Introduction and overview

1. DETERMINANTS OF FOOD SECURITY: IDENTIFYING THE NEXUS BETWEEN GENDER AND FOOD SECURITY IN SWN Richard Watuwa

2. Introduction and overview • Definition of food security the area of coverage of our project. • Theoretical background to empirical assessment of underlying factors of food security. • Measurement of food security : Indicators. • The gender productivity gap in agriculture. • New ways of doing things in future (avoiding impulse to action) • Conclusion

3. Defining food security • “Food security ... [is achieved] 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). • Four equally important core concepts: -food availability; (productivity; supply) -food access; (purchasing power) -food utilization;(behavior; knowledge) -vulnerabilkity: risk; (shocks- climate, conflict, epidemics)

4. Food Security Where? Economy of Interest • South West Nigeria: Ondo, Oyo, Osun & Ekiti • Population of 16.51 million people(Canada 34million) • Surface area: all four states 59,558 sq. km. (Canada: 9,984,670 sq km. 167 times!) • Income per capita: $ 2,186 (Canada 41,000 roughly 19 times); Unadjusted $592. • Sample 1785 all four states

5. Theory on Determinants of Food Security • Equilibrium model of demand and supply for household modeled as a consumer and producer • Specifies a utility function from two household produced goods, one purchased good and leisure Straus (1983) • Household maximizes utility subject to production, income and time constraints • First order conditions are used to derive consumption demand which then is converted into available calories

6. Theory on Determinants of Food Security • The supply side determinants are adoption of technology, farm size, land and type of farming system • The demand side factors include household size, per capita aggregate production, wealth and off-farm incomes • In empirical implementation a reduced form is used with various specifications augmented by socio economic attributes

7. Indicators and hhs. level measures

8. Measuring Food Security • Baseline survey 1,785 respondents; 24 hr. recall of food groups eaten; how many times monthly; compute daily per capita intake. • Data on monthly food purchases; derive daily per capita food expenditure; Run regression estimate poverty line: faokcl=2150; fds=N90

9. Energy Intake by State

10. Direct Energy and Food Poverty

11. Measuring Food Security • We use Forster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) index based on the headcount ratio for incidence, food security gap for the extent and the squared food security gap for severity. • The generic index is:

12. Measuring Food Security • The first measure we consider is the simplest and most widely used one, the headcount index or headcount ratio

13. Measuring Food Security • The second measure we use is the food insecurity gap • Sums up the extent to which individuals or households on average are found to fall below the food security line and expressed as a percentage of the food security line. • It defines the food security gap for each individual as the food security line (z) less the actual daily caloric intake (y) for food insecure individuals.

14. Food Security Gap • The measure represents the mean proportionate food security gap since the food secure have a zero food security gap. • Allows for only uniform concern for the food insecure since it weights food security gaps equally

15. Severity of food insecurity index • Squared food Security Gap • Takes inequality into account setting α to a value of 2. The effect of squaring is to implicitly put more weight on cases farther below the food security line.

16. Sen and Sen-Shorrocks • Fourth and fifth measures are the Sen index and the Sen-Shorrocks-Thon index:

17. Food Poverty Measures Oyo State

18. Bootstrap Standard Errors • There are no closed form solutions for determining standard errors for Sen index and the Sen-Shorrocks-Thon index • We use bootsrap methodology; the empirical distribution of estimated parameters and other statistics under the null hypothesis or null model are simulated using randomly resampled data • The standard error is the standard deviation of the bootstrap stats (Efron 1979); • results on food poverty indicators follow below

19. Food Poverty Measures SW Nigeria

20. Food Poverty Measures Osun State

21. Food Poverty Measures Ondo State

22. Food Poverty Measures Ekiti State

23. Food Poverty Measures Forest AEZ

24. Food Poverty Derived Savannah

25. Food Poverty Savannah

26. Gender Gap Persistence and UIV • Sustainable solution of food security requires productivity growth in agriculture • A level increase in income does not guarantee productivity growth nor enhanced food security • At regional and national level in Africa a major challenge to growth is gender inequality • The gender productivity gap is more pronounced in agriculture

27. Gender Productivity Gap in Agriculture

28. The Gap is Persistent • First possible explanation for this persistence is neglect • The second basis is well illustrated in Corporate Finance • Research on performance of corporations as measured by Tobin’s Q on productivity and the Sharpe Ratio for financial performance shows Firms with female CEOs perform worse than male headed firms

29. The Gap is Persistent • The poorer performance is explained by the distinction between the “glass ceiling” and the “glass cliff’ • The evidence shows that the majority of women CEOs are appointed to poorly performing firms • Having broken the glass ceiling they also almost always get much less support while running the firms hence operate at the point of a glass cliff • Analogous to having access to inputs and continuing to experience the productivity gap above

30. UIV Project Makes a Difference • Recognize that gender productivity gap is better assessed by considering returns by women farmers after controlling for provision of inputs and their quality • It is not enough to emphasize access to credit, fertilizer and land • Allocation of poorer quality land, fertilizer and harsher credit terms will perpetuate the gap • How is UIV different?

31. UIV Project Makes a Difference • Focus on women from the beginning • Participation in decision making and research • Productivity gap much smaller • Remarkable statement from male land owner: with this rate of return on UIVs I prefer to grow and sell them for myself to renting my land to women vegetable farmers • Extension work is gender sensitized; better information sharing; new technologies on doorstep

32. Different approaches in Future • Based on recommended kilocalories per capita, the incidence, intensity and inequality of food insecurity in SW Nigeria is quite high • Our approach helps to bridge the gender productivity gap • Use of Randomized Controlled Experiments to study factors underlying food insecurity .Use of general equilibrium model to assess the regional impact of the UIV project • Include entrepreneurship intervention

33. Conclusion • Based on emerging results in the first phase, it is crucial to scale this effort up on regional and national basis • End line survey : an assessment of the same indicators based on end line survey data will shed more light on the status of food security and the gender productivity gap after the fist project cycle.