Report on a household economy survey of two livelihood zones in Kantché and Districts Region

December 2009

Prepared by Jeanlouise Conaway, Consultant for FEG Consulting

[This report is designed to accompany the Livelihood Zone Profiles which have been produced separately. The intention is to provide information on the methodology and to offer expanded comments on the interpretation and implications of the survey results.]

1 INTRODUCTION

HEA is a based on a framework that captures information on people’s patterns of livelihoods in order to predict how they will be affected by a particular shock. HEA baseline information is collected by livelihood zone and by wealth group. The baselines lay out how people access the food and cash they need to survive and prosper. The approach is based on a snapshot of life in a typical year, which also provides information on the timing of key activities allowing one to better understand the seasonality of rural life. The analysis, though frequently used to for food security purposes, is also quite telling when it comes to examining livelihood security- which is especially useful in where frequently the two are indistinguishable due to the cash-based economies on which many households depend for access to food.

In an HEA analysis, one does not talk of generally ‘vulnerable populations’ but rather of populations vulnerable to something specific. Because the baselines provide a systems- based understanding of livelihoods, HEA is able to make predictions of outcomes based on how vulnerable a household is to a particular hazard. The Livelihoods Baselines are the basis for the ‘vulnerability’ variable in the R=f(V,H) equation, where risk (R), vulnerability (V) and hazard (H) can be summarised as: R = f (H,V) And where: Risk = likelihood of a negative outcome (e.g. food deficit); Hazard = likelihood of exposure to a hazard (e.g. drought); Vulnerability = likelihood that people will not be able to cope with a defined hazard1. It is important to make the distinction of populations’ vulnerability and poverty, though it might be true that poorer people are at most risk to be impacted by hazards. Understanding how and why these households are affected by shocks is key to developing appropriate responses (if taking a short term, emergency view) and to addressing ways in which vulnerability to particular hazards could be mitigated over time (taking a longer term view).

Save the Children UK has carried out several HEA baselines as well as other HEA adapted assessments in Niger. These efforts include baseline development in and departments, a rapid food security assessment in Kantché, the evaluation of a cash transfer program in Tessaoua as well as HEA trainings and fieldwork in Dosso region. The findings of this current study are in-line with HEA studies that have come before, particularly in the Tessaoua district, which is not surprising given the proximity of the area to the zones studied in . Notable similarities include the following findings sighted in the HEA Tessaoua District Report in September 2007:

- Niger’s rural economy is highly cash-oriented; - food security for the poor is highly market-dependent; - food security and livelihood security are all but indistinguishable. - Disparity between poorer and wealthier households is especially marked in the southern parts of the country where economies tend to be more cash dependent; - Livestock is of primary importance to incomes of better-off households in agricultural areas and is due in large part to the Nigerian demand for meat.

1 Boudreau, Tanya “Putting the Ability back in Vulnerability”, Food Security Early Warning Systems and the Livelihoods Integration Unit in Ethiopia, November 2007.

The geographical focus of the current study is two districts in the southern part of the Zinder region, Kantché and Magaria. While many of the overall themes and conclusions are similar to previous HEA inquiries, the currently study offers insight into the household economies in these two departments including the specific ways and extent to which agriculture and livestock production are geared toward the greater regional cash economy. HEA baselines for livelihood zones located within these departments are being developed in line with efforts on the part of Save the Children UK to launch a food security program in these districts in collaboration with the CR/CSRs-PGCA.

2 METHODOLOGY

The HEA baseline development for Kantché and Magaria was both a livelihoods study and training exercise where participants learned the theory and principles behind the HEA approach and then through the fieldwork continued to learn while doing as they applied the tools and techniques while gathering the data needed to facilitate livelihoods based analysis. Participants in the study included staff from the Zinder Regional Committee for the Prevention and Management of Food Crisis (CR/PGCA), the Magaria and Kantché Sub-regional Committees for the Prevention and Management of Food Crisis (CSR/PGCA), Save the Children UK and the Consortium for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), a group of NGOs that includes ACH, CARE, Concern and MASNAT. A complete list of participants is included as Annex 3. One advantage of having a large number of regional and district level staff was the wealth of local knowledge and expertise they were able to bring especially when it came to examining the zoning and during the selection of villages to be included in the study. There were also challenges associated with training a large number of people, primarily at the field/data collection level where smaller interview teams are preferred so that individuals have more opportunity to hone interviewing skills.

The exercise began with a six-day classroom training in Zinder from November 16-21, 2009 that included one day of practice field work in villages just outside of Zinder. The classroom training introduced participants to the fundamental principles of HEA, the types of information needed, how the information collected is analysed and interpreted as well an introduction to the basic format and tools used in baseline development. The practice day in the field allowed participants to begin to put the classroom training to the test, as they worked through one of the interview formats used to carry out HEA baseline inquiries. Some participants had previous exposure to HEA having been involved in Save the Children’s Rapid Assessment in Kantché in April 2008. This mix of experience and exposure to HEA enriched the discussions and helped connect theory to practice. Following the conclusion of the classroom training, the team set off to undertake three weeks of fieldwork from November 22 to December 11, 2009. After completion of the fieldwork, the team spent 3 days preparing the baseline storage spreadsheets and conducting the baseline analysis for the two zones studied.

Livelihood zones

Livelihood zones of Niger. Source: USAID/FEWSNET

The first step of HEA is defining the area to be studied by distinct livelihood zones. According to the livelihoods zone map developed by USAID/FEWSNET, Kantché and Magaria districts include two livelihood zones: Rainfed Agriculture (Zone 5) and Southern irrigated cash-cropping (zone 6). Using the broad-brush FEWSNET map as an initial reference, regional and department level experts on the team reexamined different livelihoods in the districts and concluded that at this more localized level there were an additional three livelihood zones that could be distinguished. These ‘new’ zones included an enclave within the irrigated cash-cropping zone (Zone Centrale) in which there are no irrigated fields and households depend on rainfed agriculture alone. The other zones identified were a southern band (Zone Sud) along the boarder with Nigeria, distinct because of the heavy influence on households there of commerce and cross-border trade as well as a (agro) pastoral zone in the extreme northeast of Magaria along the border with Gouré district.

Prepared by M. Ayatallahi, MASNAT

The team confirmed that the portion of northwestern Kantché (defined as the Zone Non- Irriguée in the map above) shares the same pattern of livelihoods as rainfed agriculturalists studied in neighboring Tessaoua region by Save the Children2. Resource limitations dictated that only two zones could be selected for the HEA baseline development as part of this study. The decision was taken to examine the irrigated cash- cropping zone (in green in the map above) and the Central Magaria zone (identified in light tan). The decision was based on maximizing geographical coverage of the two districts in the desire for improved understanding of the differences between households living in the non-irrigated and irrigated enclaves of the central zone.

Village selection Eight villages (the usual number sampled in an HEA survey of a zone) were selected in each of the two zones for the collection of baseline data. Regional and department level experts on the team proposed villages that best represented the livelihood characteristics identified for each zone. Because only eight villages are studied, using purposive rather than random sampling ensures that the cross section of villages to be included are as representative of the zone as possible. Villages that have unusual features or resources are excluded. This study focused on settled people, mainly Hausa, living within the villages rather than taking into account minority residents [i.e. Fulani

2 See the South-Central Livelihood Zone Profile for the Tessaoua district prepared by Save the Children-UK as part of HEA baseline fieldwork carried out in September 2007. agro-pastoralists] living in hamlets around the villages with livelihood patterns distinct from those of their Hausa neighbors.

Reference Year The fieldwork refers to the consumption year as opposed to the agricultural production year. The consumption year is the twelve-month period commencing with the main harvest and concluding just prior to the next harvest. The reference year should be the most recent year that can be considered relatively ‘normal’ i.e. without severe shocks or performance well above average. It should also be a year that can be easily recalled, since all the interview questions (prices, production, etc.) are based on what took place during that year. It should be noted that agricultural performance was not uniform across zones- and that even within the same zone, village level variations did occur. Prior to beginning the fieldwork, the team reviewed the performance in the two departments over the past seven years and concluded that the previous consumption year, October 2008 to September 2009, was the best choice. The year, while slightly above average, was suited to both livelihood zones, and would be most easily remembered by key informants and other interviewees.

Fieldwork The fieldwork was carried out by two teams collecting data for both zones (each team was responsible for collecting HEA information in four villages in each zone). Each team was directed by a field-team leader responsible for ensuring the quality of data collection, triangulation of results and the overall logic of the information collected. The fieldwork included village-level interviews with key informants to gather information on village history, crop and animal production, annual performance (to better understand the reference year and historical context in each site), seasonal information, price trends and data and finally characteristics that define relative wealth in the village - in this case productive assets associated with different wealth groups. Once the characteristics of each group were defined, the interviewers employed a proportional piling technique in which the key informants used beans to show the percentage of the village’s population that belonged to each group. Four wealth groups were sought to better understand the differences not only between rich and poor, but given the high proportions of poorer households in these zones (about 65% of households) differences between the poor and the poorest households. The interview format was generally broken out into three parts to expedite the data collection process as well as to give each field team members the chance to carry out the various part of the interview format.

Following the village level interview (usually the next day), focus group interviews were conducted with each of the four wealth groups defined during the village level interviews. Community leaders were asked to identify people from representative households from each of the four wealth groups and to form four focus groups of six people, three men and three women. The wealth group interviews collected information on sources of food, sources of income, information on expenditures as well as coping strategies for typical households in each wealth group. The wealth group interviews also gathered information on the main productive assets typical to each group (amount of land cultivated, details on livestock holdings and another assets), which were used to refine the same information gathered during the village level interviews.

Wealth group interviews were conducted in teams of two to three - with experienced HEA interviewers being matched up with those new to the methodology. The interviews were long-lasting, on average 3-4 hours. The interview format is the tool used to gather livelihoods information and has a series of built-in cross checks made during the interview itself, designed to help the interviewers build with the respondents a logical and complete picture of a typical household during the reference year. The cross checks include identifying and quantifying all sources of food so that they can be compared to 100% of total food energy requirements for the household for the year (based on the average of 2100 kcal per person per day). Data on income is compared with that of expenditures, so that the two are seen to be reasonably associated in amount, if not precisely matching. Above all, the interviews are aimed at gather information that is as complete and ‘adds up’ for a typical household in each wealth group in each village.

Data entry and analysis The data collected were entered into a pre-designed (excel) HEA baseline data storage spreadsheet. A number of individuals from Save the Children as well as one from Concern were trained and were responsible for entering the data (see annex 3 for individuals trained). Teamleaders who were responsible for training also entered data and reviewed the interviews checking the coherence of the information and following up where necessary. The baseline analysis was carried out in two separate teams- one for each zone and took a total of 2.5 days. The results were analysed for each wealth group to obtain a snapshot of the typical assets, level of production (crops and livestock), sources of food, cash and expenditures. The final analysis did not focus on the numbers alone; but triangulation between wealth groups and zones, cross checking the interviews and comparing secondary sources as well to as to develop a consistent and logical picture.

3 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS3

Sources of Food Zinder region is known as surplus-producing, indeed one of the breadbaskets of Niger. It is credited with a major role in filling the staple food gap in other parts of the country (40% of Niger’s millet production is produced in Maradi and Zinder regions alone)4. This study examined two livelihood zones covering much of the southern Zinder region. Despite above average production performance, both livelihood zones were not food self-sufficient during the reference year, with the majority of households dependent in some degree on the purchase of grains produced beyond the livelihood zones5. Both livelihood zones do have good production potential with productive soils and relatively ample rainfall. Most crop production however, is focused on non-staple cash crops – cowpeas, groundnuts and sesame- rather than on the production of staples for household consumption. The profit from cash crops is potentially much greater than that from cereal crops. These livelihood zones are located in close proximity to large Nigerian market centers (Maigatari, Mai’Adua, Garki) which supply and well as other Nigerian cities and households are harnessing agricultural productivity to maximize opportunities in the Nigerian market. The one exception is sugar cane which is sold to a mainly domestic market (Zinder, Tessaoua and ). These livelihood zones have highly cash-based economies due in large part to the demand from Nigeria. While they are highly productive areas, these livelihood zones cannot be considered part of the Zinder cereals breadbasket.

In terms of overall food access, 65% of households in the 120% Irrigated zone and 30% of households in the Central zone 100% were found to be below 100% 80% of total food requirements6. Middle and better-off 60% Central Zone households in both zones were Irrigated Zone more than able to cover their 40% total food needs, illustrating the stark differences between 20% poorer and better-off 0% households). The Central zone Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off produces more staple grains than the neighboring Irrigated zone. In comparing the Satisfaction of Minimum food requirements by livelihood zone

3 In this section major points are considered arising from the survey and detailing information on the needs of the most vulnerable groups as well as points of comparison between the irrigated and central livelihood zones. The main survey results are presented in the two Livelihood Profiles and are not all repeated here.

4 The Cereals Market in Niger: Findings from the 2005-2007 Market Surveys, J. Aker, 2007. 5 The reference year, October 2008 to September 2009, is based on the consumption of crops produced during the October 2008 harvest- which according to key informants was better than average(though not exceptional). 6 HEA follows the standard minimum food requirement of an average of 2100 Kcal per person per day. Food access is expressed as a percentage of these minimum food requirements. sources of food for poorer households in both zones, it is perhaps the higher consumption of own crops that brings poorer households in the Central zone closer to meeting total food needs than their fellows in the Irrigated zone. Middle and better-off households in the Central livelihood zone could survive on their crops alone if they chose to consume more and use less for other purposes; but with the same cannot be said for similar households in the Irrigated zone. Wealthier households in both zones sell some of their production, but they also use part of it as payment to agricultural workers (from poorer households within the same zone), and as zakat7 contributions, as well as retaining some grain stocks and seed reserves for the next planting.

Irrigated Livelihood Zone Central Livelihood Zone

120% 160%

140% 100% 120% 80% 100% 'Other' 'Other' 60% 80% Sold / Exchanged Sold / Exchanged Consumed 60% 40% Consumed 40%

20% 20%

0% 0% Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off Very Poor Middle Better-off Poor Production and use of food crops by typical households by livelihood zone

Although HEA calculations are made on the basis of satisfaction of energy (calorie) requirements, dietary variety is important especially for different micronutrients. The dietary diversity of wealthier households in both zones is distinctly greater than that of poorer households, due mainly to an increased ability to purchase amounts of non- staple foods. Poorer households do purchase milk, sugar and oil but in such small amounts that they do not significantly contribute to overall food consumption. Compared to the Central zone, poorer households in the Irrigated zone in the reference year tended to have a more varied diet due to access to vegetables from their own production, but they produced fewer cereals than poorer households in the Central zone and were not able to meet total energy requirements. It was noted that green leaves are collected and consumed by all households in both zones. The leaves give virtually no calories, but are important sources of micronutrients.

Households’ own production of milk is limited despite the culturally accepted practice of milking goats and cows. The study found that most households purchase milk instead of milking their own animals. It is a remarkable fact that the wealthier households own virtually all the cows in a village but drink little of their milk. These animals are entrusted to Fulani (Peul) herders who take care of the animals in exchange for rights to the milk – and it is the Peul who tend to sell milk to the Hausa who can afford it. Female goats

7 Zakat is a religious obligation that requires all households (wealthy as well as poor) to contribute 10% of rainfed production to village priests and those less fortunate. Irrigated garden crops are exempt from Zakat. (which are raised near the homestead) are milked and contribute in small part to diets of all but the very poorest households in the Central zone. However in the Irrigated zone, consumption of goat’s milk was not generally observed in any wealth group.

Irrigated Livelihood Zone Central Livelihood Zone

100% 100% Milk Meat Milk 80% 80% Oil Meat Sugar Sugar 60% 60% Pasta Pasta Tubers Legumes 40% 40% Legumes Rice

20% Rice 20% Maize Maize Sorghum

0% Sorghum 0% Millet Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off Millet Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off

Types of food consumed by typical households by livelihood zone

Sources of Cash There is a very wide gap between the incomes of poorer and 120000 wealthier households in both zones. Despite perceptions that 100000 the Irrigated zone is relatively 80000 wealthy, poorer and middle household incomes are 60000 Central Zone remarkably similar between the Irrigated Zone zones. It is only better-off 40000 households in the Irrigated zone 20000 whose incomes differ significantly from the Central zone. The 0 difference between the two zones Very Poor Poor Middle Better-Off is due to an additional asset robustly exploited by the better-off Total annual income per capita (in CFA) by livelihood zone in the irrigated zone: ground water for market gardening.

The small land holdings of poorer households are partly the cause of this acute disparity in wealth. The large livestock and cash crops that give most wealth are both dependent on substantial landholdings (in the case of livestock to provide feed from crop residues). Poorer households with fewer of these productive assets must depend on income from local labor, migratory work in Nigeria as well as a diversity of self-employment activities such as handicraft production, firewood sales and groundnut oil production. The structure of poverty in both zones can be seen as a reflection of the inability of poorer households to take greater part in the market opportunities created by Nigerian demand.

Irrigated Livelihood Zone Central Livelihood Zone

120,000 120,000

100,000 100,000

Savings 80,000 80,000 Livestock Product Sales Petty Trade Savings 60,000 Self-Employment 60,000 Petty Trade Labor Self-Employment 40,000 40,000 Livestock Sales Labor Crop Sales Livestock Sales 20,000 20,000 Crop Sales

0 0 Very Poor Poor Middle Better-Off Very Poor Poor Middle Better-Off

Total per capita cash income by source

Livestock Sales Livestock sales are the primary source of income for better-off households, 60000 and in this the difference between 50000 poorer and wealthier households is at its most extreme. This is perhaps an 40000 especially surprising result in the 30000 Central Zone Irrigated zone, an area known Irrigated Zone principally for its vegetable and sugar 20000 cane production. The primacy of 10000 livestock is again due to the high 0 prices for cattle and sheep created by Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off strong demand of the Nigerian market for meat. As with most cash crop sales, livestock sales, nearly all of Total per capita income (in CFA) from livestock sales by livelihood zone cattle and sheep, are destined for Nigerian markets; only goats are raised for mainly domestic consumption. Most livestock earnings for middle and better- off households are generated through the sale of cattle - representing 65-70% of total livestock income whilst sheep contribute 15-25%. Selected male cattle, goats and sheep are stall-fed to fatten them for the meat market. Milking cows are a much rarer sight, as most are entrusted to outside herders, thereby ‘freeing-up’ additional pasture and fodder for male animals. The investment of labor and money in stall-feeding reflects the high prices received for fattened animals. Donkeys are practically non-existent in the both livelihood zones, as people prefer to use oxen to transport goods and pull carts – and so owning an ox-cart, or even renting one from a wealthy neighbor, brings significant rewards. Oxen are stronger than donkeys, and have a much higher resale value. It is a typical practice for wealthier households to sell the older (larger) oxen at a profit and replace the animal with a younger (cheaper) bull-calf.

Even poorer households who do not own cattle or sheep do benefit somewhat through kyo. Kyo is a system of caretaking in which wealthier households entrust the care and feeding of one or more of their animals to a poorer household. In exchange, the poorer household receives 50% of the profits when the animal is sold. The importance to very poor households of this modest redistribution of livestock profit is that without it - they only have a few poultry and perhaps a goat (in the Central zone) to get any money from. Interestingly, due to the high prices fetched by cattle, poorer households in the Irrigated zone earn about 50% of their total livestock earning from the sale of cattle held in kyo. But these earnings are still very meager.

Crop Sales

Examining further the earnings from crop 40000 sales, one notes that differences in total sales between the two zones becomes 35000 marked only when comparing middle 30000 and better-off households: with wealthier 25000 households in the Irrigated zone earned 20000 2-3 times more than better-off Central Zone households in the Central zone in the 15000 Irrigated Zone reference year. Wealthier households in 10000 both zones cultivate large amounts of 5000 cowpeas and groundnuts for sale, but 0 households in the Irrigated zone grow Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off market vegetables and sugar cane as well. It is important to note in the Total per capita income (in CFA) from crop sales by livelihood Irrigated zone that while irrigated crops zone are indeed the top cash earners for crop sales overall, sales of rainfed cash crops account for 40% of all income from crop sales (the most important cash crops in the Irrigated zone being sugar cane and bell peppers immediately followed by groundnuts and cow peas). For both zones, the opportunity cost of growing food for consumption versus growing cash crops (and buying food) goes in favor of cash crops, even though farmers always devote a certain amount of land to food crops.

Middle and better-off in the irrigated zone are able Poorer people in an increasingly densely to take greater advantage of off-season irrigated populated zone will try to survive on less and crop production. These households are larger and less land of their own and possibly on less [local] employment as competition rises. The therefore have more labor available as well as the result should be that not only in bad years but cash to hire additional workers. Wealthier as a trend, the proportion of poor household households also have the cash necessary for the earnings which comes from migrant work outside of the country will rise. . . the poorest purchase of inputs required for vegetable will effectively be crowded out of the cash- gardening (fertilizers, pesticides). Poorer cropping economy. households are disadvantaged in all these FEWSNET Niger Livelihood Profiles, Southern Irrigated Cash-cropping Zone elements. Consequently, although poorer households have irrigated plots through inheritance, they will frequently pledge their lands to wealthier households in exchange for cash. This system (called gage in French) allows the household pledging their land to take up the to maximum sale value of their property in cash. In order to recover their land, they must simply payback the amount borrowed. Often the pledging of land occurs under severe economic pressure or food insecurity, whether due to individual family misfortune or drought, and in subsequent years the poor land-owner may never put together the cash for repayment, so that this takes on the aspect of a permanent land transfer.

Employment Poorer households in both zones depend heavily on income from casual work. In fact laboring - both local agricultural work as well as migrant work- is the primary source of income for poorer households. Put another way, two thirds of households in both the Irrigated and Central livelihood zones earn cash primarily from labor. Local labor includes work done for wealthier households such as land preparation and clearing, sowing, weeding and harvesting. In the Irrigated zone there is also off-season agricultural work on garden plots for activities including bed preparation, planting, thinning of seedlings, watering and harvesting. These off-season gardening activities offer more local labor opportunities for poorer households in the Irrigated zone than in the Central zone, and they earn fully two-thirds of their labor income from local agricultural work carried out within the zone. Poorer households in the Central zone earn about half of their total labor income within the zone. The remainder is earned by migrant workers, who seek work in Nigerian cities. Migrant workers are typically younger men from poor households who work abroad for on average four months out of the year - usually selling water or engaged in other petty trading activities. Occasionally, individuals from the middle wealth group in both zones will also earn cash as migrant workers. Meals taken outside the household when family members are working or studying abroad (as is the case with some wealthier households) contribute a small 'saving' of food for most households, but this is significant for poorer households who are on the very margin of meeting their basic food requirements or are even a little below that threshold. On the other hand, migrant work exacts a social cost to the family, and sometimes a health cost, and is often very tough for the migrant in terms of their status and living conditions in Nigeria.

Self-employment and other economic activities Self-employment activities are another very important source of cash for all households in these zones. For poorer households, this include firewood sales, handicrafts, groundnut oil production, and in the irrigated zone, delivery of water. One of the differences between poorer households in the two zones is that poorer households in the Irrigated zone are earning a greater percentage of their income from labor, while self- employment is expanded by poorer households in the Central zone. Wealthier households are greatly involved with the production and sale of groundnut oil, as well as preparation of beignets and other snacks for sale. All but the very poorest households engage in petty trade, and the ability to invest in petty trading activities is one of the differences distinguishing the poor from the very poor.

Expenditures One of the notable differences between the two zones is the percentage of expenditure by poorer households on staple food. The Central zone produces more staple grains than the neighboring Irrigated zone, and this is made strikingly evident in the graphs below in the additional staple food purchases that must be made by households in the Irrigated zone. Household items, salt, pepper, soap, batteries, tea, cola nuts, grinding and utensils take up the biggest share of the budget for poorer households in the Central zone. Given the similarity in their overall cash earnings this suggests that the quality of life is better for poorer people in the Central zone. Although the wealthier spend a smaller proportion on non-food items, in absolute terms (even per capita) this represents a lot more spending and a higher standard of living. The main category of expenses for wealthier households is far and away the purchase of production inputs; this includes payments for local agricultural labor, investment in additional livestock and chemical fertilizers. Much of spending on inputs devoted to investment in additional livestock - reflecting the primacy of livestock profits in household incomes. In other words, wealthier people can afford to invest far more in wealth generation than poorer people, and this is an important factor in the structure of chronic poverty.

Irrigated Livelihood Zone Central Livelihood Zone

100% 100%

Loan repayment Loan repayment 80% Transport 80% Transport Gifts Gifts Taxes 60% 60% Clothing Clothing Social Services Social Services Inputs 40% 40% Inputs Water Water Household Items 20% Household Items 20% Other Food Other Food Staple Food Staple Food 0% 0% Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off

Proportions of annual expenditure by category

An important distinction was noted in the quantities and timing of staple food purchased made by wealthier households in both zones, who have the money to purchase large quantities of grain when prices are lowest (just after the harvest). Poorer, cash strapped households often pay higher prices for grain as they must purchase smaller amounts throughout the year, including during times when prices are at their peak in the hunger season (June, July, August).

Compared to the neighboring Central 25000 zone, households in this livelihood zone are spending more on the education of 20000 their children - this difference is especially striking when comparing the amounts 15000 spent by middle and better-off Irrigated Zone 10000 households, at 2-4 times more on Central Zone education than these same wealth groups 5000 in the Central zone. There are relatively fewer schools in the Central zone, with 0 less than half of the villages visited having very poor poor middle better-off a primary school. However even in Household expenditure (CFA) on education instances where there were schools spending by livelihood zone nearby, parents were more hesitant to send their children. Education is of such cardinal importance for the economic future of households that it would be important to make further inquiries about this hesitance.

4 IMPLICATIONS FOR MONITORING & PROGRAMMING

Monitoring indicators The HEA baseline provides detailed information essential for livelihood and food security monitoring. Livelihood zoning identifies different patterns of livelihoods and provides geographic specification for monitoring systems. Seasonal calendars (included in the livelihood zone profiles) provide information that is important for understanding fluctuations across the year in food access, labor availability and household income, aiding the determination of optimal timing for interventions (both emergency and development). Timing of food or cash based transfers need to be considered so that they do not undermine other local economic activities and coincide with the period of greatest need. Seasonal calendars show local labor availability and peaks in migratory work, and are useful in understanding when there are elevated demands on people’s time - especially important when targeting poorer households.

The structure of the baselines points to which variables should be monitored as well as which wealth groups would be most by affected changes to these variables. They include especially the most important sources of food and income for each zone, since of course changes in these key parameters will especially impact households’ livelihoods and access to food. Key parameters are assigned based on a minimum cut-off level which is set within the baseline data storage sheet8. In the tables below, ‘quantity’ refers to the amount of production (whether for crops, livestock or labor and self-employment activities) while ‘price’ refers to the sales prices or labor rates. The purchase price of the main staple food, millet, is another essential variable that is considered along with other key parameters. There is a great deal of overlap in the key parameters for the two zones studied, and main differences are in the types of cash crops to be monitored.

Irrigated zone key parameters Millet quantity sorghum quantity cow peas quantity Price groundnuts quantity Price manioc quantity Sugar cane quantity Price Bell peppers quantity Price payment in-kind quantity cattle quantity Price goats quantity Price sheep quantity Price local agricultural labor quantity Price migrant labor quantity Price self-employment quantity Price petty trade quantity Price

8 The cut-off used for this example is based on sources of food or cash that contribute more than 5% of food (or annual food equivalent) for at least two wealth groups or 10% for on any single wealth group. Central zone key parameters

Millet quantity Sorghum quantity cow peas quantity price groundnuts quantity price Sesame quantity price The overwhelming influence of the Nigerian Payment in-kind quantity market can hardly be overstressed when Cattle quantity price discussing livelihoods and food security goats quantity price monitoring in the two livelihood zones. This is Sheep quantity price due of course to the role transnational markets local agricultural labor quantity price play in setting the price and demand for cash migrant labor quantity price crops and livestock that are sold out of both Firewood sales quantity price zones. self-employment quantity price petty trade quantity price Recommendations for programming From the SCUK ‘Thematic plan for the fight against hunger in Niger 2008-2013’

SO 1. Treatment of 30,000 acutely malnourished children per year by the Ministry of Health with support from SC-UK in 4 districts.

SO 2. Prevention of malnutrition in young children by promoting adequate care practices (feeding and health care seeking behaviors) in 4 districts

SO 3. 80% of poorest households in 2 rural districts can afford a more balanced diet and adequate calories intake throughout the year, through direct safety net transfers (cash, plumpy doz, etc…) and other measures promoting sustainable livelihoods.

SO 4. Evidence-based and high impact interventions for reduction of malnutrition and extreme poverty are prioritized by the government of Niger and its main financial and technical partners, and incorporated into national policies, strategies and budgets.

The HEA analysis can contribute to achieving two of the four strategic objectives set as part of Save the Children’s thematic plan against hunger. SO3 concerns providing support to the poorest households so that they are able to afford enough food to meet minimum energy requirements and gain access to a more varied and nutritious diet. Here the baselines provide a quantified view of the sources of calorie intake as well as of proportions of expenditure on non-staple foods which is at least a proxy indication of dietary quality. The division of this information, as well as data on productive assets, along wealth-group lines will help to identify (target) the poorest households. In particular the distinction provided between the Poor and the Very Poor is important, since inter alia it can provide insight for the design of interventions that bolster their incomes, taking account of their different levels of assets and their constraints.

SO4 - evidence-based interventions for the reduction of malnutrition and poverty incorporated in to national policies and strategies - can also be addressed with the help of the HEA analysis. The data shed a unique light on the structure of poverty, especially because this is a rounded view where elements are related in a quantified way. We are able to see more clearly both the degree of the skewing of assets and income towards the wealthier and also the economic relations between the wealth groups. These provide powerful advocacy points regarding poverty, but also the start of any realistic propositions for immediate investment on the ground. For instance, while it always important to look for ways to increase productivity among the poorer households on their own land, it may actually be more effective to spend limited funds on boosting their ‘self- employment’ capacity; and in these matters again the distinction between the Poor and Very Poor becomes crucial.

HEA can also contribute directly to SO4, through the provision of training on livelihoods based enquiries as well as contributing to the development of a livelihoods based monitoring system. HEA identifies key indicators for monitoring and can be used to model the effects of shocks so that there is a better, evidence-based understanding of the vulnerability of different segments of the population to these shocks. In other countries HEA has been used in the design of thresholds and response triggers, though ultimately this work must be done at a national level by concerned policy and decision makers. Further training, specifically in HEA outcome analysis, is recommended to equip HEA practitioners within Niger with the tools and knowledge necessary to use the baselines to model the outcomes of hazards in each zone.

This study shows just how dependent poorer households in both livelihood zones are on cash earnings for their survival and that many are not earning enough to meet even basic energy requirements. Proposals for increasing incomes of poorer households should ideally be based on the intensification of activities in which they are already involved (provided there are no negative consequences in so doing (e.g. increasing firewood sales could have negative environmental effects; increasing migratory work for men could put more labor burdens on women, consequently affecting time devoted to child care).

Livestock Production Despite minimal livestock holdings, poorer households have demonstrated their ability to adequately feed and care for goats, sheep through the very widespread kyo system of inter-household animal lending - even involving cattle in some cases. After all, the lenders must have confidence if they hand over their valuable livestock. But an interesting observation about kyo is that it has not resulted in an increase of poorer households’ livestock holdings over time. It would appear that the need for cash is so great that poorer households prefer to sell any young animals garnered through kyo as soon as possible rather than investing in fattening or reproductive females. If a program to develop small stock holdings were to be considered, it would have to be accompanied with other interventions that would increase immediate cash flow. It is neither realistic nor fair to assume that poorer households will use animal stocking programs as a means to build up herds of their own animals if they cannot afford to meet basic needs. Households in both zones universally own poultry, but flocks are small in part due to disease losses and also the reluctance to invest under the threat of heavy losses. Supporting vaccination campaigns against Newcastle disease would be one way to protect the livestock assets that the poorest households do own for themselves.

Cash Crop Sales Poorer households make some, amount of income, if modest, from crop sales such as cowpeas and groundnuts, (and sugar cane and squash in the case of the Irrigated zone). There are opportunities to improve poorer households’ production of rainfed cash crops perhaps through improvements in the provision of inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides (as cowpeas and groundnuts are vulnerable to aphid attacks). In the Irrigated zone, projects aimed at intensification of gardening activities must take into account the amount of labor required to successfully grow irrigated crops, and seek methods of minimizing work where possible so that the poorest households are able to participate on their own account. A significant number of men from poorer households engage in migratory work during the gardening season, therefore any intensification of gardening should perhaps mainly target women, but bearing in mind that this is going to be an added demand on women’s labor.. Watering is one of the most labor intensive activities associated with gardening: providing cemented wells and exploring modern pumping techniques such as pedal pumps could reduce the amount of time it takes to water irrigated plots.

Support to Other Economic Activities Groundnut oil production is practiced by the majority of households (poorer and wealthier) in both zones and is an important source of revenue. It is an activity that is predominately done by women. Given the economic importance of this activity and the established market for the commodity, there may be opportunities for Save the Children to support the intensification of production and marketing of groundnut oil. Further information would be needed such as details on the production process, the types of capital investments required (such as presses) and the performance history of women’s cooperatives in Magaria and Kantché.

Education Interventions Initial estimates based on spending on school-related costs suggest very low levels of school attendance of children within the Central zone, although more data is needed on the percentage of children attending primary school by zone. On the main costs associated with school attendance wealth group interviewees cited school fees, materials (notebooks, pens, etc.) and money to purchase snacks – often the only food children may get during the day. For poor people on the most marginal of budgets for survival, every expenditure is a serious decision. One possible way of providing an incentive for poorer parents in both zones to send their children to school would be through a school feeding program. As suggested in the Tessoua HEA report, providing food to children at school would begin to address the food deficits faced by poorer households and may also be a way to address the ‘inequalities between poorer and wealthier children (given the amount of money that wealthier family are able to spend on snacks versus poorer households)’9. Further investigation is needed on Save the Children’s experience with school feeding programs as well as the experience of other agencies that have carried out similar interventions in Niger.

Other Support to incomes and food security

SCUK-Niger already has experience in other regions of the country of providing cash transfers to households to help bridge the hunger gap, and indeed this could be a possibility for helping poor households in Kantché and Magaria who face difficulties during the lean season, when cash is short and grain prices are at their peak. The survey of these zones also revealed that wealthier households, particularly the better-off had significant grain reserves and cash savings. Wealthier households do make soft loans (interest free) of millet to poor households, especially in the Central zone, which are paid back in millet after the harvest. Wealthier households were reluctant to make loans to the very poor in the Irrigated zone, the reason being that they did not have confidence in the ability of the poorest households to repay the loan. Though there is always some amount of risk involved (associated with variations in production performance), encouraging loans would be one way of getting cereals that are already in the village into the hands of households that need them most. And one way of encouraging loans would be through acting as a guarantor and covering loans (in grain) should they go bad. The same could be done to encourage wealthier household to make cash loans to poorer households. As Save the Children does not as a rule get directly involved in credit schemes, this type if intervention would have to be done in collaboration with local Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) operating in the area. Save the

9 Holt and LeJeune: Household Economy Analysis in Southern Niger, Report on a household economy survey of two livelihood zones of Tessaoua District, SCUK, 2007. Children would be able to provide information on targeting and related typical asset holdings by wealth group.

Another possibility in terms of directing locally available grain towards those who need it most is though harnessing the Zakat system, making it better organized and targeted to the poorest households. The current system is based on gifts of grain to village priests (marabouts) and others considered most needy. In practice, these gifts are largely distributed according to family ties or personal friendships and often in a very informal manner (i.e. distribution is neither centralized nor systematized). The neediest families may not benefit as much as they might if they lack connections to wealthier households. Save the Children has commenced initial internal discussions and could investigate further the possibility of working with Imams to make Zakat better organized and targeted towards very poor households. Normally speaking, such matters are very delicate, given the position of marabouts who may not actually be needy and rather influential in the community.

ANNEX 1: Summary of Annual Performance by Livelihood Zone

Key informants at both district and village levels were asked to rate annual performance on a scale of 1-5, 5 being an exceptionally good year and 1 being a catastrophic year. The results have been compiled by livelihood zone are summarized below.

Irrigated Livelihood Zone Central Livelihood Zone

5.0 5.0

4.0 4.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 2008-9 2007-8 2006-7 2005-6 2004-5 2003-4 2002-3 2008-9 2007-8 2006-7 2005-6 2004-5 2003-4 2002-3

There is quite a high inter-annual variability in performance that is an expected feature of the Sahel. In fact, the Irrigated zone shows greater variation, but overall the series indicates how Sahelians survive in a multi-year way, so that assets – especially livestock – increased in the better years are used to bolster the bad years. The rare catastrophic years cause a rupture in this that some households never really recover from, losing all livestock and even mortgaging land. Perhaps more worrying in the long-run is the incapacity of poorer households to any longer build up of capital – evidenced by the tendency of poorer households to sell off small stock very young, and kyo that hasn’t led to increased own-flocks. We don’t know whether there is a continuing trend towards more skewing of wealth towards the wealthiest – after all, there is a bottom limit below which the poor cannot survive.

ANNEX 2: Villages included in this survey

Kantché/Magaria Irrigated Livelihood Zone Kore Haoussa Dan Bako Angoual Bako Kongouraua Gocholo Kwaya Gere Rammani Zani

Central Magaria Cereal, Cowpea and Groundnut Livelihood Zone Dan Daouara Koundri Angoual Lolo Zague Gourtcheke Adada Jan Madje Houssa Garin Liman

ANNEX 3: Data Collection Teams

The personnel of this assessment took part in theory, field training on HEA and baseline analysis, except where noted.

Ousmane Brah, DDEIA/Magaria Zouera Habou, DDP/RS Magaria Ousmane Hatta, DRE/LCD Abdou Moussa, DDDA/Magaria Amadou Tidjani Moustapha, DS/Magaria (all phases except final analysis) Kailou Yahaya, DDGR/Magaria

Elh Nouhou Moussa, DREIA Maman Sani Tahirou, DRDA/ZR Salissou Yacouba, DRDA/ZR Rabe Yawale, DRAT/DC/ZR

Arma Alassan, DDDA/ Ousman Gadoo, DDE/LCD (all phases except final analysis) Maman Gambo, DDDA/Matameye Moutari Hadi, Elevage Matameye Boubacar Issaka, DDDA/Matameye

Saley Sadikou, CONCERN Moussa Alhadi Ayatallahi, MASNAT (all phases except final analysis) Moussa H. Gaoh, CARE (classroom training and one week of field work) Saidou Mani, ACH (classroom training only) DeDeou Yahiya, ACH (classroom training only

Soli Chaibou, Save the Children Ibrahima Issa, Save the Children Abdoulkader Issoufou, Save the Children Ali Kairou, Save the Children (classroom training and one week of field work) Bizo Dan Kassoua, Save the Children Jessica Petitprez, Save the Children (classroom training and one week of field work) Maman Bachir Yacouba, Save the Children Maman Sani Yahaya, Save the Children

Data entry team Soli Chaibou, Save the Children Ibrahima Issa, Save the Children Abdoulkader Issoufou, Save the Children Ali Kairou, Save the Children Bizo Dan Kassoua, Save the Children Saley Sadikou, CONCERN Maman Bachir Yacouba , Save the Children Maman Sani Yahaya, Save the Children

Trainers/Teamleaders Malam Dodo Abdou, Save the Children Jeanlouise Conaway, FEG Consulting ANNEX 4: HEA Links to Nutrition Surveys

Excerpted from Links to Nutrition surveys: Practitioners’ Guide to HEA Chapter 7: Emerging Links, Issues and Approaches

Food insecurity is one of three possible underlying causes of malnutrition, the others being poor childcare practices and poor public health environment and access to healthcare. Where HEA has found that people are unable to obtain their minimum food requirements, and at the same time malnutrition has been observed in the same area, it will be possible to say that food insecurity is at least one of the active causes of malnutrition. Refining this analysis further depends on how comparable the HEA and nutrition survey data are. For instance:

Linking nutrition results to wealth groups. Poverty is a major cause both of food security and malnutrition, so we would generally expect to see higher rates of malnutrition in poorer wealth groups. But malnutrition is not limited to the poor. We can get a better sense of whether food security is a major cause of malnutrition if the nutrition survey incorporates indicators of the wealth group of households interviewed. Two main ways of determining the wealth group of households in a nutrition survey are (1) to ask questions relating to asset holdings that could be compared to the wealth breakdown in the HEA; and (2) ask a knowledgeable key informant to accompany the nutrition survey team and discreetly inform the team which wealth group each household falls into. SC UK has used the latter approach successfully in Ethiopia to show that malnutrition is more common among poor wealth groups.

In Niger in 2008, SCUK found that more than 80% of children admitted into treatment centers for malnutrition were from very poor and poor households.

ANNEX 5: References and Consulted Documents

Beyond Any Drought: Root causes of chronic vulnerability in the sahel. P.Trench, J.Rowley, M. Diarra, F.Sano & B. Keita, The Sahel Working Group, IIED, June 2007

The Cereals Market in Niger: Findings from the 2005-2007 Market Surveys, J. Aker, CRS, CARE and World Vision, 2007.

Cross-border diaries Special Report: Food Security, Sahel and West Africa Club-OECD, February 2007.

Enquete Rapid sur la Sécurité Alimentaire des Menages, Departement de Kantché, Region de Zinder, H. Berton, A. Malam Dodo, Save the Children UK, April 2008.

Household Economy Analysis in Southern Niger: Report on a household economy survey of two livelihood zones of Tessaoua District, J. Holt and S. LeJeune, Save the Children UK, 2007.

Livelihoods Zones and Profiles for Niger (2003). www.fews.net/livelihoods

Niger 2005: not a famine, but something much worse. Gary Eilerts, USAID. ODI Humanitarian Practice Network 2006 (www.odihpn.org).

Putting the Ability back in Vulnerability, T. Boudreau, Food Security Early Warning Systems and the Livelihoods Integration Unit in Ethiopia, November 2007.

Save The Children UK Thematic Plan for the Fight Against Hunger in Niger 2008-2013, December 2008.

Transhumance and Transition Report on a household economy survey of pastoral and agro-pastoral Fulani in Dakoro District, J. Holt and S. LeJeune, Save the Children UK, February 2008.