Prepared by Shweta Gupta, Muzna Alvi and Claudia Ringler Data collected by Finmark

1. Impact of COVID-19 on rural women and
men in Cross River and Kaduna states,
Nigeria
Gender, Climate and Nutrition Integration
Initiative (GCAN)
Prepared by Shweta Gupta, Muzna Alvi
& Claudia Ringler, IFPRI
Data collected by Finmark
January 11, 2021

2. Gender, Climate Change and
Nutrition (GCAN) Framework
▪ The impact of shocks and stressors on
people are not direct but follow different
pathways and are influenced by different
factors:
o Exposure and sensitivity
o Resilience capacities
o Decision-making context
o Responses
▪ Resilience is dynamic: well-being outcomes
influence future resilience capacities
▪ The Covid-19 pandemic triggered both health
and economic shocks
▪ Resilience to these unanticipated shocks
requires mainly absorptive capacity and
immediate coping responses

3. GCAN Framework:
Health and economic shocks from Covid-19
may result in the following gendered
responses/outcomes:
▪ Loss of control over income
▪ Asset dynamics
▪ Change in labor allocation, increase in care
burden
▪ Changes in mobility, implication for risk of
exposure
▪ Food insecurity, changes in dietary diversity
▪ Conflict

4. Key areas of inquiry
▪ Direct impacts:
o Has anyone in the household been sick in the last 7 days?
o Has the household lost income due to Covid-19?
▪ WASH environment (resilience capacity)
▪ Loss of control over income (bargaining power)
▪ Changes in migration of household members and remittances (labor/income)
▪ Asset, savings, borrowing, direct transfers (coping measures)
▪ Change in labor allocation, increase in care burden (coping measures/outcomes)
▪ Changes in mobility to buy food, seek medical care, fetch water/fuelwood etc.,
(coping measures/outcomes)
▪ Food insecurity, changes in dietary diversity (coping measures/outcomes)
▪ Conflict—work together to solve problems, fear of partner (outcomes)

5. Survey Implementation
▪ Selected countries with previous face-to-face surveys that had collected phone
numbers: Ghana, Kenya, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda
▪ Working with partners on the ground or phone survey companies with local call
centers
o Tradeoffs in terms of response rate, sensitivity/knowledge of subject
▪ Developed a common questionnaire (20-30 mins long), 3-5 rounds over 6 months,
each round lasting <2 weeks
▪ Sample includes approximately half women, half men respondents; same
respondents are followed across rounds
▪ Programmed in SurveyCTO (or proprietary software of survey company)
▪ Nigeria sample drawn from ‘Agro-Processing Productivity Enhancement and
Livelihood Improvement Support (APPEALS)’ survey (WB) with ~1000 female
respondents, focusing on two FTF states (Kaduna and Cross River)
▪ 2 rounds completed (mid-August to mid-Sep and mid-October); third round
ongoing

6. Location of
respondents
Kaduna state
and Cross
Rivers

7. COVID-19 in Nigeria
▪ First case: February 27, 2020
o January 9, 2021: 97,478 cases, 1342 deaths (Kaduna: 2418 cases, Cross
River: 169 cases)
▪ Swift government action:
o Travel ban for 13 countries and ban on mass gatherings March 18. Travel bans
extend to all domestic and international flights in April.
o March 19th federal government orders closure of schools
o Lockdown in Federal Capital Territory, Lagos and Ogun states declared on 30
March, other states issue lockdown orders throughout April
Source: JHU

8. Hotspot map
of areas of
high Covid-
19 risk in
Nigeria
Source: Koo, Azzarri, Ghosh and Quabili, 2021

9. Household descriptives
Characteristic Kaduna state Cross River
state
Full sample
Males (%) 49.21 50.2 49.7
Age (years) 38 (11) 39 (10) 38.4 (105)
Marital status
Married (%) 88 67.5 78
Single (%) 7.1 26.5 17
Widowed/Divorced (%) 5.1 6.0 5.6
Family size 9 (5.4) 5.5 (2.5) 7.2 (4.6)
No. of children (<=5 years) 2.2 (2) 1 (1.2) 1.6 (1.7)
No. of elderly* (>=60 years) 0.5 (0.8) 0.4 (0.6) 0.4 (0.7)
Total number of observations 252 249 501
* In Kaduna, 63% respondents reported 0 elderly and in Cross River,
73% reported 0 elderly in their HH.
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

10. Household descriptives (cont.)
Characteristic Kaduna
state
Cross River
state
Full sample
Highest education
No formal schooling (%) 7 0 3.4
Primary or less (%) 14 4 9
Secondary or less (%) 37 37 37
More than secondary (%) 43 59 51
Household head
Self (%) 62 67 64
Spouse (%) 38 33 36
Female headed HH (%) 13 21 17
Total number of observations 252 249 501
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

11. Primary Occupation of respondent
30
9
4
33
12
11
8
21
13
2
31
26
9
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Agriculture Livestock Casual labour Self-
employed
Salary No work Other
Share
Kaduna Cross River
The sum across all occupations for any state or full sample exceeds100 since some people do both
agriculture and livestock rearing.
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

12. Household assets
76%
63%
46%
13%
8% 7% 6%
2%
58%
54%
26%
7% 6%
3% 4%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Farm land Chicken Goat Sheep Other Milk cow Pig Other cattle
Shareofhouseholds
male Female
▪ More male farmers reported ownership of the above assets by their HH than female
farmers
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

13. Who decides how to spend earnings of respondent?
- By Gender
63
0
28
1
4
1 3
57
6
36
1 0 0 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Self Spouse Jointly
with
spouse
Other HH
member
Self &
other HH
member
Spouse
& other
HH
member
Other
Respondent is male
Kaduna Cross River
29
19
42
2 2 4 2
44
6
48
0 2 1 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Self Spouse Jointly
with
spouse
Other HH
member
Self &
other HH
member
No
earnings
of resp.
Other
Respondent is female
Kaduna Cross River
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
▪ Few women in Kaduna report that they decide on how to spend their earnings
▪ No men in Kaduna state that their spouse decides on how to spend their earnings

14. Who decides how to spend earnings of spouse?
- By Gender
44
23
28
5
14 17
68
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Self Spouse Jointly with
spouse
Others
%
Respondent is male
Kaduna Cross River
8
49
39
5
9
13
78
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Self Spouse Jointly with
spouse
Others
%
Respondent is female
Kaduna Cross River
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
▪ Clearly close to half of men in Kaduna decide on how to spend their wives’ earnings and their
earnings; more joint decision-making on earnings in Cross River

15. Impact of COVID on income
▪ N= 252 for
Kaduna, 249 for
Cross River and
501 for full sample
▪ In both the states
and full sample,
nearly 4/5th of
males and 4/5th of
females reported
their HH suffered
an income loss
80.56 78.71 79.64
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Kaduna Cross River Full sample
%
HH suffered an income loss due to COVID
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

16. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Male respondents Female respondents
ShareofRespondents
Round 1 Round 2
Income loss due to Covid-19, change between rounds 1 and
2 (%)
▪ The share of
respondents
suffering from
income losses
declined;
presumably as
economic activities
resumed during the
summer, alternative
income
opportunities were
also found
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

17. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Male respondents Female respondents
ShareofHouseholds
Round 1 Round 2
Worked in the last 7 days (%)
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

18. Coping strategies to deal with income loss
72% 71% 72%
63%
24%
44%
54% 55% 55%
5%
2% 4%6% 4% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Kaduna Cross River Full sample
Used savings Sold assets Borrowed money
Transfers from govt. Transfers from NGO
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
▪ Kaduna relied much more on selling of assets than Cross River
▪ More government and NGO transfers in Kaduna

19. Coping mechanisms to deal with loss of income (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Use savings Sale of assets Borrow money Consumed less Reduced
expenditure
Found alternative
work
Transfers
ShareofHouseholds
Women
Round 1 Round 2
Filter: those who have lost income
0
20
40
60
80
100
Use savings Sale of assets Borrow money Consumed less Reduced
expenditure
Found alternative
work
Transfers
ShareofHouseholds
Men
Round 1 Round 2
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

20. Impact on household care by respondent
Resp.
gender
Kaduna Cross River Full sample
Male 7 (4.4) 7 (7) 7.15 (5.8)
Female 11 (7.5) 10 (10) 10.3 (9)
Total 9 (6.5) 8.5 (8.7) 8.7 (7.7)
N 252 249 501
Amount of time (hours) spent on caring
by respondent in last 24 hours
• Half of the respondents state that they
spend more time on caring than before,
slightly more in Cross River (55%)
• Female respondents self-report more
time on care than male respondents
Resp.
gender
Kaduna Cross River Full sample
Male 14.3 (7.2)9.4 (6.8) 12.2 (7.4)
Female 6.5 (4.5) 6.2 (8.8) 6.4 (6.7)
Total 10.6 (7.2)7.9 (8) 9.5 (7.7)
N 221 168 389
Amount of time (hours) spent on caring
by spouse in last 24 hours
• 40% the respondents state that their
spouse spends more time on caring than
before, slightly more in Cross River (46%)
• Male respondents report more time spent
on care by their wives than women
acknowledge. This result is also consistent
for round 2. Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

21. Mobility now as compared to pre- COVID times
6 7 5
76 73
78
18 19
16
All respondents Male Female
Kaduna
More Less Same
13 14
11
81 80 82
5 6 5
All respondents Male Female
Cross River
More Less Same
▪ Mobility severely constrained in both states; and somewhat more constrained in rural CR
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

22. Mobility: Activities performed in last 2 weeks by State
92
38
19
70
57
77
62
90
35
13
59
43
66
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Buy food/
others
Sell food/
others
For work Medical
care
Attend
meetings
Meet
friends
/fam
Collect
water
/fuelwood
%
Kaduna
Male Female
92
43
29
46
64
74
78
95
44
19
40
47
63
80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Buy food/
others
Sell food/
others
For work Medical
care
Attend
meetings
Meet
friends
/fam
Collect
water
/fuelwood
%
Cross River
Male Female
▪ More men reported going out than women to do various activities.
▪ In Kaduna, more respondents reported going out for medical care than in CR
▪ More water/fuelwood collection in Cross River
N=124 (M), 128 (F) N=125 (M), 124 (F)
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

23. Migration in household
▪ N=252 for Kaduna,
249 for Cross River,
501 for full sample
15%
29%
22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Kaduna Cross River Full Sample
A HH member migrated in the last 1
year
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

24. Gender of migrant
▪ The figure reports % of
HH in a state or full
sample that reported a
male (female) migrant
out of total HHs with a
migrant in that state or
full sample.
▪ Eg, out of 38 HHs that
reported a migrant in
the last year, 87% said
a male had migrated &
37% said a female had
migrated from their
HH.
▪ More female migrants
in CR than Kaduna
87% 86%
83%
37%
54%
48%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kaduna Cross River Full sample
Male Female
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

25. Global Food Insecurity Experience Scale (2-week recall,
shortened)
80
69
64
77
52
76 73 73
80
64
0
20
40
60
80
100
Worried not
having
enough
food
Unable to
eat healthy
food
Skipped a
meal
Ate less
food than
reqd
Was hungry
but didn’t
eat
Kaduna
Male Female
▪ Around 70% of respondents in both Kaduna and Cross River experienced food insecurity
▪ Generally, women report higher challenges in Kaduna
80
72 71
82
68
77
70 74 75
60
0
20
40
60
80
100
Worried for
not having
enough food
Unable to
eat healthy
food
Skipped a
meal
Ate less food
than reqd
Was hungry
but didn’t eat
Cross River
Male Female
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

26. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Male respondents Female respondents
ShareofHouseholds
Round 1 Round 2
Access to food changed (%)
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

27. How has food access changed--if it did--due to Covid-19?
70
16
21
34
30
66
24
31
49
39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Unable to
obtain
enough
food
Get food
from
different
scources
Eat
different
foods
Eat less
food
Other
%
Male Female
71
22
29
59
8
63
20
27
51
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Unable to
obtain
enough food
Get food
from
different
scources
Eat different
foods
Eat less food Other
%
Male Female
Cross RiverKaduna
▪ For 85% of households in Kaduna and 83% of households in CR food access changed because of Covid-19
▪ Again, the situation is worse for rural women in Kaduna; but a larger share of respondents ate less food in Cross
River Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

28. Consumption of different food groups in the last 24 hours
(share of respondents)
24
32
48
52
46
63
72
66
63
83
27
32
36
37
41
51
63
63
67
78
0 20 40 60 80 100
Eggs
Dairy
Nuts
& seeds
Other fruits
Meat,
poultry…
Other
Vit A-rich…
Other veg.
Leafy
greens…
Pulses
Grains, roots
& tubers
Females Males
Kaduna
26
34
52
52
62
66
66
57
78
77
23
48
53
56
58
61
64
67
85
88
0 20 40 60 80 100
Dairy
Eggs
Nuts
& seeds
Other fruits
Other veg.
Other
Vit A-rich…
Leafy
greens…
Pulses
Meat,
poultry…
Grains, roots
& tubers
Females Males
Cross River
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

29. Dietary Diversity score
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
No. of Food groups
Kaduna
Full sample Male Female
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
No. of Food groups
Cross River
Full Sample Male Female
Score (Mean/sd) N
Male 5.5 (2.2) 124
Female 5 (2.2) 128
Total 5.2 (2.2) 252
Score (Mean/sd) N
Male 6 (2.5) 125
Female 6 (2.3) 124
Total 6 (2.4) 249
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

30. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Women with adequate diet (5 out of 10 food groups consumed)
ShareofHouseholds
Round 1 Round 2
Minimum dietary diversity for women (%)
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

31. Major source of drinking water across states
0
20
40
60
80
Dug well Piped
water
Water
from
spring
Water
kiosk
Rainwater Surface
water
Delivered
water
%
Kaduna
Male Female
0
20
40
60
80
Piped
water
Surface
water
Dug well Rainwater Delivered
water
Water
from
spring
Water
kiosk
%
Cross River
Male Female
There are clear differences in water sources across the 2 states: close to 50% dug wells in
Kaduna, but also surface water in Cross River
3% of sample in Cross River had no toilet facilities; Kaduna less than 1%

32. HWIES- Worried about not having enough water for HH (last
2 weeks)
58% 59% 56%
16% 18%
15%
20%
16%
24%
4% 5% 3%2% 2% 2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
All respondents Male Female
Cross River
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
Across all respondents, about two thirds do not worry about water
Larger worries in Cross River, at 42%, than in Kaduna, at 28%; in both Kaduna and Cross River; women are more
worried; and overall stress higher in Cross River
72% 75%
70%
12%
6%
19%
13% 15%
10%
2% 3% 2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
All respondents Male Female
Kaduna
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

33. HWIES- Changed plans due to inadequate water
71% 71% 70%
15%
10%
20%
12%
16%
8%
2% 2% 1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
All respondents Male Female
Kaduna
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
55% 58%
53%
20% 19% 20%
17%
14%
20%
7% 9%
6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
All respondents Male Female
Cross River
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Larger share of respondents changed plans due to inadequate water access in Cross River; across genders in CR-
- women changed plans more often
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

34. HWIES- Not enough water to drink
66% 66% 66%
16% 15% 18%
14% 14% 15%
3% 4% 2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
All respondents Male Female
Cross River
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
74% 77%
72%
13%
9%
17%
12% 14%
11%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
All respondents Male Female
Kaduna
Never Rarely Sometimes
• Larger share of respondents noted insufficient drinking water in Cross River, responses quite substantial; in
Kaduna, women noted more challenges
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

35. In the last 2 weeks, how frequently have you or anyone in your
household had to go without washing hands because of problems
with water?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Never (0 times) Rarely (1 times) Sometimes (2-5 times)
Often (6-10 times) Always (more than 10 times)
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

36. Speaker phone use
▪ No significant
difference in use of
speaker phone among
men and women for a
particular region.
▪ But, in Cross River,
use of speaker phone
is significantly greater
than that in Kaduna
16
62
39
16
69
42
16
65
41
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Kaduna Cross River Full sample
%
Respondent used speaker phone during
survey
Male Female Total
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

37. Private space
▪ N= 184 for Kaduna,
52 for Cross River,
236* for Full sample.
▪ Only those who did
not put the phone on
speaker phone were
asked if they were in a
private space
67%
56%
64%
50%
52%
54%
56%
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68%
Kaduna Cross River Full sample
Respondent was in private space
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys

38. Interactions between respondent & spouse- by gender
57
16
85 85
25
13
9
5
16 17
6
9
2
55
0 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
Fought/
disagreement
with spouse
Worked out
everyday
problems
together
Afraid of
spouse
Afraid of other
member
%
Males
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
50
11
95 97
16
2 3 2
31
8
2 22
80
0 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Fought/
disagreement
with spouse
Worked out
everyday
problems
together
Afraid of
spouse
Afraid of other
member
%
Females
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
N=88 males N=64 females
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
• More women had a disagreement or fought
• Fewer men worked out everyday problems together
• More men state to be afraid of spouse

39. Interactions between respondent & spouse- by state
N=123
55
14
88 89
20
9 7 4
24
11
5 7
1
66
0 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fought/
disagreement
with spouse
Worked out
everyday
problems
together
Afraid of
spouse
Afraid of other
member
%
Kaduna
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
48
14
97 97
28
3 3 3
14
21
0 0
7
62
0 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Fought/
disagreement
with spouse
Worked out
everyday
problems
together
Afraid of
spouse
Afraid of other
member
%
Cross River
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
N=29
Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
• More respondents in Kaduna had a disagreement or fought
• More respondents in Kaduna experience fear from spouse or other HH member

40. Key Conclusions so far
▪ Across states: Kaduna many more Covid-19 cases than Cross River;
larger family size, less schooling, more agriculture; more conservative
(men take decisions on earnings)
▪ Income shocks pervasive also in rural areas—decline between
Aug/Sep and Oct/Nov; when new daily Covid-19 cases were lower as
many lockdown/ economic activities had resumed
▪ Diverse coping measures were used, including using savings,
borrowing, selling assets, and receiving transfers. Kaduna relied much
more on selling of assets than Cross River; more government and NGO
transfers in Kaduna; in round two more reliance on borrowing (presumably
savings and assets starting to be depleted)

41. Key Conclusions so far
▪ Care work has increased overall (more than half of respondents note
increase), presumably because children stayed home from school and
sometimes urban (or foreign) migrants returned; particularly in Kaduna women
spent 10-14 hours daily on care work!
▪ Migration: Almost one third of HHs had a migrant last year; women’s share of
migrants higher in Cross River, households with migrants are perceived to face
higher vulnerabilities (loss of remittances)
▪ Mobility is more constrained: more so in Cross River; men are more mobile
than women in the sample
▪ Food insecurity Around 70% of respondents in both Kaduna and Cross River
experienced food insecurity; generally, women report higher challenges in
Kaduna
▪ Access to food changed because of Covid-19: more than 85% in round 1;
around 78% in round 2, slightly higher for women; around half of all women
respondents reduced food intake due to Covid-19

42. Key Conclusions so far
▪ Dietary adequacy better for women in Cross River and better for men in
Kaduna; limited consumption of dairy and eggs; high access to meat and
poultry as food in Cross River; women’s minimum dietary adequacy declined
slightly between rounds 1 and 2
▪ Poor WASH environments affecting fighting Covid-19: Clear differences
in water sources across the 2 states: close to 50% dug wells in Kaduna, but
also surface water in Cross River; 3% of sample in Cross River had no toilet
facilities; Kaduna less than 1%; larger worries about water in Cross River, at
42%, than in Kaduna (28%); in both Kaduna and Cross River women are
more worried; and overall stress higher in Cross River
• Conflict levels: More women had a disagreement or fought; fewer men
worked out everyday problems together; more men state to be afraid of
spouse; slightly more challenges in Kaduna

43. Early Suggestions for Policy Interventions
▪ Immediately address the large food insecurity and
nutrition challenges that affect rural households in
Nigeria→ through food banks, food-for-work or other
programs (i.e. cash transfer programs) that target poorer
rural households
▪ Consider credit support programs at highly favorable
rates as well as rural asset development programs (f.ex.
through food-for-work) to counteract potential long-term
indebtedness of rural households due to income shocks,
with a focus on women
▪ Address the poor WASH environment in Nigeria
▪ Provide conflict resolution support for rural households
as feasible
Credit: Carla Roncoli