insecure districts in the region. Hence, it was
hypothesized that the use of irrigation and food security are positively related
Sex of households’ head (SEX): women farmer may need a long adjustment period to diversify
their income sources fully and become food secure (Christina et al., 2001). Labor factor plays a
great roll in the study area. With regard to farming experience and access to technology, males
are better than female farmers. So sex of the households’ head is an important determinant of
47
food security. Therefore, it was hypothesized that male-headed households’ are more likely to be
food secure.
Off-farm income (TOFFI): When crop production and income earned from sales of livestock
and livestock products become inadequate to subsist the farming households’ of the study area
they often depend on external or other source of income to purchase food and farm inputs. So
income earned from off farm activities is an important variable, which determines households’
food security in the study area. Having multiple livelihood strategies increase chance to be food
secure for rural people like in Kamba. Hence, it was expected that the availability of off-farm
income is positively associated with households’ food security status.
Education (EDUC): Education equips individuals with the necessary knowledge of how to
make a living. Literate individuals are eager to get information and use it. Hence, it is supposed
that households’ who have had at least primary education or informal education are the ones to
be more likely to benefit from agricultural technologies and thus become food secure.
Total food aid (FAID ): food aid is given as a copping strategy to food insecurity in the study
area. Food aid can develop a dependency behavior among households’ which in turn will reduce
farmers’ motivation towards food self sufficiency. Therefore, food aid was expected to have a
negative relation to food security. The amount of food aid given was measured in kg. According
to Mulugeta Tefera (2002); Abebaw Shimeles (2003) and Ayalew Yimer (2003) food aid has no
significant effect on food security.
Technological adoption (TEC): Technological adoption determines the households’ food
security, those households who used improved seed, chemical fertilizer, apply proper agricultural
practices increase productivity and increase chance to become food secure.
Participation in public meeting (PAPUM):- households who participate in public meeting
have enough information about current input and output price, in put availability, credit access,
technology adoption and have higher chance to increase production than non-participants.
Therefore, public meeting was expected to have a positive relation to food security.
48
Extension service (EXTN):-It refers to the number of days per year a farmer was visited by a
development agent for technical guidance has influence on both productivity and food security.
The higher the linkage between farmers and development agents, the more the information flows
and the technological (knowledge) transfer from the latter to the former. Those farmers who have
frequent contacts with development agents are likely to produce better than others and would be
in a better position of food security status.
Saving (SAVG) - Saving in the study area is in the form of either grain storing or purchasing
animals. Hence, saving in the form of animal purchase and grain storing has several advantages
in that source of income from the sale of their product; income from the sale of animal fatting
and above all it serves as a hedge at time of crop failure (drought). Generally, it is assumed that
households’ who have saving experience would have better food status than less saved.
Land quality (LNDQ):- Land quality measures farmers’ perception of the fertility of their
farmland. Households’ were asked to indicate whether they consider their land as fertile and not
fertile. Under optimal management, better land quality boosts crop production (Sah, 2002).
Stephen (2000) found that a decline in soil fertility negatively affects food security. It is expected
that this study was expected land quality affects food security status of households’ positively.
This is because the increase in the fertility of the land is expected to contribute positively
towards increase in crop output and consequently increase in farm income and food security.
Number of month’s food purchased (NMFP):- As the number of month’s food purchased
increase the probability to be food secured decreased. Subsistence farmers like in Kamba
produce food for home consumption. Farmers buy stable foods when their production does not
meet food demand. Numbers of months that farmers buy food items indicate the level of food
security. It has inverse relationship with food security statues of households’.
49
Table 3:- Types, codes and definition of variables to be used logit model
Variable Variable type Variable definition
FASZ Continuous Family size in number
AIR Continuous Access to irrigation in hectare
FRMS Continuous Cultivated land size in hectare
TLU Continuous Total livestock holding in TLU
TOFFI Continuous Total off farm income earned in birr(2010/11)
EDUC Continuous Total grade of education
FAID Continuous Food aid obtained in Kg (2010/11)
TEC Dummy 1, if the households’ head used inputs 0, if the households’ head does not used inputs.
INFRA Continuous Access to infrastructure in Km
PAPUM Dummy 1, if the households’ head participate in public meeting, 0 if the households’ head does not participate in public meeting.
EXTNS Dummy 1, if the households’ head got extension service, 0 if the households’ head does not got extension service.
SAVG Continuous Amount of birr saved (2010/11)
NUMFP Continuous Number of months food item purchased
3.8 Interpretation of the coefficients of the logistic regression model The estimated coefficients for the predictor variables in logistic regression represent the slop or
rate of change of a function of the outcome variable per unit of change in the predictor variables
(Hosemer-Lemeshow, 1989).Thus, interpretation involves two issues:- i) determining the
functional relationship between the outcome variable and the predictor variable. ii) Appropriately
defining the unit of change for the predictor variable (Hosemer-Lemeshow, 1989).
50
The estimated logistic coefficients βi's reflecting linear and non- linear relationships and they are
interpreted as the change in the- log-odds for every unit increase/decrease (depending on the
variable change in X i) holding other variables constant.
Odds, odds-ratio and the marginal effects are all important basic terms in logistic regression
parameter estimates (β coefficients) of explanatory variables used in logistic regression equation
to estimate the log-odds that dependant equals 1(binomial logistic regression).Odds ratio is the
ratio of the probability that something is true or happen divided by the probability that something
will not happen. Odds ratio above one refers to the odds that the dependent variable equals one in
binary logistic regression. The closer the odds ratio to unit, the more the predictor variables
categories are independent of the outcome variable, with 1 representing full statistically
independency.
3.9 Marginal effects result in logistic model
Marginal effect, which is one of the results of logistic regression, shows us what the effect of a
change a given predictor on the output response variable would be at the sampled mean values
for the continuous variables and when the value of dummy variables changes from zero to one.
The marginal effect, in binary regression model, is the slop of probability curve relating Xi to Pr
(Y i=1/Xi), holding all other variables constant. It measures the change in probability of
occurrence for a unit change in Xi's at their mean value. The positive sign of marginal effect
indicates that the probability of households’ to be food secure will be increased at the mean value
of continuous predictors while the negative sign indicates that the probability of households’to
be food secure will decline at their respective mean. The marginal effect of the discrete variable
indicates that the likelihood of households’ probability to be food secure will increase as the
value changes from zero to one
3.10 Testing Multicollinearity
Multicollinearity in logistic regression is a result of strong correlations between independent
variable. Maddala (1989) described that high inter-correlation among the predictor variables by
themselves need not necessarily cause any problems in conclusion. Whether or not this is a
problem will depend on the magnitude of the error variance and the variance of the predictor
51
variables. Multicollinearity may be induced due to poor sampling method, miss measurement
and over fitting of a model as well as improper use of dummy variables. There are a lot of
statistically accepted thumb rules that have been proposed for detecting multicollinearity among
categorical predictor variables. For this study variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to detect
the existence of multicollinearity. The larger the value of VIF, the more 'troublesome' or
collinear the variable Xi . As a rule of thumb, if the VIF of a variable is greater than ten then the
variable is said to be highly collinear (Gujarati 4th edition).
3.11 Measuring intensity of Food security (FGT)
With the increased awareness and availability of data, various measures of poverty have been
developed overtime, among which the Foster, Greer And Thorbecke (FGT) class of poverty
index is the most commonly applied (Ayalneh 2002). This index was initially suggested by
Foster, Greer and Thorebecke (1984) and has several desirable properties that have enhanced
recently by IFPRI for the purpose of food-insecurity analysis (Hoddinott, 2002). Therefore, this
study employs the FGT index in order to estimate the food security gap and its severity among
the rural households’. The FGT index can be specified as follows:-
F (α) = [ ] α---------------------------------------- (13)
Where n is the number of sample households’ s; yi is the measure of per adult equivalent food
calorie intake of the ith households’ ; m represents the cutoff between food security and
insecurity (expressed here in terms of caloric requirements); q is the number of food-insecure
households’ s; and α is the weight attached to the severity of food insecurity. In the above
equation if m-yi = 0 if yi > m. Hoddinott (2001) further explained that giving no weight to the
severity of food-insecurity is equivalent to assuming that α = 0. So then, the formula collapses to
F (0) = , this is called the head count ratio.
52
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the study findings in two categories as a descriptive and econometric
model analysis of the survey data. Descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation,
percentage, maximum and minimum were employed and binary logistic, econometric model was
used to identify determinants of food security at households’ level in the study area. Dimensions
of households’ food security, in terms of extent and severity, were computed by using an FGT
(Foster, Greere and Thorbecke) index.
4.1 Measuring food security status of households
Based on the methodology described in the previous chapter the following alternative results
were found: The information to categorize households’ s into food secure and insecure groups
was obtained by comparing the total households food or calorie acquisition per AE per day to
the minimum level of consumption required to ensure survival per AE per day. Thus those
households’ who have energy per AE beyond the minimum subsistence requirement (2100kcal)
are deemed to be food secure, otherwise food insecure.
Considering 2100kcal as a benchmark, only 79 sample households’(39.5%) were found to be
able to meet the minimum subsistence requirement and 121 households (60.5%) were found to
be unable to meet their minimum subsistence requirement. Based on the Core Food Security
Module analysis, households’ were found to be grouped into four categories; food secure (above
2100Kcal) (39.5 %), mildly food insecure (1800Kcal-2100Kcal) (34.5 %), moderately food
insecure (1500Kcal-1800Kcal) (16.5 %) and severely food insecure (less than 1500Kcal) (9.5 %)
(Table3). Majority of the respondents were mildly food insecure followed by moderately food
insecure. This empirical assessment results can serve as an instrument to guide decision as to
which status should be given more emphasis to reduce the problem.
53
Table 4:-Food security status of sample households
Level of food insecurity Amount of calories Amount of HH in that interval Percentage
Food secure Above 2100Kcal 79 39.5%
Mildly food insecure 1800Kcal-2100Kcal 69 34.5%
Moderately food insecure 1500Kcal-1800Kcal 33 16.5%
Severely food insecure Less than 1500Kcal 19 9.5%
Total 200 100%
Source: - Survey data (2011)
4.2 Demographic and socio-economic characteristics
Socio - economic characteristics of sample households’ by family size, sex and education level
are summarized in relation to the food security status at households’ level. Possible explanations
on factors believed to have contribution to households’ food security are also presented from
analysis of descriptive output.
Family size
Family size was considered and hypothesized as one of the potential variables that would have
due contribution for food security. The proportion of sample households’ becoming food secure
decreased as the family size increases. About 46 percent of the 36 food secure and 23 percent of
the 28 food insecure sample households’ were found to have family size less than or equal to 5.
The number of food secure households with family size six and above is less than insecure
households which constituted 54 percent and 77 percent of the food secure and food insecure
households, respectively.
The survey result also revealed that there was significant difference in the mean family size at
less than 1 percent probability level (p<0.01) between food secure and food insecure sample
households’. In that, the mean was found to be 4.32 and 7.04 for food secure and food insecure
households’ respectively. While the overall mean family size of the sample households’ was
5.97. This was above the national average of 5 persons (CSA, 1994). This result is in agreement
54
with the prior expectation. The largest family size of the sample households’was 12 and the
smallest was 2 (Table 4).
Table 5:-Distribution of sample households’ by family size in number
Family size Food insecure Food secure Total
N=121 Percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
≤ 5 28 23% 36 46% 64 32%
≥ 6 93 77% 43 54% 136 68%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Mean 7.04 4.32 5.97
SD 0.17 0.13 0.15
Maximum 12 9 12
Minimum 2 2 2
t-value 12.72 Pr(T > t) = 0.0000***
Source: - Survey data (2011) *** Significant at less than 1% probability level
Households’ food security status and headship
Sex of households’ head was hypothesized to be one of the variables that make a difference on
the level of food security. Female headed households’ accounted for about 9 percent of the
sample households’. The survey result indicated that 8.3 percent of food insecure households’
were female headed whereas, the corresponding figure for male headed households’ was 91.7
percent. Male headed households’ comprise 89.9 percent of food secure and the remaining 10.1
percent food secure are female headed households’. The survey result showed no significant
difference (p > 0.10) on food security status of households’ in terms of households’ head sex.
The survey result showed insignificant which shows sex and food security status are unrelated
(Table 6).The possible reasons may be the female headed households coudn't face any labour
shortage problem due to capability of thire son for farming activeties.
55
Table 6:- households’ food security by sex
households’
head
Food insecure(N=121) Food secure(N=79) Total (N=200)
χ2 NO percent NO percent NO percent
Male 111 91.7% 71 89.9% 182 91%
0.2024 Female 10 8.3% 8 10.1% 18 9%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Source: –Survey result (2011)
Households’ food security and education of households’ head
Most households’ heads in the survey were found to be Illiterate (55.5%) followed by junior
level education (23.5%) and primary (17.5%). There was specific pattern that indicated the
higher the level of education of the households’ head, the more food secure a households’ will
be. It was revealed that households’ headed by illiterate persons were more vulnerable to food
insecurity followed by primary. In societies such as Ethiopia where households’ heads are the
major breadwinners of the households’, households’ head’s educational status could determine
food security status of the entire households’. Among other things, households’ heads play a
pivotal role in shaping family members towards educational attainment thus reducing the
probability of being food insecure.
It was hypothesized that households’ food security and education of households’ head has
positive relationship. The survey result showed significant relationship at 5 percent probability
level when households’ educational level was categorized in to illiterate, write and read, primary,
secondary etc and became significant while categorized as literate and illiterate at less than 5
percent. Categorization of households’ head as literate and illiterate exhibited that 44.5 percent
of households’ heads were literate. Among the literate households 59 percent were found to be
food secure and out of 111 illiterate households 64.5 percent were food insecure (Table 7).The
possible implication is that in addition to other factors, while some level of education is
important to households’ food security
56
Table 7:- households’ food security by educational status.
Level of education
Food insecure Food secure Total
χ2 N=121 percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
Illiterate 78 64.5% 33 41.8% 111 55.5%
9.96
1-4 25 20.7% 10 12.7% 35 17.5%
5-8 15 12.4% 32 40.5% 47 23.5%
Above 8 3 2.4% 4 5% 7 3.5%
Pr = 0.002*** Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Source:-Survey result (2011) *** Significant at less than 1% probability level
Number of month’s food item purchased
With respect to the specific characteristics of food secure and food insecure households’
number of month’s food item purchased was hypothesized to be negatively or inversely related
with food security. So, households’ with small number of month’s food item purchased tend to
be food secure than those with large number of month’s food item purchased. Accordingly, the
statistical analysis showed that number of month’s food item purchased is significantly different
for the two groups at one percent probability level. The mean number of month’s food item
purchased for food insecure households’ is about 4 months while that of food secure average
number of month’s food purchased is almost 1.5 months. Almost half of the sample households’
fill the food demand gap by purchasing food items for three to four months (Table 8). The
possible reasons for purchase is due to existence of inadequate own production.
57
Table 8:- Distribution of sample households’ by number of month’s food item purchased
Number of months food purchased
Food insecure Food secure Total
N=121 percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
Does not purchase - - 25 31.5% 25 16.5%
1--2 25 20.6% 36 45.5% 61 23.5%
3--4 41 33.9% 14 18% 55 49.5%
Above four 55 45.5% 4 5% 59 10.5%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Mean 3.7 1.5 2.87
SD 1.15 1.13 1.57
Maximum 7 5 7
Minimum 1 0 0
t-value -0.0104 Pr(T > t) = 0.0000***
Source:-Survey result (2011) *** Significant at less than 1% probability level
Age of households’ head: - The mean age of sample households’ heads was found to be 46.13
with standard deviation of 11.53. The statistical analysis revealed that there was no significant
difference in the mean age of the households’ head between food secured and food insecure
households’ heads at 5 percent probability level of significance. This finding was turned out to
be opposite to the prior expectation, which argued as the age of the households’ head increases
since he can acquire more knowledge and experience he would be more prone to be food secure.
58
Table 9:- Distribution of sample households’ heads by age
households’
head age
Food insecure Food secure Total
N=121 percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
< 35 13 11% 10 13% 23 11.5%
35-46 60 50% 39 49% 99 49.5%
47-59 26 21% 14 18% 40 20%
≥ 60 22 18% 16 20% 38 19%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Mean 46.32 45.83 46.13
SD 11.25 12.00 11.53
Maximum 80 75 80
Minimum 24 28 24
t-value 0.28 Pr(T > t) = 0.3871
Source:-Survey result (2011) Land holding per households’ and per capita From any other productive resources land is by far the most important resource in agriculture.
The fertility status, location and other attributes of land in association with its size made it a
binding resource in agriculture. In the study area, as witnessed by the survey result there is
significant difference in the mean cultivated land size between the food secure and food insecure
households’. The mean farm size of food secure and food insecure households’ was found to be
1.19 ha and 0.91 ha, respectively. The overall mean farm size was 1.01 ha. As indicated in the
table below, about 4 percent and 29 percent of the total food secure and food insecure
households’ groups had farm size less than 0.47ha. But, percentage of sample households’ in the
other extreme holding brackets differs sensibly. For instance, 71 percent of the food insecure and
96% of the food secure had farm size greater than 0.47 hectare. Similarly, it was the largest
proportion of sample households’ (81%) had farm size greater than 0.47 hectare.
59
Table 10: - Distribution of sample households’ by farm size per households’ (in hectare)
Farm size/HH
Food insecure Food secure Total
N=121 percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
< 0.47 35 29% 3 4% 38 19%
≥ 0.47 86 71% 76 96% 162 81%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Mean 0.91 1.19 1.01
SD 0.60 0.58 0.61
Maximum 3 3.5 3.5
Minimum 0.125 0.5 0.125
t-value -3.38 Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0009 ***
Source:-Survey result (2011) *** Significant at less than 1% probability level
Livestock holding
Livestock production plays an important role both in the crop producing and pastoral areas of the
study area. Livestock provide milk, meat, manure, traction power and transport. Livestock that
are owned by the sample households’ include cattle, sheep and goat, equine and poultry. The
total livestock population owned by the sample respondents was 742.558 in TLU. The percent
share of goat and sheep is larger than any of the other types of livestock among the sample
households’. This signifies the importance of small ruminant production in the study area, both
as a store of wealth and as check or control of food shortage during time of stress. Almost all
households’ in the sample own livestock with different combination. Survey result demonstrated
that the average numbers of livestock holding between the two groups of sample farmers differ.
In order to make comparison of the animal size between the farmer groups, the herd size was
converted into livestock units (TLU) based on Storck et al. (1991) (see Appendix 1).Food secure
group own averagely relatively larger number of livestock’s 6.6 in TLU and the food insecure
households owns averagely 2.9 TLU only. Almost more than half (54%) sample households’
own less than 3.94 TLU and 46% sample households’ own greater than 3.94 TLU. The
categories of livestock size indicate the wealth status of the households’ and the variation in this
60
aspect may indicate variation in vulnerability of the households’ to food security problem. The
mean difference between the two groups is statistically significant at less than one percent level
of significance.
Table 11:- Distribution of sample households’ by Livestock Holding by TLU
Livestock holding in TLU Food insecure Food secure Total
N=121 percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
< 3.94 75 62% 33 42% 108 54%
≥ 3.94 46 38% 46 58% 92 46%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Mean 2.9 6.6 4.4
SD 1.5 1.7 2.4
Maximum 11.6 14.3 14.3
Minimum 0.13 0.13 0.13
t-value -15.3 Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0000***
Source:-Survey result (2011) *** Significant at less than 1% probability level
Ox ownership
Livestock is an integral part of crop production activities in the study area. It provides substantial
non-human labor and manure to the soil. With regard to the contribution of labor, oxen
ownership is an important variable. In the study area, as witnessed by the survey result only
twenty households’ owns more than 2 oxen (10%). Otherwise the households’ are ox-less or own
only one or two. As it is shown in the table below, above 31 percent of sample households’are
ox-less and owns only one ox and only 28 percent of the sample owns two oxen. Moreover, the
result revealed that there is significant difference between the two groups with regard to ox
ownership. This high variability between the two groups is correlated with the cost of
maintaining an ox and some households’ use farm tools for their farm operation in the study
area.
61
Table 12:- Distribution of sample households’ by oxen
Number of oxen Food insecure Food secure Total
N=121 percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
No oxen 41 36.4% 21 26.6% 62 31%
1 44 36.6% 18 22.8% 62 31%
2 28 23% 24 30.4% 52 28%
≥ 2 4 4% 16 20.2% 20 10%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Mean 0.81 1.32 1.01
SD 0.86 1.01 0.95
Maximum 4 4 4
Minimum 0 0 0
t-value -3.68 Pr(T > t) = 0.0003***
Source:-Survey result (2011) *** Significant at less than 1% probability level
Relief food aid
Food to the households’ is acquired either from own production or through purchase. When
households’ exhaust their own produce, they attempt to entitle themselves to the food they want
through purchase. However, households’ mostly fail to do so due to the fact that income from
other sources is not sustainable and hence they depend on relief food aid. The study area is
known with its sequential food aid receive. Food aid plays a role to lessen the households’ from
being vulnerable to sever food insecurity. In this study it was hypothesized that households’ who
received more aid will be more likely to escape from being vulnerable to food insecurity than
those who received less. However, the mean amount of food aid received by the two sample
households’ groups revealed no significant difference (Table 13). The statistical insignificant
difference with respect to the mean amount of food aid received between the food secure and
food insecure households’ groups is possibly because of the targeting problem. That is, the food
62
aid is distributed without discriminating the two groups and some times for all with no
participation in EGS program.
Table 13:- Distribution of households’ by amount of food aid received in Kg
Food aid received in Kg Food insecure Food secure Total
N=121 percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
Received no food aid 65 54% 45 57% 110 55%
Received less than 75Kg 22 18% 18 23% 40 20%
Received greater than 75Kg 34 28% 16 20% 50 25%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Mean 46.86 38.10 43.4
SD 63.57 54.17 60.05
Maximum 375 270 375
Minimum 0 0 0
t-value 1.01 Pr(T > t) = 0.1572
Source:-Survey result (2011) Use of technology
The table below shows the distribution of sample households’ by status of use of agricultural
technologies. In the survey it was observed that 45.5% of the overall sample households’ are
users of fertilizer and improved seed. To compare the two sample groups 22% of the food
insecure households’ were users of fertilizer and improved seed. While the corresponding food
secured households’ who were users of fertilizer and improved seed were 81%. Though such
difference was observed between the groups, it was statistically significant. The result also
showed that there is significant relationship between food secure and food insecure at less than
1percent.
63
Table 14:- Distribution of sample households’ by status of use of technology Agricultural in put Food insecure Food secure Total Pearson chi2(1) χ2
N=121 percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
Use in put 27 22% 64 81% 91 45.5% χ2= 85.1464
Does not use in put 94 78% 15 19% 109 50.5%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100% Pr = 0.000***
Source:-Survey result (2011) *** Significant at less than 1% probability level
Off-farm income
households in the study area perform various off farm activities like livestock trading, grain
trading, wage employment, timber production, hand craft and vegetable trading etc. The income
from such activities greatly improves the households’ purchasing power in the study area
especially during time of stress. Some of the people in the study sample had no access to off-
farm work. From 200 households’ sampled, 104 households’ heads had off-farm employment
while the rest of the households’ did not. 49 percent of those who had off-farm employment were
food secure while 53% were food insecure households. Table 15 shows the distribution of
households by income from off-farm activity. The survey result revealed that about 48 percent of
the sample households’ earn less than Br. 500 from these sources in the study area. But when we
further look the results within the sample groups above 68 percent of the food insecure and
above 51 percent of the food secure households’ earn less than Br. 500 from off farm activity per
year. Moreover, the survey result also revealed that there is significant difference in the mean
annual income from off farm activity between the two sample groups at less than 1 percent
(p<0.01) level. This result is in a complete agreement with the prior expectation.
64
Table 15:- Distribution of sample households’ by off-farm income in birr.
Off-farm income Food insecure Food secure Total
N=121 percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
≤ 500 83 68% 51 51% 134 48%
501---1000 22 18% 12 30% 34 36%
1001---2000 12 10% 13 15% 25 12.5%
Above 2000 4 3.5% 3 4% 7 3.5%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Mean 399 951 617.3
SD 813.7 676.17 807.3
Maximum 7000 3600 7000
Minimum 0 0 0
t-value -5.01 Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0000***
Source:-Survey result (2011) *** Significant at less than 1% probability level
Irrigation
Access to irrigation is expected to have a positive relationship with households’ food security
(Burton et al., 2005). Farmers with plots on the irrigation schemes are able to grow crops
throughout the year and meet households’ food requirements than those on dry land farming.
Based on the analysis only 12% of sample households wear access to irrigation and 88% of
sample households do not have access to irrigation and practice dry land and rain fed
agriculture. However, households’ that have irrigation farm size below one hectare were 7% for
food insecure and 15% for food secure. The table also shows that it is impracticable to be food
insecure holding irrigation farm size above one hectare. While the survey result also revealed
that, there is significant difference between the two groups at less than 1 percent (p<0.01) level.
This result is in a complete agreement with the prior expectation.
65
Table 16:- Distribution of sample households’ by irrigation farm size in hectare Irrigation participation Food insecure Food secure Total
N=121 percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
No irrigation farm size 112 93% 64 81% 176 88%
0.5—1hectare 9 7% 12 15% 21 10.5%
Above 1hectare - - 3 4% 3 1.5%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Mean 0.74 0.18 0.12
SD 0.26 0.39 0.32
Maximum 1 2.25 2.25
Minimum 0 0 0
t-value -2.48 Pr(T < t) = 0.0069***
Source:-Survey result (2011) *** Significant at less than 1% probability level
Access to infrastructure Nearness to infrastructure creates access to additional income by providing access to increase
productivity, easy access to inputs, transportation and off-farm employment opportunities. The
shortest distance to the infrastructure was used in this study to determine how often the farmers
used the infrastructure to sell and purchase their produce. It was, therefore, expected that
households’ nearer to infrastructure have better chance to improve households’ food security
status than who do not have proximity to infrastructure centers. Table 17 depicts the statistical
results of the two groups in relation to the effect of infrastructure distance on food security. The
result was statistically insignificant at less than 5 percent probability level. Additionally, the
mean distance of food secure group is greater than the food insecure ones. This result is contrary
to the hypothesis stated for this study. The occurrence of this result may be due to the fact that
when farmers are nearer to the infrastructure they would be tempted to sell their products and
buy non food items. But if they were away from infrastructure centers they would be food secure
by consuming their own product.
66
Table 17:- Distribution of sample households’ by infrastructure distance in Km
Market distance(Km)
Food insecure Food secure Total
N=121 percent N=79 percent N=200 percent
Less than 5Km 84 69% 52 66% 136 68%
5—10km 31 26% 23 29% 54 27%
11—15km 5 4% 1 1% 6 3%
Above 15km 1 1% 3 4% 4 2%
Total 121 100% 79 100% 200 100%
Mean 3.28 3.66 3.43
SD 3.5 4.44 3.89
Maximum 18 25 25
Minimum 0 0 0
t-value -0.67 Pr(T > t) = 0.7476
Source:-Survey result (2011)
4.3 Incidence of food security by households’ factors
Table 27 shows the way in which some households’ factors affect food security by comparing
the incidence of food security among households’ groups sharing similar characteristics. The
occurrence of food security among households with less than four members is found to be 1.5
times more than that of households with five to eight and 2.7 times more than that of households
with nine to twelve. This decrease incidence of food security with increase in family size
confirms the result of the logit output discussed in the last section. In that the two variables have
negative relationship. As hypothesized the incidence of food security also decreases as the
proportion of children and elders increase in the family. This is also shown in the Table 27where
incidence of food security in households with dependency ratio greater than 2 is found to be 1.4
times lower than that of households with dependency ration less than 1. Moreover, the head
count index is 1.7 times higher in literate households’ heads than that of illiterate ones. Hence,
the risk of incidence of food security decreases with education, i.e., to say when the households
67
turned from illiterate to literate status the incidence for the household to become food secure
increased. With regard to gender of households’ head, female-headed households have lower
incidence of food security than male-headed ones, i.e., 10%female and 90% male, respectively.
Likewise prevalence of food security increase as farm size of the households’ increases.
Table 18:- Incidence of food security by sample households
Characteristics households’ grouping Food secure Total Food security incidence
Family size 1—4 14 23 60.9
5—8 56 137 40.9
9—12 9 40 22.5
Over all 79 200 39.5
Education Illiterate 33 111 29.7
Literate 46 89 51.7
Over all 12 200 39.5
Dependency ratio <1 21 65 32.3
1—2 46 109 42.2
> 2 12 26 46.2
Over all 79 200 39.5
Sex Male 71 182 39.01
Female 8 18 44.4
Over all 79 200 39.5
Land size < 0.5 3 62 20.9
0.5—1 40 75 40
1.1—2 31 55 56.4
Above 2 5 8 62.5
Over all 79 200 39.5
Source: - Survey result (2011)
68
4.4 Extent of Food security Food insecurity gap and severity of food insecurity were the indexes employed to capture the
incidence and severity of food insecurity. In the study area the incidence of food security was
found to be 0.395. That means only 39.5 percent of the sample households’ can meet the energy
requirement recommended for subsistence. In other words, head count ratio of 0.395 for 200
sample households’ means 97 sample households’ are deemed food secure. The head count
index or incidence of food security is good indicator to assess food security but it does not take
into account the severity of the food security problem. Therefore, to address how far the food
insecure households’ are below the subsistence energy requirement level, food security gap was
calculated from the survey data. Accordingly, the food security gap index came out to be 0.73.
This means that if the council mobilizes resources that can cover or meet the 73 percent of the
daily calorie requirement for every food insecure households and distribute these resources to
bring each households up to the given daily calorie requirement level, then at least in theory
food insecurity will be eliminated. In other words, assuming that the sample households are
representative to the rural population of Kamba and according to Office of Agriculture, it was
estimated to be 26,258 farming households in Kamba woreda which wear on average equivalent
to 140,480 in AE. Hence, based on the recommended subsistence energy (2100 kcal per day per
person), the total resource required to bring all households’ at least to get the daily subsistence is
amounted to 295,008,000kcal per day. When this amount of calorie is converted to cereals,
assuming that cereals can produce an average of 3700 kcal per kg, it becomes 797 quintal of
cereals per day. This implies that an estimated 291,702quintal of cereals per year is required to
bring all households’ at least to get the daily subsistence energy in a year.
4.5 Summary of mean difference and households’ scores Table 18 and 19 below show summary statistics and households’ scores of sample households’
groups on the hypothesized continuous and discrete variables included in the descriptive
analysis. According to the survey result depicted in Table 18, food insecure and secure
households’ groups revealed significant difference with respect to some socio-economic
variables like family size (FASZ), total farm size (FARMS), livestock holding in (TLU), total
off-farm income (TOFFI), number of oxen households’ own (NOXEN), number of months food
69
item purchased (NUMFP) and access to irrigation (ACCIRR) at probability level less than 1
percent. On the other hand, Table 19 shows categorical variables with the chi-square value which
shows the existence of significant relationship between food secure and food insecure sample
households’ include the sex of households’ head (SEX), strong relationships between food
security status and technology adoption statues of sample households’ (TEC) and existence of
relationship between food security status and educational status of the households’ head
(EDUC).
Table 19:- Summary Statistics of continuous variables included in the descriptive statistics
Variable Food insecure (121) Food secure (79) t- value
Mean SD Mean SD
FASZ 7.04 0.17 4.32 0.13 12.72 ***
AGE 46.32 11.25 45.83 12.00 0.28
NUMFP 3.7 1.15 1.5 1.13 -0.01***
FARMS 7.04 0.17 4.32 0.13 -3.38***
TLU 2.9 1.5 6.6 1.7 -15.3***
NOXEN 0.81 0.86 1.32 1.01 -3.68***
FAID 46.86 63.57 38.10 54.17 1.0
TOFFI 399 813.7 951 676.17 -5.01***
INFRA 3.28 3.5 3.66 4.44 -0.67
ACCIRR 0.74 0.26 0.18 0.39 -2.48***
Source:-Survey result (2011) ***, is significant at 1% probability level.
70
Table 20:- summary statistics of discrete variables included in the descriptive statistics
Variable Score Food insecure (121) Food secure (79) Chi-square value
Number Percent Number Percent
SEX 1 111 91% 71 90%
0 10 9% 8 10% 0.2024
TEC 1 27 22% 64 81%
0 94 78% 15 19% 85.15***
EDUC 1 43 36% 33 42%
0 78 64% 46 58% 9.96***
Source-survey result (2011) ***, is significant at 1% probability level.
4.6 Analysis of determinants of food security
An econometric model, logistic regression, was employed to identify the determinants of
households’ food security. However, before fitting the logit model, it was important to check
whether serious problem of multicollinarity, heteroscedasticity and association existence among
and between the potential continuous and discrete explanatory variables of the model estimation,
respectively. For this purpose, variance inflation factor (VIF) and contingency coefficient were
used for the continuous and discrete variables, respectively. Value of VIF greater than or equal to
10 is an indicator for the existence of serious problem of multicollinearity. Table 20 presents the
value of VIF for each of the continuous variables. As it is shown in the Table, the VIF of all the
variables were found to be smaller than 10. Hence, the problem of multicollinarity was not
serious among the variables. As a result, all the hypothesized 9 continuous explanatory variables
were included in the model estimation. Heteroscedasticity problem (different variance) was also
diagnosed by using commonly used 'Robust' order in STATA-10.
71
Table: - 21 VIF value of continuous variables
Variable R2 VIF
FASZ 0.503 1.42
FRMS 0.464 1.87
TLU 0.503 2.01
TOFFI 0.209 1.26
EDUC 0.144 1.17
FAID 0.091 1.10
INFRA 0.295 1.42
SAVG 0.213 1.27
NUMFP 0.222 1.29
Source: Own computation
Similarly contingency coefficient was calculated for the discrete variables. Contingency
coefficient value ranges between 0 and 1 and as a rule of thumb variable with contingency
coefficient less than 0.5 assumes weak association between the variable. Contingency
coefficients for technology adoption, participation in public meeting, land quality and extension
service adoption of households’ heads were found to be lower than 0.25. Since this figure shows
the absence of serious association (multicollinearity) between the variables, all the four discrete
variables were included in the model.
Table 22:- contingency coefficient for discrete variables
LNDQ EXTN PAPUM TECH
LNDQ 1.0000
EXTN -0.0759 1.000
PAPUM -0.1437 0.0857 1.000
TECH 0.0750 0.1514 0.2321 1.000
Source: - Own computation
The variable food security (FODS) was used as a dichotomous dependent variable, with an
expected mean value of 1, indicating the probability of being food secure, 0 otherwise.
Generally, there were 13 explanatory variables included in the model analysis. In order to
72
identify the most important factors from the hypothesized potential variables to influence food
security, binary logit model was estimated from the survey data. For the purpose, STATA
Version 10 was employed. Codes, types and definitions of the variables; and the maximum
likelihood binary logit estimates are presented in Table 22 and Table 23below, respectively.
Table 23- The maximum likelihood estimates of the logit model
Variable Coefficient p-value Wald Marginal
Statistics Effect (dF/dx)
FASZ -5.442 0.000*** 26.13 -0.033
FRMS 9.91 0.000 *** 13.42 0.06
TLU 1.62 0.000 *** 19.01 0.01
TOFFI 0.00 0.002 *** 10.05 0.000
EDUC 0.5 0.049 ** 3.87 0.003
FAID 0.00 0.657 0.20 0.000
TEC 6.47 0.000 *** 13.54 0.0475
INFRA -0.07 0.087 2.94 -0.0005
PAPUM 7.18 0.000*** 14.54 0.100
EXTN 5.27 0.010 ** 6.57 0.011
SAVG 0.00 0.106 2.61 6.12
NUMFP 0.82 0.031** 4.64 0.005
LNDQ 8.32 0.000 *** 13.31 0.85
Constant -11.50 0.012
Wald chi-square 53.33***
-2Log likelihood 17.63
Likelihood ratio test 250.74
Sensitivity 94.94%
Specificity 97.52%
Percent correctly predicted (count R2) 96.50%
Sample size 200
*** Significant at less than 1% probability level
Source: Model output ** Significant at less than 5% probability level
73
The likelihood ratio test statistics (250.74) exceeds the chi-square critical value (53.33) with 13
degree of freedom. The result is significant (p=0.000) at less than 1 percent probability level
indicating that the hypothesis that the coefficient except the intercept are equal to zero is
rejected. Another measure of goodness of fit used in logistic regression analysis is the count R2,
which indicates the number of sample observations correctly predicted by the model. The count
R2 is based on the principle that if the estimated probability of the event is less than 0.5, the
event will not occur and if it is greater than 0.5 the event will occur (Maddala, 1989).The H-
L(Hosmer-Lemeshow) test also revealed that the model has H-L value 1.00 which indicates
convergence between expected and observed probabilities, value is not statistically significant at
less than 5% probability level, therefore the model is quite a good fit, or indicating that the
model prediction does not significantly differ from the observed. In other words, the ith
observation is grouped as a food secure if the computed probability is greater than or equal to
0.5, and as a food insecure otherwise. The model results show the logistic regression model
correctly predicted 193 of 200, or 96.5 percent of the sample households’. The sensitivity
(correctly predicted food secure) and the specificity (correctly predicted food insecure) of the
logit model are 94.94 percent and 97.52 percent, respectively. Thus, the model predicts both
groups accurately.
4.5 Discussion on the significant explanatory variables
Out of the thirteen variables hypothesized to influence households’ food security, ten were found
to be statistically significant. The maximum likelihood estimates of the logistic regression model
showed that family size (FASZ), cultivated land size (FRMS), total livestock holding in (TLU),
total off farm income (TOFFI), educational status of the households’ head (EDUC),
technological adoption of households’ head (TEC), land quality (LNDQ), households’ head
participation in public meeting (PAPUM), extension service (EXTNS) and number of months
food purchased (NUMFP) were important determinants identified to influence households’ food
security in the study area. That means, the coefficient of family size, Cultivated land size, total
livestock holding, total off farm income, technological adoption of households’ head,
participation in public meeting and land quality were statistically significant at 1 percent
probability level of significance whereas educational status of the households’ head, extension
74
service and number of months food purchased were statistically significant at less than 5 percent
probability level of significance. Moreover, the results verified that except number of month’s
food purchased, almost all of the explanatory variables obtained in the model had the signs that
confirm with the prior expectations. In light of the above summarized model results possible
explanation for each significant independent variable are given consecutively as follows:
Family size (FASZ):- This households’ factor is found to be highly significant to determine
households’ food security in the study area. Households’ size revealed a negative relationship
with food security and statistically significant at 1 percent probability level. The negative
relationship indicates that the probability of in favor of being food secure decreases with an
increase in the family size. This means that the probability of a households’ to be food security is
zero if households’ family sizes increase. The marginal effect of a unit change in family size,
computed at sample mean of family size, the probability of food secure is -0.033. This means
that the probability of food security decreased by -0.033(about -3.3%) for a one member increase
in family size. The likely explanation is that in an area where households’ depend on less
productive agricultural land, increasing households’ size results in increased demand for food.
This demand, however, cannot be matched with the existing food supply so ultimately end up
with food insecurity.
Cultivated land size (FRMS):- Cultivated land size was hypothesized to influence food security
positively. The results of the logit model indicated that sample households’ which had larger
farm size had more possibility of being food secure. This is assured by the positive coefficient of
this variable indicating it is significantly influencing rural households’ food security at 1 percent
level of probability. The possible justification is that farm households’ s which had larger farm
size had better chance to produce more, to diversify the crop they produce and also have got
larger volume of crop residues. The marginal effect of a unit change in farm size, computed at
sample mean of farm size holding in hectare, the probability of food secure is 0.06. This means
that the probability of food security increases by 0.06(about 6%) for a one hectare increase in
farm size. This result is supported by the findings of Abebaw Shimelese (2003).
75
Total livestock holding (TLU):-The relationship between the amount of livestock holding in
tropical livestock unit and food security turned out to be positive and statistically significant. The
relationship is statistically significant at 1 percent probability level. This is an indication that
ownership of livestock acts as a hedge against food security in the study area. Livestock, besides
its direct contribution to subsistence need and nutritional requirement, is a vital input into crop
production by providing manure and serves to accumulate wealth that can be disposed during
times of need, especially when food stock in the households’ deteriorates. The marginal effect of
a unit change in livestock ownership in TLU, computed at average TLU owned by sample
households’, the probability of food secure is 0.01. This means that the probability of food
security increase by 0.01(about 1%) for a one unit increase in livestock number in TLU. This
result was also supported by Abebaw Shimelese (2003).
Total off-Farm Income (TOFFI): This variable represents the amount of income earned in cash
or in kind, during the year. In the areas like Kamba, where the farmers face crop failure and sales
of livestock and livestock product is inadequate, income earned from off-farm activities is an
important means of acquiring food. Accordingly, in the study area, the data revealed that 52%
households’ have off-farm income access and from food secured households’ 51% have access
to off-farm income and from food insecure 54% have access to the additional income. The result
suggests that households’ engaged in off-farm activities are endowed with additional income and
more likely to be food secure. Consistent with the hypothesis, off-farm income is positively and
significantly associated with farm households’ food security status (at probability level of 1 %).
The marginal effect of a unit change in amount of off- farm income in birr, computed at average
amount of off- farm income by sample households’ increases the probability of food security by
0.002%.
Education (EDUC):- Education is positively and significantly related to the probability of food
security in the study area. Education is also explained in terms of contribution to working
efficiency, competency, diversify income, adopting technologies and becoming visionary in
creating conducive environment to educate dependants with long term target to ensure better
living condition than illiterate ones. The possible reasons are literate farm households’ heads are
76
more willing to adopt better production technologies, accept technical advice from extension
workers, and diversifying their source of income than the illiterate ones. As a result literacy
increases chance of becoming food security among the sample households’. The marginal effect
of a unit change in level of education, computed at average level of education by sample
households, increases the probability of food security by 0.002%.
Technological adoption of households’ head (TEC):- similar to expectation, use of chemical
fertilizer and improved seed was found to be positively and significantly affect the rural
households’ food security in the study area. Thus, the study reveals that most of the farmers who
applied chemical fertilizer and improved seed in their farm were more food secure than those
who did not apply chemical fertilizer and improved seed. The probable reason for this is that
application of chemical fertilizer and improved seed improves the mineral content of the soil and
restores the nutrients required by the crops, thus crop yields are increased. Input use by farmers
increases the probability of food security in the study area. Dry land farmers like in Kamba, who
are risk averse, can also be food secure from its use especially when the rains are adequate for
crop production. Keeping other factor constant, the marginal effect of change from technology
non user to technology user, computed at mean technology adoption status especially for
chemical fertilizer and improved seed by sampled households’ increases the probability of food
security by 5%.
Participate in public meeting (PAPUM):- The objectives of public meeting are to transmit the
governments plan and strategy to boost production. Participation in public meeting changes
farmers’ outlook towards production, by helping them to talk the main challenges faced, to
identify duty’s of government and local farmers and helps to get new arrival and trial
technologies. This may be also explained by the factors that the message that farmer gain from
public meeting help them to initiate to use risk aversion strategies that seek diversification of
income within and out of agriculture. This variable has a positive and significant (p<0.01)
association with the households’ food security. Keeping other factors constant; the odds ratio in
favor of food security, cetris paribus, and increases by a factor of 1317 as the households’ public
meeting participation trend changed from non- participant to participant in a year.
77
Frequency of extension contact (EXTNS):- This households’ factor is found to be highly
significant to determine households’ food security in the study area. The objectives of extension
is to change farmers outlook towards their difficulties which assists them adapt better solution to
their livelihoods. Thus, the information obtained and the knowledge and skill gained from
extension office may influence farmers’ skill and decision making on seeking diversification.
The frequent extension contact received will increase the tendency of households’ to be food
security. Frequency of extension contact has a positive relationship with food security and
statistically significant at 5 percent probability level. The positive relationship indicates that the
odds ratio in favor of the probability of being food security increases with an increase in the
frequency of extension contact. Keeping other factors constant; the marginal effect of a change
from lacking contact to having contact to extension service provider, computed at mean number
of contact with extension service provider in a year by sample households’ s, increases the
probability of food security by 1.1%.
Land quality (LNDQ):- This is because the increase in the fertility of the land is expected to
contribute positively towards increase in crop output and consequently increase in farm income.
Empirical findings indicate that land fertility problem has a relation with the level of food
security. However, Mulugeta Tefera (2002) and Ayalew Yimer (2003) have shown that land
fertility problem do not have significant effect on households’ food security status. On the
contrary to their result, this study revealed that this variable affects households’ food security
significantly. The marginal effect of a change of farmers land from poor land quality to good
land quality, computed at mean farmers perception on the fertility of their farmland quality by
sampled households’ s, increases the probability of food security by 84.7%. This gigantic
response may be achieved after challenging and time consuming task of soil quality
improvement in long period of time. It is not an easy task and the response is not automatically,
it needs more time and actors commitment to get the above probability percent on food security.
Number of month’s food purchased (NMFP):- As the number of month’s food purchased
increase for rural farmers, the probability to be food secure decrease due to weak income source
stability which forces to purchase low quality food items. Subsistence farmers like in Kamba
78
produce food for home consumption and buy food items when there is food shortage in the
family. If the number of months that a household’ buy food items is more, he has low own
production and depend on purchase for his food demand. Number of month’s food purchased has
inverse relationship with food security statues of households’. But the logit model revealed that it
has positive relationship with food security. The possible reason can be the farmer has chance to
buy diversified food items and goat higher calories than own production and frequent
consumption of the same food items. The marginal effect of a change from few numbers of
months for food purchase to most number of months for food purchase, computed at average
number of month’s food purchased by sample households’, increases the probability of food
security by 0.5%.
4.7 Major Agricultural Problems
Different reasons were given concerning the declining trend in production. The responses of
sample farmers on major reasons for the declining trend of crop production are shown in Table
25. Inadequate rain fall, soil infertility, small land holding, lack of credit, inadequate extension
service, poor technological diffusion and lack of oxen problems were ranked as a very serious
problems of farming households in the study area. Out of total respondents who cited the
various problems, about 60% of them mentioned inadequate rain fall, 45% mentioned soil
infertility, 41% mentioned small land holding and 39% mentioned lack of credit problem has
been very serious problems in the study area. Inadequate rainfall is the most frequently cited
agricultural problem. With regard to the proportion of farmers who respond on the major causes
of food insecurity problems (Table 25), relatively small numbers of the food secure farmers
reported to have these problems as compare to those food insecure groups. For instance, 38%
and 44% of food secure and food insecure farmers were cited absence of rainfall. In general, the
poor performance traditional farming practice that has greatly affected the sustainability of
production and productivity joined with the inadequate and erratic rainfall has made district’s
rural farm households’ more vulnerable and food insecure. The responses of sample farmers on
trend of food availability in the last five years revealed that 56% confirmed that food availability
was declined from year to year.
79
Soil fertility problem is one of the physical factors affecting crop production. The relationship
between soil fertility problem and state of food security indicate that soil fertility problem has
negative impact on crop production performance, and causes a deterioration of food security
status of the households’. The proportion of farmers who reported to have soil fertility problem is
more for food insecure than secured groups. About 20% of food insecure and 17% of food secure
farmers reported to have soil fertility problem in their farm.
Table 24:- Major agricultural problems encountered in the study area
Source of problem Food insecure Food secure
N=121 Percent N=79 Percent
Inadequate rainfall 53 44% 30 38%
soil infertility 24 20% 13 17%
small land holding 18 15% 10 13%
lack of credit 10 8% 8 10%
inadequate extension service 6 5% 8 10%
poor technological diffusion 5 4% 6 7%
lack of oxen 5 4% 5 5%
Total 121 100% 79 100%
Source:-survey result
4.8 Extension services
In a country such as Ethiopia, where the majority of the farmers are illiterate, agricultural
extension plays a significant role in assisting them by identifying and analyzing their production
problems and by making them aware of opportunities for improvement of food security. Hence,
the effectiveness of the other inputs in production partly relies upon the availability of sound
agricultural extension services at community levels. The traditional and widely used means of
conveying new information to farmers is through the public extension services. In Ethiopia,
including the study area, development agents trained in agricultural sciences are assigned in each
kebele. The current agricultural policy gives emphasis to the development of private enterprise
including development of smallholders’ agriculture. The extension program requires farmers to
80
use package of new varieties, chemical fertilizer, farm credit etc. However, only 39 % of the
sample farm households’ identified themselves to be beneficiaries of continuous extension
services the reaming 61% couldn’t get continuous extension service. The number of DA in the
woreda increased in number from 48 to 118 since 1994E.C, but the service promotion by them is
at infant stage. The percentage of food secure farmers with access to extension services is
relatively higher than the percentage of food insecure farmers. This could be because that food
secure farmers have more frequency of contact with the extension agents. Both the descriptive
and econometric results revealed that contact with development agent and application of
improved technologies were influential factors for food security in the study area.
4.9 Coping Strategies
Farm households’ in a vulnerable area like Kamba engage in several activities in order to avoid
food shortage and famine. These include adjustments farmers would make to cope with food
supply pattern, reduce amount of food consumed ,sale of livestock, labor (including migration) in
search for employment opportunities, sales of productive assets and stocks, depending on food
aid. Farmers were asked about how they manage food shortage and how they can cope with food
insecurity. This section describes the results of the interview and relates the response to the
farmers’ actual activities.
The local coping strategies, which have been practiced during food crisis by groups of sample
farmers in Kamba, are presented in Table 26. The principal strategies used by the sample
respondents to mitigate food supply shortage include purchasing of grain, diversification of crop
production into drought resistant crops such as cassava, 'enset', sorghum, sweet potato haricot
been and others during short and erratic rainy seasons to meet their subsistence needs. Almost all
(99%) respondents diversified their production by producing drought resistant crops. About 52%
of all respondents and 49% of food secure and 54% of food insecure households’ engaged in off-
farm jobs. Even though, there was limited access to off-farm work opportunity in the district,
resource poor family migrate(17%) either within woreda or outside woreda for wage earned in
kind or cash. Another important coping mechanism considered first by farmers was sale of
livestock. Livestock, besides their complimentary relationship with crop production, provide
81
hedging against risk of food insecurity. As a result, when food produced is fully consumed and
or no cash reserve is available to purchase more of it, animal products and live animals are sold
as ways of getting access to cash income and to buy food for the households’. Accordingly,
about 74% of all households’, 68% of the food secures and 94% of the food insecure households’
were involved in the sales of animals (mostly small ruminants) to acquire food whenever there is
shortfall in food supply. Sales of animals were common for the two groups and these shows that
the farm households’ keep animals as principal assets to manage the shortage. This mechanism is
ranked as the first most important coping practice, followed by, reducing food consumed, and
involvement in off-farm and food aid. Sales of live animals to purchase food grains during
supply shortage have considerable effects on farmers' economy mainly because of sharp decline
in livestock prices due to excessive supply from all affected farmers. The proportion of food
secure and food insecure households’ who practiced purchasing grains/food items during food
supply shortage were 92% and 95%, respectively. Reduction of consumption in terms of both the
number of meals per day and amount of food per meal was identified as means of coping for the
largest proportion (40%) of the respondents, 25% of the food secure and 53% of the food
insecure sample households’ during short supply. About 23% of all cases, 7% of the food
secures and 30% of the food insecure households’ reported that they overcome food shortage
problems by receiving relief food freely from government and non-government organizations.
These and other less frequently mentioned and practiced coping strategies are shown in Table 26.
Table 25:- Coping strategies common in Kamba woreda
Type of coping Over all
(200)
Insecure
(121)
Secure
(79)
Rank
Reduced amount of food consumed 40% 63% 58% 2nd
Sale of livestock 74% 94% 73% 1st
Wage work and migration 52% 54% 34% 3rd
Sale of productive asset and jewelers 2% 85% 25% 5th
Food aid 23% 30% 7% 4th
Eating wild food(in pastoral kebele) 7.5% 85% 3rd
Source:-Survey result N.B percent does not sum up to 100, due to multiple response.
82
The analyses of the coping mechanism of the sample farmers have shown that, coping
mechanisms have different patterns. All farmers were not equally vulnerable to drought or food
insecurity; they responded in different ways. Some households’ implement some coping
strategies after all other options have been pursued and exhausted. As the food crisis persist,
households are increasingly forced into a greater commitment of resources, just as the
households’ exhaust the strategies that are available in the early stages of food crisis, they begin
to arrange key productive assets such as draft oxen, milk cow and assets and jewelers.
Accordingly, among the sample households’ 2% of them sold key productive assets and jewelers
as coping mechanism for food insecurity. With respect to the period of severe food shortage that
the farm households’ s practice these coping mechanisms differ area to area, more than 87% of
the households in low land and mid- altitude in the study area encountered severe food shortages
during the months of April, June and July and highlands in September, October and November.
According to woreda agriculture office, farm households’ in the lowland ecological zone and
pastoral areas face severe food shortage more frequently than those in the highlands. Pastorals
in the study area begun to eat wild foods as vulnerability increasing, and they shift to the
consumption of the cheapest and less quality food items. In general, the proportion of
households’ with local coping strategies implies the extent to which most of the Kamba district's
farmers are vulnerable to seasonal shocks and how food security problem is serious. Hence,
factors like chronic poverty, rapid population growth, declining per capita food production, poor
marketing infrastructure, lack of off-farm job opportunities, small land holding and lack of credit
facilities aggravated food security problem and made households’ more vulnerable.
83
CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 Summary of findings
Food security problem is the most crucial and persistent problem facing millions of rural
households’ in Ethiopia. Even though the country has considerable agricultural potential, more
than half of its rural households’ are unable to feed themselves throughout the year and yet food
availability in the country is largely determined by domestic staple food production by
subsistence agriculture. Producing enough food and achieving food security can be made
possible through increased agricultural productivity, increased off-farm income and improving
the ability of rural households’ to smoothen and stabilize their income and purchasing power,
this problem remained as a top and major challenge than ever met by the Ethiopian government.
This study was conducted in Kamba woreda of Gamo Gofa zone, where food security problem is
becoming virtually a continuous concern of most households’. Food security problem is now a
crucial problem in Kamba woreda. Most of the farming households’ in the district have
difficulties to cope with the situation even during normal seasons. Drought stimulated food
security problem has been a recurrent phenomena on exacerbating the vulnerability of the
resource poor farming households’ in the district. This chapter provides the conclusions and
recommendations drawn from the data analyzed on how agricultural production could be
improved in enhancing small-scale farmers to meet households’ food security. The chapter looks
at the aims of the study that were stated in the introductory chapter (Chapter 1), so that
conclusions and recommendations can be drawn.
The study area is not an exception of the above facts. The adverse climate nature of the
environment coupled with poor soil fertility, high population growth, lack of sufficient moisture,
week technology adoption, lack of infrastructure and traditional way of cultivation pulled back
the productivity of agriculture and ultimately resulted in food security problem to many of the
rural households’. Aware of these problems, the study was carried out with major objective to
establish which determinants played a major role in addressing households’ food security
84
problem in Kamba woreda. Other factors were also put into account in trying to explain which
factors are significant in enhancing households’ food security and estimation of the food security
gap and severity of food security problem.
The socio-economic characteristics of both the food secure and insecure households’ and the
livelihood strategies of the rural households’ in the study area were also considered deeply. To
accomplish these objectives primary data on food consumption habit, demographic & socio-
economic characteristics, livestock and crop diversity, access to productive resources, access to
service and infrastructure, marketing and credit, technology adoption trend, farm and off-farm
income, coping mechanisms etc. were gathered, organized, analyzed and interpreted to come
with possible results at the households’ level from 13 randomly select sample PAs. The analysis
employed both descriptive statistics and econometric methods. Descriptive statistics were
employed to illustrate weather there was strong relationship between dependant and explanatory
variables and existence of mean difference between the two groups with respect to food security
status. Binary logistic model was specified and estimated to identify determinants of food
security in Kamba woreda. FGT index was used for the computation of incidence and severity of
food security problem among sample households’.
Based on the survey data, an attempt was made to describe the socio-economic characteristics of
the food secure and food insecure sample households’ groups, i.e., whether there exists mean
difference between the two groups with respect to the different socio-economic attributes.
Accordingly, the survey result revealed that there was significant difference with respect to mean
of family size both in number and adult equivalent, and in the mean of dependent individuals.
Large households have more people to feed as compared to small households thus, reducing the
calorie intake per households’ member decreasing the food security in those households. The
mean in each case is lower for the food secure households’ group and higher for food insecure
households’. On the other hand, farm size, amount of off-farm income received also
differentiated the two groups significantly in their mean values. In all the two cases, the mean
values were higher for the food secure households’ group. The total livestock owned (TLU) was
found to be significantly and positively related (1% probability level) to the probability of being
85
food secure. The number of livestock’s owned in TLU differentiated the two groups significantly
in their mean values. Moreover, with regard to education, percent of illiterate households’ was
higher for the food insecure households’ group than the food secure ones. And there was
systematic relationship between education and food security. The use of modern technology
(TEC) especially chemical fertilizer and improved seed has come out to be significant (1%
probability level) and positive influence on the food security status of the households’. The
positive sign is an indicator of existence of efficient relationship between technology adoption
and food security. Number of oxen owned (NOXEN) is significant and has a positive association
(at1% probability) in affecting households’ food security situation. This implies that the
existence of oxen differentiated the two groups significantly in their mean value affects the
households’ food security in such a way that households who owned oxen have better chance to
escape serious food insecurity than those who don’t owned. Both number of months food item
purchased and access to irrigation farm influence the households’ food security positively and
significantly.
Binary logit econometric model was estimated using the survey data to identify the determinants
of food security among the rural households’ in the study area. Accordingly, the estimated
coefficient revealed a varied impression. On the one hand, family size, farm size, livestock
owned in TLU, total off- farm income, education, technology adoption , adoption of extension
service, land quality and participation in public meeting showed theoretically consistent and
statistically significant effect while coefficient of number of months food purchased showed
theoretically inconsistent and statistically significant effect. On the other hand, amount of food
aid received, saving and access to infrastructure were not found to be statistically significant in
determining food security.
A closer look at the model result reveals that the variable family size influenced the households’
food security negatively and significantly. This means the probability for the households’
becoming food secure decreases as the households’ size increases.
86
Educational status of the households’ head also exhibited positive and significant coefficient.
This means the variable is directly related with food security. Likewise, farm size and adoption
of technology were also other significant variables came out to be positively and significantly
related with food security. Total off-farm income, participation in public meeting, land quality
and adoption of extension contact were exhibited positive and significant at less than 5 percent.
Number of month’s food purchased on the other hand, as opposite to prior expectation and has
a positive and significant coefficient in the estimated model result. This means those farmers
who buy food items from market for longer months may have chance to get diversified amount
of calories and increased chance of food security.
The other important variable is livestock holding. This variable in agreement with the prior
expectation came out to be positively and significantly related with food security. This is so due
to the fact that livestock both directly and indirectly contributes to the households’ food, energy
and income requirement. The head count ratio revealed that only 39.5 percent of sampled
households’ are found to be food secure and 60.5 percent of sample households’ are food
insecure. The gap and severity of food insecurity were estimated to be 73 and 3.95 percent
respectively. Considering the daily recommended 2100 kcal per adult equivalent, a resource
needed to bring all sample households’ to daily subsistence requirement amounted to 2,248,617
kcal. This shows daily requirements estimate of 607.7 quintals of cereal per day which is
equivalent to 221,823 quintals per year.
87
6.2 Recommendations
Hence, after summarizing the findings of this study, the possible policy recommendations that can be made from this study are as follows:
1. Family size and food security are strongly and negatively related. Large households’
size exerts pressure on consumption than the labour it contributes to production.
Rural family size, like in Kamba have high youth dependency ratios(46.1%,CSA
2007) and low life expectancies, it imposes a substantial pull on areas economies by
reducing their productive capacity per capita associated with lower rate of savings
and investments (as conventionally measured), and therefore slower economic growth
and affects directly food security. Recent studies have shown that East Asia’s rapid
demographic transition in the past half century added markedly to the increase in
GNP per capita, especially in comparison with regions such as sub-saran Africa
where the demographic transition has been delayed (Barry Riley 2002). Relatively
poor food productivity and poor public health has probably slowed the demographic
transition in the Africa countries. Serious attention has to be given to limit the
increasing population in the study area. This can be achieved by creating sufficient
awareness to successful family planning through effective extension services and
integrated development strategy in the rural households’. So family size control is the
crucial concern in the rural area like in Kamba otherwise, the ever-shrinking
productive resources in the study area coupled with increasing population would
hamper any development intervention from achieving its objectives.
2. Productive resources especially land is very limiting and highly binding resource in
the study area. The model and descriptive analysis result showed cultivated land size
and soil fertility problem was found to be significant and they are positively and
negatively related with food security. An increase in land size is likely to increase
food security without employing any advanced technologies. Tackling the problem of
food security through increasing farm size would not bring any sustainable
improvement. So a medium and longer-term food security strategy through increased
food production must be introduced. In a medium or shorter term, distribution and
88
allocation of cultivable land, which was not under cultivation, thereby increasing
output, should be made. This would give short period relief from the problem;
otherwise the amount of return from such a strategy would not be by any means
sufficient and sustainable to up-root the problem from the present setting. As a result,
strong effort should be made to improve the production and productivity in the
agricultural sector in the longer term. The possible measures that can be undertaken to
achieve this strategy include, with the limited resources that the farmers have, it could
be rational to cultivate smaller pieces of land as in the case of the agricultural
production theory (Stage II of the production curve) by applying appropriate
conservation measures to improve soil quality and get better turn out.
3. The effect of education on households’ food security confirms the significant role of
the variable in consideration for betterment of living condition. Farmer’s education
helps for improving production and productivity of agriculture. The more households’
head educated, the higher will be the probability of educating family member and
familiar with modern technology, which the twenty first century so badly demands. In
order to bring food security at the households’ level the development strategy need to
encompass education programmes to the smallholders. So, strengthening both formal
and informal education and farmers training centers should be promoted to increase
food security in Kamba woreda.
4. The research findings showed that livestock ownership has positive impact on
households’ food security. Livestock sub sector plays a great role in the struggle to
eliminate food security problem. Its contribution to the households’ food energy
requirement and total income is significant. In the study area animal disease,
existence of local and low productive livestock’s and marketing conditions are very
crucial. Hence, necessary effort should be made to improve the production and
productivity of the sector. This can be done through the provision of adequate
veterinary services, improved water supply points, introduction of timely and
effective artificial insemination services to up-grade the already existing breeds,
89
launching sustainable and effective forage development program, provision of
training for the livestock holders on how to improve their production and
productivity, improving the marketing conditions, etc
5. The small size of holdings coupled with poor quality of soil and recurrent droughts do
not permit the farmers in Kamba to produce enough for the households’ without an
alternative income source. Rural households’ in the study area have very limited
room for generation of income. Hence, for these households’ to enhance their welfare
in general and food security in particular, they must have diversified access to income
alternatives to increase their purchasing power. In the face of this, provision of credit
must be taken as a measure, though not the only one, to build the capacity of farmers
to invest in the agricultural sector, such as purchase of fertilizer, pesticides, improved
seed, live and productive animals. Moreover, development strategies should be able
to identify income alternatives other than agriculture. In light of this, non-
governmental organizations that are focusing only on agriculture should also channel
their scarce resources to creation of income generating activities, trading, crafting,
etc. which would greatly help in strengthening off-farm activities which would enable
the households’ to secure their food through purchase.
6. An increase in per capita aggregate production means that the probabilities of
households’ being food secure increases. Even if farmers experience and interest to
use chemical fertilizers and improved seeds need effective awareness creation, yield
improvements were feasible through the increased use of chemical fertilizers.
Therefore, chemical fertilizers supply, price and application of them have to be
adapted to support this possibility. Government, farmer groups or organizations and
input suppliers are therefore called to provide agricultural inputs to farming
households’ in communal areas at affordable prices to enable them to increase
production and application.
90
7. One area of intervention hypothesized to improve the state of food security at
households’ level is promoting the production of cash crops (coffee and fruits). This
implies that efforts has to be made to improve income from cash crops production to
ensure food security through promoting and developing small scale and traditional
irrigation programs which intern reduce rainfall dependability and enhance the level
of households’ food security.
8. The fact that the climate of the district is dominantly semi-arid and the existence of a
serious problem of frequent crop failure caused by drought and erratic rains clearly
suggest that one of the intervention options is promoting and increasing crop
diversification to reduce crop failure that was happen due to rainfall shortage. Hence,
seeds of different variety resistance to moisture stress, pests and adaptability that can
increase productivity and yield of crops should be introduced.
9. Food aid is an assistance that comes from outside the system to support and address
the immediate food crisis. This is necessary from the viewpoint of saving lives.
However, it is not designed to give a lasting solution. Rather it destroys traditional
coping mechanisms of the society and puts it in a perpetual position to expect aid
whenever there is food shortage. This prompts the society to perpetually depend on
donors but, the link with the employment generating system would help both in
reducing dependency syndrome and contributing to local development.
10. The study suggested also that absence of market and marketing infrastructure
facilities are one of the problems of food security. Farmers close to major roads and
market centers are better encouraged to intensify production for their own
consumption as well as to produce high value crops for sale. Therefore, in order to
solve the problem of farmers in remote areas, attention should be given to the impact
of factors like poor marketing infrastructure and transport facilities. In addition,
government can improve rural infrastructure to boost households’ income through the
provision of households’ water, electricity and telecommunications. This could
increase the possibility for farmers to get right price.
91
References
Abebaw, S. and Ayalneh, B. (2007),Dimensions of food insecurity and livelihood strategies
among rural households’ s in Dire Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia, Tropical Science
Abebaw Shimelese (2003)-Determinants of food insecurity among rural households’ in Dire
Dawa,eastern Ethiopia
A. Sen (1981) Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Clarendon Press:
Oxford
Andersen (1997) 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment in South Africa, In:
Lawrence Haddad (ed.). Achieving Food Security in South Africa New
Challenges, New Opportunities, IFPRI. Washington D. C
Ayalneh Bogale (2002). Land Degradation, Impoverishment and Livelihood Strategies of Rural
households’ in Ethiopia: Farmers' Perceptions and Policy Implication. Vol. 8.
Shaker Verlag, Germany.
Bartfeld, J., Dunifon, R. (2006). State-Level Predictors of Food Insecurity among
Households’ with Children, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Barly riley (2002) the impact of food aid on food security in Ethiopia
Central Statistical Authority (CSA) (1995), Agricultural Sample Survey Report on Area,
Production and Yield of Major crops for Private Holdings, Addis Ababa
Central Intelligence Agency (2008) United States Government. World Fact Book: India
retrievedfrom<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/print/in.html> (10 April.
Devereux, S, andMaxwell, S. (Eds) (2001), Food security in sub-Saharan Africa London, UK: Intermediate Technology Development Group Publishing
EHNRI Food composition table for use in Ethiopia part III
Ethiopia food security outlook October (2010 to March 2011)
Environmental Degradation, Arid Lands Newsletter Vol- 30 Office of Arid Lands Studies,
University of Arizona
92
FEWS Ethiopia: Special report on SNNPR
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2008), The State of Food
Insecurity in the World, Rome.Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nation (2003). Trade Reforms andFood Security: Conceptualizing the
Linkages, Rome
FAO: (1996) World Food Summit, Corporate Document Repository, FAO, Rome.Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (2002).Food Insecurity,
Poverty and Agriculture: ECA Working paper.
FAO (1991), households’ Food Security and Forestry: An Analysis of Socio- Economic Issues.
Rome: FAO.
Frankenberger, T. R. and D. M. Goldestein. (1990),Food Security, Coping Strategies
Frankenberger, T.( 1992) Indicators and Data Collection Methods for Assessing households’
Food Security, households’ Food Security: Concepts, Indicators, and
Measurements, A Technical Review ,Rome, IFAD/UNICEF.
Gebre-Selassie, Samuel (2005). Poverty and Food Security in Ethiopia: Some Evidences from
Wollo. In Ethiopian Economic Association (2005): Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on the Ethiopian Economy, Vol. II, EEA, Addis
Ababa.
Getachew Deriba (1991). A Case Study of Habro: Social and Demographic Characteristics.
Getachew Deriba (1995). Ethiopia at the Crossroads: Famine and Rural Food Security in Rural
Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Getachew Deriba (1993). A Case Study of Adama Boset: Resource and Food Security.
Getachew Deriba (1995). A Case Study of Kembata Hadya: Housholds and Their Resouces.
Getachew Deriba (1995). Economy at the Crossroads: Famine and Food Security in Rural
Ethiopia.
Gezahegn, K. (1995),Agricultural Marketing Policies and Food Security in Ethiopia. In: Mulat,
D.; Wolday, A.; Enui, S. And Tesfaye, Z. (ed.): Food Security, Nutrition and
Poverty Alleviation in Ethiopia: Problems and Prospects. Proceedings of the
Inaugural and First Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society
of Ethiopia ,Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
93
Gujirati, Domadar N. (1995) Basic Econometrics,Third Edition. MacGraw- Hill, New York
Gujirati, Domadar. N. (1995) Basic Econometrics, Fourth Edition. MacGraw- Hill, New York
Habtewold, Debebe (2001). Food Aid and Its Impact on Peasant Livelihood strategies,In Forum
for Social Studies (2001),Food Security and Sustainable Livelihood in
Ethiopia, Proceedings of the Symposium of the Forum for Social Studies,
Image Printing Press, Addis Ababa.
Hoddinott, J. (ed). (2001). Method for Rural Development Projects, Food Security in Practice,
Vol., 1., IFPRI, Washington D.C
Holmboe-Ottesen G, Wandel M (1990) households’ food security: application of a normative
concept in research for planning of sustainable development. Forum for
tviklingsstudier
IFPRI (2008) International Food Policy Research Institute, High Food Prices: The What, Who,
and How of Proposed Policy Actions, Policy Brief, May.
IFPRI (2009)-International food policy research institute- Global Hunger Index
IFPRI (2002) Living in the City. Challenges and Options for the Urban Poor, IFPRI Issue
BriefNo.9 Washington, D.C
IMF (2004) the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
Annual Progress Report.
John Hoddinott (2008) chosing outcome indicators of households’ food security technical
guide number7,J. Hoddinott, “Choosing Outcome Indicators of households’
Food Security.” International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington,
D.C. (1999). Retrieved from < www.ifpri.org/pubs/pubs_menu.asp> (24
January
Kidane, H., Alemu, ZG., Khundhlande, G. (2005). Causes of households’ Food Insecurity in
Koredegaga Peasant Association, Oromiya zone, Ethiopia
K. Bagachi & S. Puri, (2002) “Food and Nutrition Security and Women.” In, Women and Food
Security: The Role of Panchayats, Edited by P. Chaturvedi. Concept
Publishing Company: New Delhi
94
Maddala, G.S. (1989) Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variable in Econometrics, Cambridge University Press, New York
Markos, E., (1997) Demographic responses to ecological degradation and food insecurity in
drought prone areas of northern Ethiopia,Thesis Publishers, Prinseneiland
305, 1013 LP Amsterdam the Netherlands
Marek T (1992). Ending malnutrition: Why increasing income is not enough, World Bank
Africa Technical Department, Technical Working Paper No. 5, Washington,
DC: World Bank, October.
MEDaC (1999) Poverty Situation in Ethiopia,Welfare Monitoring Unit, Addis Ababa
Misery mpuzu sikwela (2008) determinants of households’ food security in the semi-arid areas
of zimbabwe: a case study of irrigation and non-irrigation farmers in lupane
and hwange districts
MoFED(2006) Ministry of Finance and Economic Development,Ethiopia: Sustainable
Development and Poverty Reduction Program. Addis Ababa.
2002.MoFED,Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Ethiopia:
Building on Progress - A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to
End Poverty (PASDEP) (2005/06-2009/10) Volume I: Main Text, Addis
Ababa
Mulugeta Tefera (2002) –Determinats of households’ food security in Eastern Oromia,Ethiopia: The case of Boke district of western Hararghe Zone
Reginal baseline survey (2005)
Reginal baseline survey (2009)
Rome Declaration (1996) on World Food Security
R. Gardiner (2002) “Towards Earth Summit 2002 Project: Briefing Paper.” Earth Summit:
London
SAH RP (2002).Sustainable Livelihoods and Poverty Alleviation: Case Study in Improving
Food Security and Livelihood of Mountain People through Development of
Agriculture. A paper presented at the International Seminar on Mountains
(ISM), Kathmandu, Agriculture Research Station, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal.
95
Shiferaw T. Feleke,Richard L. Kilmer(2005)Determinants of food security in Southern
Ethiopia at the households’ level.
S. Maxwell & M. Smith (1992) “households’ food security: A conceptual review,” In
households’ Food Security: Concepts, Indicators, Measurements, edited by S.
Maxwell and T. Frankenberger. United Nations Children’s Fund-
International Fund for Agricultural Development: New York
S. Maxwell and T. Frankenberger (1992) “households’ Food Security: Concepts, Indicators,
and Measurements.” UNICEF-IFAD: New York
Staatz JM, D’Agostino (1990) VC, Sundberg S. Measuring food security in Africa: conceptual,
empirical, and policy issues. Am J Agric Econ
Stephen Ds (2000) Food Insecurity in Ethiopia: A discussion paper for DFID, IDS Sussex
Tesfaye Kumbi (2005):- households’ food insecurity in Dodota-Sire district,Arsi zone:coping strategies and policy options.
RDFS Section (2009) the Rural Development and Food Security
UN-(2010)-The "Development Strategies that Work" database
World Bank (1986) Poverty and hunger: issues and options for food security in developing
countries. World Bank Policy Study, xi, 69. Washington, DC: World Bank
Yilma Muluken (2005):- Measuring rural households’ food security status and its determinats in
the Benishangul Gumuz region, Ethiopia:The case of Assosa woreda
Yohannes Mekonnen (2002) Food security problems and Public Actions in Ethiopia, in
Gebrehiwot Ageba et al (eds) 2002, pp 345-365
96
Appendices
Appendix 1:- Conversion Factors to Estimate Tropical Livestock Unit equivalents Livestock type TLU (Tropical livestock unit)
1-Calf 0.20
2-Heifer 0.75
3-Cows/Oxen 1.00
4-Horse/Mule 1.10
5-Donkey 0.70
6-Donkey (young) 0.35
7-Sheep/Goat 0.13
8-Sheep/Goat (young) 0.06
9-Chicken 0.013
Source: Storck, et at. (1991)
Appendix 2:- Conversion Factors Used to Compute Adult-Equivalent (AE) Age Category (Year) Male Female
0---1 0.33 0.33
1.1—2 0.46 0.46
2.1—3 0.54 0.54
3.1—5 0.62 0.62
5.1—7 0.74 0.70
7.1—10 0.84 0.72
10.1—12 0.88 0.78
12.1—14 0.96 0.84
14.1—16 1.06 0.86
16.1—18 1.14 0.86
18.1—30 1.04 0.80
30.1—60 1.00 0.82
> 60 0.84 0.74
Source- Source: Storck, et at. (1991)
97
Appendix 3:- Calorie value of food items consumed by sample households’ Food item Unit Kcal Food item Unit Kcal
Boqqollo Duket Kg 3782 Baqqella kolo Kg 2759
Boqqollo nifro Kg 1701 Baqqella nifro Kg 1495
Boqqollo Kolo Kg 3872 Tiqill Gommen Kg 237
Sindye Duket Kg 3623 Abesha Gommen Kg 401
Sindye kolo Kg 3916 Qeyy Shinkurt Kg 3761
Nifro ye Sindye Kg 2113 Nech Shinkurt Kg 1383
Gebs Beso Kg 3680 Orange Kg 339
Gebs Kolo Kg 3558 Papaya Kg 349
Teff Duket Kg 3589 Muze Kg 878
Mashila Duket Kg 3774 Mango Kg 438
Enset Kg 1960 Yebere siga Kg 1774
Kocho Kg 2111 Yefiyel siga Kg 2000
Bula Kg 1805 Yebeg Siga Kg 1529
Irish potato Kg 897 Milk Lt 737
Cassava Kg 1240 Coffee+milk Lt 180
Yam Kg 850 Egg No 1529
Taro Kg 1083 Sugar Kg 3850
Sweet Potato Kg 1342 Shenqura Ageda Kg 953
Adengwarrye Kg 1703 Qibye Kg 7604
Ater suro Kg 3522 Zeyt Lt 8964
Source-EHNRI Part III (1968-1997)-Food consumption table for use in Ethiopia
98
Appendix4. Summary of the Survey Questionnaire
General Information
Date of Interview, Name of the enumerator, Name of Keble, Signature, Start and end time
PART I. Households’ roster
Name, sex, age, educational level of the households’ members, marital status, main current activity of the
households’ members, religion
SECTION 2: households’ food consumption
What type and quantity of foods were prepared for consumption in this households’ in the last seven
days?
We would like to ask you some questions about food consumption in this households’ in the last seven days. These questions concern to the quantity of foods prepared for consumption
Food type Local Unit
Local unit estimated to kg
Conversion into kilos
Adjustment for processing
Number of calories available for consumption
Beqqollo Duket
Listing all foods commonly eaten in the area
Section 3- Food consumption habit
How many meals did the adults in your HH ate yesterday? (Adult, above 15 years)?
How many meals did the children in your HH ate yesterday (children, under 15 years)
What has been the trend of food availability for your households’ (family) during the last 5 years?
Food item Did your house hold consume this food item in the past 7 days
Yes---1
No-----0
Number of days the food item was eaten in the last 7 days
How much in total did your HHconsume (in kg) or local nit)
How much came
from purchase
How much came
from own production
How much came
from gift
Wheat
Maize
Irish potato
Sweet potato
99
Barely
Section 4- Land use information Does the households’ own agricultural land? ------------If Yes----1, if No-------0 What is the total area of the agricultural land? ------------Hectare----------- Timade----------Other Do you think that your piece of land is enough to support your family? ------ Yes----1, no-----0 What is the quality of your Soil relative to other farmers? ------------If Good-----1 if Poor------0 Section 5- Crop production trend What major crops are produced using your land? (Order by priority and large area allocation) Rank of crops Name of the crop Area allocated in timade
1st
2nd
Section 6-Irregation application
Do you have irrigation land? ................if Yes---1, if No-----0
If yes how much is it? ------------Hectare or--------------Timade-------------Others (specify).
What crops are produced using irrigation?
Section 7-Crop production
Is your own production enough for your households’? -----------If Yes------1, if No--------0
If yes, for how many months do you consume your own production during normal production?
For how long can you feed your family financially after now in the future?
If you can’t produce enough food for your family what are the problems you encountered?
Problems encountered Very serious Serious Less serious Not a problem
Small land holding
In adequate rainfall
Do you produce both in belg and meher seasons? ----------ifYes------------1,if No-------------0 Which season production gives you the highest product? -------- Belg--------1,Meher------- 0 If yes, what are your major crops you cultivate? Type of annual major crop
Area allocated in timade
In Belg season In meher season
If the answer for question is No, what are possible reasons? Possible reasons Rank the reasons
No enough rainfall
100
We fear crop failure
A crop does not give enough output
Did you plant in your farmland drought resistant crops? ------- If Yes--------1, if No---------0 If yes what are these and their area allocated? Type of drought resistant crop Yes No Area allocated in timade
Inset
Cassava
Sorghum
Sweet potato
Averagely how many times do you cultivate (weed) your seasonal crops after sawing? Type of annual major crops Number of weeding until harvest
Maize
Wheat
Section 8-Forestry soil and water conservation
Is your farm prone (lying face down) to erosion? -----------If Yes-----1, if No-----0
What portion of your farmland is affected by erosion?
Portion affected by erosion Yes No
none
All
half
More than half
Has erosion affected your farm severely before? -----------If Yes----1 if No------0 How do you see the level of erosion on your farming plots since you started farming? Level of erosion Yes No
Very sever
Severe
Mino
No problem
How serious is the decline in soil fertility, on your main plot, since you started farming?
101
decline in soil fertility Yes No
Very severe
Severe
Minor
No problem
Do you think that soil erosion will affect your farm in the future if situations remain Unchanged? Is there any soil and water conservation structure done on your farm land? --- if Yes---1,if No--- If yes, is that done by your own or other body?
Who done the structure Yes NO
By you
By Government body
By NGO’S
Section 9- Use of modern agricultural inputs
Do you use improved seed and chemical fertilizer for your agriculture?- --- If Yes---1, if No—0
If yes please tell me the amount?
no Type of crop Area cultivated in timade
Amount of chemical fertilizer used
Improved seed used in kg
Local fertilizer(compost)used in Kg
DAP UREA
1 Maize
2 wheat
If you can’t apply improved seed what is your main reasons? Reasons Rank
Price is high for it
don’t have enough money to purchase it
If you can’t apply chemical fertilizer what is your main reasons? Reasons Rank
Price is high for them
I don’t have enough money to buy it
Section 10-Agricultural extension services
102
Has your households’ received extension service from any government? --- if Yes ---1. If No-----0 Are there agricultural development agents (DA) in your Peasant Association? - if Yes --1. if No-Has the development agent visited your farm during the year 2002/2003 E.C--if Yes --1. If No--0 Do you use oxen for your farm operation? --------If Yes-----1, if No-----0 If yes, how many oxen’s do you have in number that helps to plow? ----------------------- If yes, to above question how many times? Number of visit Yes No
One time
Two times
What was the purpose of the visit? purpose of the visit Yes No
To give advice on crop production
To give advice on animal production
Section11-Access to various services Type of service Unit of measurement Total service unit
How far is the market that you can buy and sell food from your home
km minute
What other means do you use to fulfill the food requirements of your family Other than production? Means used to fulfill the food gap yes NO Food purchase Food aid Section 12-Marketing and credit Did your family buy any food from the market this year? ---------- -if Yes----------1ifNo---------0 If yes in which months do you buy more usually, please tell me the months? If you are buying food items from markets, is the price increasing or decreasing? _________ Approximately how much did you spent to buy food items last six months? ------------birr
Which food item do you purchase mostly from the market? Type of crop bought yes No
Cereals(maize, wheat, barley, sorghum, teff)
Root and tubers (cassava, yam, taro, enset)
What is your means for transporting goods? Means of transportation Yes No
pack animals
human
Is there any credit facility /institute in this area /woreda?------------if Yes-----1, ifNo-----0
103
This years, have you taken out a loan?-----------if Yes ----1;if No ---- 0 Are you ready to borrow money from credit institutes?----------if Yes----1, if No------0 If no what are the possible answers? Possible reasons Yes No
I don’t have plane what to do
I fear any government intervened credits
Do you have saving habit? ----- If Yes----1, ifNo---0 if yes amount saved last year ___ birr.
Is your family participating in safety net programme? ---------If Yes-----1, if No------0
Is your family included in any food security programme? -------if Yes---1, if No---0
If yes, in which programme? ----------------------------------------- How do you like to sustain your family in the future?
Means to sustain yes NO
Cultivation
Livestock production
Engage in other off- farm activities
Are you happy living in this agro-ecology? -------------If Yes---1, if No----0
If not what are the main reason that makes you not happy?
reasons rank
Having small land holding
decreased soil fertility and low production
existence of disease
Do you participate always in all public meetings? ---------If yes-----1 if No-----0 Does your family practice in family planning? ----------If Yes------1, if No------0 If yes which family planning methods do you use? Type of family planning Yes No
Pills
Injection
Condom
104
If you do not use family planning, reasons are Main reasons Yes No
Causes health problem
Section13- Livestock production and management
Does your family have livestock’s? ---------If yes-----1, if No-------0. If yes please give the list.
Type of livestock
Number currently owned
Current market estimate
Number not owned but cared for(adera yetkemet)
Number owned but away ithothers(adera yetesete)
Total owned
Total market estimate
Bulls/oxen
Young bulls
What is area of land allocated for animal feed in Timade? -----------------
Which animal disease repeatedly occurs in your area?
Rank Name of animal disease Time of occurrence in months
1st
2nd
Did you spend for veterinary services during the last 12 months? -----If Yes----1, if No-----0
If yes how much was the total cost for veterinary services? -------------------------------birr
Is there any animal death in last 6 months from your home? ---------If Yes----1, if No-----0
If yes how many and estimated price in market? Number of animal’s dead---------Estimated market price in birr------
What is the main mode of feeding for your livestock?
Mode of feeding yes No
Open grazing
Intensive lot feeding
What is the main source of feed for your live stokes?
Main source of feed yes No
Open communal range land
Private Grazing land
Did you purchase feed for your livestock during the last 12 months? ----if Yes---1,if No---0
Section14 – households’ income
Source of income Unit quantity Unit price Total sale in birr
crop sale
105
crop sale
Animal sale
Section 15-Off- farm income
Has anyone from your households’ migrated in the past year? -------if Yes...... 1, if No.........0 if yes where did they go? Place of migration yes No
Within woreda
Outside woreda.
In which season did they go mostly?
Time of migration yes No
Kola harvest season
Does your family have any job other than agriculture that increase households’ income? If yes what are they?
Type of activity Yes No
Hand craft (pottery, Blacksmith ,fencing)
Trade in livestock or livestock products
Trade in grain and others
Selling beverage
Wage work
Would you please tell total family off-farm income? ---------------birr
Section 16 -Copping mechanisms
How do your households’ used to cope during crop failures?
Type of cooping Yes No Rank
Sale of livestock
Reduce the number of meals
Wage employment
Eating wild food
106
STATA-10 OUTPUTS
Note: 61 failures and 36 successes completely determined. _cons ----11111111....55550000333388887777 4444....555588880000111177777777 ----2222....55551111 0000....000011112222 ----22220000....44448888000088886666 ----2222....555522226666888899992222 MONTH ....8888111166668888555522222222 ....3333777799990000555599991111 2222....11115555 0000....000033331111 ....0000777733339999000099999999 1111....555555559999777799994444 landqulity 8888....333322221111222277772222 2222....222288880000888811112222 3333....66665555 0000....000000000000 3333....888855550000999966662222 11112222....77779999111155558888 saving ....0000000011110000111177774444 ....0000000000006666333300002222 1111....66661111 0000....111100006666 ----....0000000000002222111177777777 ....0000000022222222555522225555extensions~t 5555....222266666666666644446666 2222....000055554444111166663333 2222....55556666 0000....000011110000 1111....222244440000555566661111 9999....222299992222777733331111participa~1n 7777....111188883333111144442222 1111....888888884444000022222222 3333....88881111 0000....000000000000 3333....444499990000555522228888 11110000....88887777555577776666accesstoro~m ----....000077775555222288886666 ....0000444433339999222233336666 ----1111....77771111 0000....000088887777 ----....1111666611113333777744446666 ....0000111100008888000022227777technologi~d 6666....444477775555777722226666 1111....777766660000000055557777 3333....66668888 0000....000000000000 3333....000022226666000077777777 9999....999922225555333377774444amountoffo~d ....000000008888000011113333 ....0000111188880000555588883333 0000....44444444 0000....666655557777 ----....0000222277773333888800006666 ....0000444433334444000066665555educationo~d ....5555111111118888666666666666 ....2222666600002222666688881111 1111....99997777 0000....000044449999 ....0000000011117777555500005555 1111....000022221111999988883333totalofffa~e ....0000000022224444777799991111 ....000000000000777788882222 3333....11117777 0000....000000002222 ....0000000000009999444466664444 ....0000000044440000111111118888livestocko~u 1111....666622225555777766663333 ....3333777722228888777799992222 4444....33336666 0000....000000000000 ....8888999944449999333333332222 2222....333355556666555599993333 farmsize 9999....999911112222222299994444 2222....777700005555333333332222 3333....66666666 0000....000000000000 4444....666600009999999944441111 11115555....22221111444466665555 familysize ----5555....444422222222777711119999 1111....000066660000999933332222 ----5555....11111111 0000....000000000000 ----7777....555500002222111100007777 ----3333....33334444333333333333 foodsecuri~c Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] Robust
Log pseudolikelihood = ----8888....8888111155556666222233335555 Pseudo R2 = 0000....9999333344443333 Prob > chi2 = 0000....0000000000000000 Wald chi2(11113333) = 55553333....33333333Logistic regression Number of obs = 222200000000
VIF test output
Mean VIF 1111....33338888 amountoffo~d 1111....11110000 0000....999900009999111199994444extensions~t 1111....11116666 0000....888866661111222211115555educationo~d 1111....11117777 0000....888855555555888811115555technologi~d 1111....22220000 0000....888833336666777755556666totalofffa~e 1111....22226666 0000....777799990000555522227777 saving 1111....22227777 0000....777788886666777700003333 landqulity 1111....22228888 0000....777788884444111177776666numberofmo~h 1111....22229999 0000....777777778888111155559999accesstoro~m 1111....44442222 0000....777700004444888833336666 familysize 1111....44442222 0000....777700002222444488881111participa~1n 1111....55556666 0000....666644441111888844443333 farmsize 1111....88887777 0000....555533335555999955551111livestocko~u 2222....00001111 0000....444499996666666688886666 Variable VIF 1/VIF
. vif
107
Contingency coefficient
foodsecuri~c ----0000....0000000055559999 ----0000....0000222299993333 0000....5555888833333333 0000....3333888866660000 1111....0000000000000000 technologi~d 0000....0000777755550000 0000....1111555511114444 0000....2222333322221111 1111....0000000000000000 participa~1n ----0000....1111444433337777 0000....0000888855557777 1111....0000000000000000 extensions~t ----0000....0000777755559999 1111....0000000000000000 landqulity 1111....0000000000000000 landqu~y extens~t parti~1n techno~d foodse~c
Odds Ratio
Note: 61 failures and 36 successes completely determined. MONTH 2222....222266663333333366664444 ....8888555577779999444488888888 2222....11115555 0000....000033331111 1111....00007777666677771111 4444....777755557777888844443333 landqulity 4444111111110000....333388885555 9999333377775555....000011114444 3333....66665555 0000....000000000000 44447777....00003333888833332222 333355559999111188880000....8888 saving 1111....000000001111000011118888 ....0000000000006666333300008888 1111....66661111 0000....111100006666 ....9999999999997777888822223333 1111....000000002222222255555555extensions~t 111199993333....777766665555 333399998888....0000222244448888 2222....55556666 0000....000011110000 3333....444455557777555555551111 11110000888855558888....8888participa~1n 1111333311117777....00004444 2222444488881111....333333332222 3333....88881111 0000....000000000000 33332222....88880000333322226666 55552222888877778888....77775555accesstoro~m ....9999222277774444777788882222 ....0000444400007777333388882222 ----1111....77771111 0000....000088887777 ....8888555500009999777733332222 1111....000011110000888866661111technologi~d 666644449999....1111999900001111 1111111144442222....666611112222 3333....66668888 0000....000000000000 22220000....6666111166662222 22220000444444442222....55556666amountoffo~d 1111....000000008888000044445555 ....0000111188882222000033335555 0000....44444444 0000....666655557777 ....9999777722229999999900009999 1111....000044444444333366662222educationo~d 1111....666666668888444400003333 ....444433334444222233332222 1111....99997777 0000....000044449999 1111....000000001111777755552222 2222....777777778888666699999999totalofffa~e 1111....000000002222444488882222 ....000000000000777788884444 3333....11117777 0000....000000002222 1111....000000000000999944447777 1111....00000000444400002222livestocko~u 5555....000088882222222299995555 1111....888899995555000088882222 4444....33336666 0000....000000000000 2222....444444447777111177772222 11110000....55555555444499993333 farmsize 22220000111177776666....99991111 55554444555588885555....22225555 3333....66666666 0000....000000000000 111100000000....4444777788883333 4444000055551111777700001111 familysize ....0000000044444444111155551111 ....0000000044446666888844442222 ----5555....11111111 0000....000000000000 ....0000000000005555555511119999 ....0000333355553333111199992222 foodsecuri~c Odds Ratio Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] Robust
Log pseudolikelihood = ----8888....8888111155556666222233335555 Pseudo R2 = 0000....9999333344443333 Prob > chi2 = 0000....0000000000000000 Wald chi2(11113333) = 55553333....33333333Logistic regression Number of obs = 222200000000
108
Marginal effect table
(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1 MONTH ....0000000044449999111177773333 2222....77772222 landqulity* ....8888444477771111444400005555 ....11118888 saving 6666....11112222eeee----00006666 555577773333....888877775555extensionservicegotservice1donot* ....000011110000999988885555 ....888888885555participatininpublicmeetingyes1n* ....1111000000004444444422228888 ....555599995555 accesstoroadeinkm ----....0000000000004444555533332222 11118888....9999888822225555technologicaladoptionusedfertand* ....0000444477775555333322227777 ....666677775555 amountoffoodaidrecived ....0000000000000000444488882222 44443333....4444 educationofhhhead ....0000000033330000888811113333 2222....33334444 totalofffarmincome ....0000000000000000111144449999 666611117777....3333 livestockownedbytlu ....0000000099997777888866668888 4444....77774444444444443333 farmsize ....0000555599996666777700002222 1111....11119999111111118888 familysize ----....0000333322226666444433338888 5555....99997777 variable dy/dx X = ....0000000066660000555566665555 y = Pr(foodsecuritystatusesecured1insec) (predict)Marginal effects after logistic