The Nigeria Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA) was conducted in conjunction with the World Food Program (WFP) to increase understanding of the impact of food insecurity on lower income Nigerians in order to provide relevant information for policy makers on how to better address the root causes of hunger, malnutrition and vulnerability. This assessment relies on national household data from the Living Standards Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). Study highlights: • Most Nigerians work in the Agricultural sector • Livelihoods that are agriculture related are disproportionately poor • Poverty is more prevalent in rural areas, and also in the Northern regions (particularly the North West and North East) • There are major regional differences in educational attainment, in addition to large gender gaps in education in rural areas and the Northern regions • Women in poorer wealth quintiles are less likely to breastfeed • Very few Nigerians have access to proper refuse disposal facilities or to safe and hygienic sources of water • Poorer households have reduced access to proteins (particularly animal based proteins) • Huge divide exists between urban and rural households in terms of access to resources, living standards, and food security status

1. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Thematic study on food insecurity
and vulnerability in Nigeria
Oluyemisi Kuku-Shittu, Astrid Mathiassen, Amit Wadhwa,
Lucy Myles and Akeem Ajibola
NSSP Seminar Series,
Feb 14, 2013

2. Introduction
 A Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability
Analysis (CFSVA). Attempt to develop broad-based
national indicators on food security and vulnerability
of various segments of a population across regions.
 Joint report with WFP
 Data: Living Standards Measurement Study-
Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA).
• National bureau of statistics (NBS) and the World
Bank.
• Approx. 5000 respondents who are interviewed
every two years.
• This analysis relies on post-harvest data

3. Key Findings
 Food insecurity and poverty are intricately linked
 The poorest livelihoods are found in agriculture
 Households that engage in agriculture and other
activities fare better than those in agriculture alone
 The vulnerable and food insecure are mostly found
in rural areas and the North West and North East
regions of Nigeria
 While most households in all regions and at all
wealth levels purchase food, rural households and
poorer households (by wealth and livelihood) also
rely heavily on own food production.

4. Key Findings
 Nigerians generally consume a starchy diet, but
wealthier households are able to afford more
nutrient rich foods (including animal based
proteins) than poorer households.
 Households protect vulnerable household
members in terms of food allocations, although
difficult tradeoffs may occur in poorer
households.
 Poor households engage in extreme coping
strategies to deal with food shortages

5. Dimensions of food security
Availability
• Domestic production
• Commercial imports
• Reserves and food aid
Access
• Household production
• Financial resources to
purchase food
• Food prices and
markets
• Existence of
formal/informal social
safety nets
Utilization
• Care and feeding
practices
• Food preparation
• Intra-household
distribution
• Biological utilization of
food consumed
Food Security
Stability

6. What is food security?
“Food security exists when all people, at
all times, have physical, social, and
economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food which meets their dietary
needs and food preferences for an active
and healthy life.”
– World Food Summit, 1996

7. Vulnerability
The probability of an acute decline in
access to food, or consumption, often in
reference to some critical value that
defines minimal values of human
wellbeing.

8. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS

9. Food Consumption Score
 The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a composite score
based on dietary diversity, food frequency and the relative
nutritional importance of different food groups
 The FCS serves as a proxy for current food security
 The FCS is calculated by observing the frequency by which
households consume various food items over a seven day
recall period
 Each food item is put into a category and the categories
are given a weight based on its relative nutritional value
 The FCS was developed and extensively used by WFP in
food security assessments

10. Food Consumption Groups
 Food consumption groups are created from the FCS based on
standard thresholds
 A FCS of 21 is a minimum. A FCS below 21 assumes a household
does NOT to eat at least staple foods and vegetables on a daily
basis and is thus considered to have a poor diet.
 A FCS between 21 and 35 reflects borderline food consumption. A
FCS of 35 assumes daily consumption of staple and vegetables
complemented by consumption of oil and pulses 4 days per week.
Food consumption group Standard threshold
Poor food consumption 0 – 21
Borderline food consumption 21.5 - 35
Acceptable food consumption >35.5

11. Wealth Index:
A proxy indicator of household level wealth
 The wealth index is a composite index which attempts to measure
wealth without relying on income and expenditure data
 The index is created by using a form of data reduction analysis
called Principle Component Analysis (PCA)
 A number of variables are used collectively to describe the wealth
of a household. In Nigeria, 16 variables were used to construct
the wealth index
 After creating the index, the households are ranked and placed in
quintiles to describe wealth groups within the population
Assets Households amenities
• TV
• Mobile phone
• Iron / sewing machine
• Refrigerator / stove
• Electricity generator
• Car
• Sofa / chairs / table
• Improved walls / roof / floor
• Improved drinking water
• Improved sanitation
• Electricity
• Cooking fuel

12. Distribution of households with
unimproved amenities
19
29
32
36
42
44
48
69
85
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
roof
floor
cell phone
drinking water
toilet
electricity
outer wall
cooking fuel
refuse disposal

13. Livelihood groups
 Due to the lack of proper income data we rely
on time use data to assign household
livelihood groups.
 Household members reports time spent in
income generating activities. Total time spent
in each activity is added for all household
members.
 We assign the household to a livelihood
group according to the proportion of time
spent in the income generating activities.

14. Description of livelihood profiles
Livelihood group Definition
Subsistence farmer, fisherman or
hunter only All time use in subsistence activities only
Mixed crop or cash crops only All time use in agricultural activities only
Mainly agriculture with other
activities
More than 50 percent of time in agriculture, with other
activities
Mainly industrial laborer
More than 50 percent of time use as an industry
employee
Mainly small business (craftsman) Mainly self employed artisans and craftsmen
Mainly business/commerce
Mainly managing a business, involved in sales, and other
larger commercial activities
Mainly livestock/poultry More than 50 percent of time use in animal husbandry
Mainly professionals
Salaried workers in public or private sector with
professional qualifications.
Mainly service laborers
More than 50 percent of time use in provision of services
that require no rigorous qualification
Agricultural & non agricultural
mixed activities
Carries out a variety of livelihood activities in agriculture
and other sectors
Non agricultural mixed activities
Carries out a variety of activities in the non-agricultural
sector.

15. Distribution of total households
in each livelihood group
3.8
15.2
13.3
7.7
5.0
21.4
1.6
11.3
12.3
4.3 4.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percent

16. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
DEMOGRAPHICS

17. Household characteristics
Household head (%) Basic literacy(%)
male household head spouse
Zone
North central 89 56 33
North east 97 50 29
North West 98 62 45
South East 71 61 68
South South 77 72 75
South West 79 73 73
Sector
Urban 82 78 72
Rural 86 55 42

18. On average about half of the household
members are dependents (children or elderly)
9
11
26
46
8
8
10
23
52
6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
< 3 years
3-5 years
6-14 years
15-59 years
60+ years
female
male

19. Health: Breastfeeding and
supplementation.
Percentage of children
exclusively breast fed
for first six months
Percentage of children
given vitamin A
supplementation
Wealth quintile
Poorest 11 37
Poorer 11 38
Moderate 15 56
Wealthier 14 64
Wealthiest 21 74

20. Health: Access to unimproved
amenities by geographic region
50
48
39
34
24
27
20
45
70
50
34
33
39
36
26
52
96
96
93
87
87
65
67
97
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
North central
North east
North west
South east
South south
South west
Urban
RuralRegionZone
refuse disposal
toilet
drinking water

21. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FOOD SECURITY AND
VULNERABILITY INDICATORS

22. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
WHICH GROUPS ARE MOST
VULNERABLE?

23. Geographic distribution of wealth
25.5
36.2
38.2
8.9
6.4
9.4
31.5
25.6
30.4
30.5
16.3
13.4
9.8
7.7
28.1
21.1
17.8
18.4
26.4
21.0
17.4
20.4
19.8
19.1
10.9
9.2
25.4
27.7
25.5
30.1
13.3
8.7
23.1
31.5
37.9
39.4
7.2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
North Central
North East
North West
South East
South South
South West
Urban
Rural
RegionSector
poorest poorer moderate wealthier wealthiest

24. Poorest livelihood groups by sector
2
8
10
98
92
90
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Mainly livestock production
Subsistence farmer, fisher, hunter
Mixed crop or cash crops farmer
urban
rural

25. Vulnerability: High food expenditures
48%
27%
62%
50%
64%
73%
39% 41%
29%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
National
Urban
Rural
NorthCentral
NorthEast
NorthWest
SouthEast
SouthSouth
SouthWest
Sector Zone
Food expenditure share >75% by region

26. Vulnerability: High Food expenditures
by livelihood group
71
66
61
40 41
36
78
29
34
54
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

27. Food Sources by geographic area
58
59
66
67
70
72
73
62
14
11
16
14
13
19
20
12
26
28
18
17
14
5
4
24
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
North central
North east
North west
South east
South south
South west
Urban
Rural
RegionSector
Purchased
Away from home
Own production

28. Food sources by wealth quintile
• Poorer households rely more on own production, but purchased food
is the most important category for in all wealth groups
56
62
67
72
75
10
12
15
18
20
31
24
15
8
4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Poorest
Poorer
Moderate
Wealthier
Wealthiest
Purchased
Away from home
Own production

29. Food sources by livelihood group
50
59
61
69
70
71
55
70
72
61
76
10
8
10
20
20
17
8
18
20
12
20
37
30
26
10
8
9
36
9
7
24
3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Subsistence farmer, fisher, hunter
Mixed crop or cash crops farmer
Mainly agriculture with other activities
Mainly industrial laborer
Mainly self-employed artisans
Mainly business/commerce
Mainly livestock production
Mainly professional
Mainly service laborer
Mixed activities
Non-agricultural mixed activities
Purchased
Away from home
Own production

30. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FOOD CONSUMPTION AND FOOD
DEFICIT COPING STRATEGIES

31. Mean number of days per week food item
is consumed at home
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.7
6.1
6.7
6.3
6.4
6.6
2.9
3.0
3.8
2.9
2.3
2.8
2.9
3.1
2.9
4.9
5.1
5.4
5.5
4.1
4.9
4.5
4.9
5.0
3.7
3.9
3.1
2.3
3.8
5.0
4.2
4.3
3.4
2.5
2.6
3.8
3.4
2.5
2.4
5.4
5.7
5.5
5.9
4.9
5.7
4.8
5.3
5.4
0 10 20 30
National
North Central
North East
North West
South East
South South
South West
Urban
Rural
RegionSector
cereals and tubers
pulses
vegetables
fruit
meat and fish
milk
sugar
oil
Days

32. Frequency food item is consumed by
wealth quintile-starches
11
12
13
16
19
88
86
85
82
80
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Poorest
Poorer
Moderate
Wealthier
Wealthiest
rarely (0-2 times per week) sometimes (3-5 times per week) frequently (6-7 times per week)

33. Frequency food item is consumed by
wealth quintile- animal proteins
37
25
15
12
8
27
29
27
19
20
36
46
59
69
72
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Poorest
Poorer
Moderate
Wealthier
Wealthiest
rarely (0-2 times per week) sometimes (3-5 times per week) frequently (6-7 times per week)

34. Food consumption categories by
wealth quintile
9
5
5
4
2
20
15
12
14
13
71
80
82
82
85
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Poorest
Poorer
Moderate
Wealthier
Wealthiest
Wealthquintile
Poor
Borderline
Acceptable

35. Intrahousehold food allocations: Household
members with least diverse diet
Men Women Children
Poorest
47 26 27
Poorer
43 21 36
Moderate
69 18 13
Wealthier
72 17 11
Wealthiest
79 12 8

36. Causes of food shortages
6
2
5
5
4
16
21
36
3
7
10
14
16
8
5
29
0 10 20 30 40
Civil unrest/riots
Crop pest damage
Drought
Small land size
Lack of farm inputs
Other reasons
Financial hardship
High food prices
Rural
Urban

37. Most frequent coping strategies for
dealing with food shortages
• Poorer households use more severe coping strategies
0 2 4 6 8 10
Poorest
Poorer
Moderate
Wealthier
Wealthiest
Go a whole day and night without
eating anything
Go to sleep at night hungry because
there is not enough food
Have no food of any kind in your
household
Borrow food, or rely on help from a
friend or relative

38. Recommendations
 Better funding for data collection efforts
 Culturally appropriate interventions to bridge gender gap
in education
 Targeted food support for low income breastfeeding
women
 Local and State government need to do better in
providing water and sanitation amenities
 Improved access to animal proteins
 Maximum support for ATA to increase opportunities and
incomes for poor rural farmers.

39. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
THANK YOU