This document summarizes a presentation on a study of food security among male-headed and female-headed households in the Kano-Katsina-Maradi zone of Nigeria and Niger. The study found that: 1) While more female farmers were members of innovation platforms (IPs) created by the program, male-headed households were more likely to be food secure. 2) Membership in an IP, as well as factors like older age, more assets, and location in Sudan savanna, increased the likelihood of a household being food secure. 3) Different factors determined food security for male- versus female-headed households, indicating differences in intra-household decision-making around food. Support

1. Adeolu B. Ayanwale; Adewale A. Adekunle; Oluwole
Fatunbi and Luke O Olarinde

2. Outline of Presentation
 Introduction
 Research questions
 Methodology
 Data
 Results
 Conclusions

3. Introduction
 Agricultural sector’s performance in Africa is fundamental
for poverty reduction and food security.
 Substantial investments have been made in agricultural
research and innovations
 However impacts of these investments have not been felt
beyond the immediate localities of the research environment
 This is the motivation for the “systems based and innovation
focused” approach tagged “IAR4D” concept by FARA

4. Introduction
 The IAR4D operates via a network configuration
comprising all actors in the agricultural value chain –
“systems approach”
 Incidentally, the systems approach of the IAR4D also
tackles another major acknowledged obstacle to
agricultural development which is “gender relations”
 Men and women are acknowledged to have different roles
and resources especially as regards household food
security

5. Introduction
 FAO 2011 noted that “gender inequalities and a lack of
attention to gender in agricultural development have
contributed to lower productivity, higher levels of
poverty and under nutrition”
 Any efforts at addressing the gender gap is therefore a
major leap in the global effort at meeting the
Millennium Development Goal 3 (Grown et.al 2005)

6. Introduction
 The SSA CP had at the core of its mandate the
empowerment of vulnerable rural farmers (especially
women and youths) in the sub-region.
 Studies have been conducted on both the homogenous
and heterogeneous impact of the progamme on the
participants.
 However, very little attention seem to have been placed
on the gender dimension of the household’s food
security. This is the focus of this paper.

7. Research Questions
 The key research questions addressed in this paper are?
 What determines food security status of male headed
households as opposed to female headed households in
the KKM PLS of the SSA CP?
 Does the membership of IPs ensure household food
security?
 Among female headed households what determines
their food security status?

8. Kano-Katsina-Maradi PLS

9. Data
 The data used for this study was derived from two strands
of surveys conducted at the KKM PLS level
 These are the baseline and the midline surveys
 The data provided a panel of dataset that were used to
compare vital variables of interest in the paper
 The data set also provided an opportunity to disaggregate
by gender

10. Data
IP Taskforce PLS
No of IPs 1 4 12
No of IR4D
villages
5 20 60
NO of
conventional
villages
5 20 6-
No of non IAR4D,
non conventional
villages
5 20 60
Total no of
Households
150 600 1800

11. Methodology
 We used the subjective measure of food security
as dependent variable. Following after Kassie
et.al. (2013) we used the households’ own
perception of food security
 Three categories: 1= Chronic food insecurity; 2=
Transitional Food Insecurity; and 3 = Break
even/food secure.
 We used an ordered probit regression model
which allowed us to identify the effects on food
security of different inequalities and different
forms of discrimination within the household.

12. Results
The results presented in the
table reveals that women had
more years of farming
experience than men, had
larger size of family (– more
dependants) and almost
equal years of formal
education as men.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Education Famly Size Farm Exp
Descriptive of Male and Female
Headed households
Male Headed Female Headed

13. Results
Results from the analysis
shows that although the IPs
are composed of more female
than male
more male headed
households are food secure
(break-even) .
experience transitory food
insecurity, and
experience (chronic food
insecurity)
than female headed.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Households food security
status
Male
Headed
Female
Headed

14. Picture 3: Knowledge management and information sharing in a rice field

15. Results
Further results reveals some
interesting gender dimensions
in food security.
More de facto FHH are food
secure than de jure FHH,
interestingly they also suffer
more chronic food insecurity.
However, de jure FHH
experience more transitional
food insecurity than de facto.
This is plausible because
although the husband might
not be around, the wife can still
use the assets of the family,
unlike de jure households who
might have been
disenfranchised by the
husbands’ family members.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Food security status of Female
Headed Households
De jure FHH
De facto FHH

16. Results
The results of analysis
by membership of the IP
shows that more
members are food
secure than non
members.
Almost half of the
respondents in
transitional are
members of an IP.
This suggest the ability
of social capital to
encourage and empower
their members.
0.28
0.32
0.29
0.12
0.26
0.36
Fd secure Transitional Chronic
Food security by Membership
of IP
Members Non members

17. Determinants of Food
Security
Specifically, from the results we
can assert that
Women are more food secure
than men.
Members of IPs are more food
secure than non members.
Elderly and more educated
households are more food secure
Furthermore, households with
more productive assets are food
secure
Finally farming households in
Sudan savanna taskforce also
perceive themselves more food
secure.
Determinants of Food security
Pooled regression Marginal Effects
Coeff Std Error Coeff Std error
Age -0.228** 0.138 0.078** 0.29
Marital
Status
0.016 0.048 -0.004 2.22
Educ 0.085** 0.041 -0.024** 0.50
Household
size
-0.059 0.057 0.018 0.02
Farming Exp 0.011 0.048 0.003 1.59
Asset -0.003*** 0.001 -0.001** 1.17
Membership 0.357*** 0.097 -0.089*** 0.021
NGS 0.069 0.097 -0.089 0.023
Sudan 10.305** 0.081 -0.019** 0.021
gender -0.174** 0.081 -0.046** 0.0.021
No 1404
LR chi2 77.40***
Log
likelihood
-1396.849

18. Determinants of Food
Security
From the results it is obvious that
that factors that determine of
food security are different for
MHH and FHH thus suggesting
different intra-household
decisions modules
Whereas MHH who are
members of IP, elderly with
productive assets and are in both
NGS ad Sudan savanna TFs are
food secure,
Elderly educated FHH who are
members of IP also having
productive assets and residing in
Sudan savanna are food secure
Determinants of Food security
MHH FHH
Coeff Std Error Coeff Std error
Age 0.131*** 0.086 0.072* 0.029
Marital
Status
-0.006 0.027 0.004 0.015
Educ 0.002 0.022 -0.024** 0.011
Household
size
-0.019 0.033 0.012 0.016
Farming Exp 0.004 0.028 0.009 0.013
Asset -0.002*** 0.000 -0.001*** 0.000
NGS 0.381** 0.170 -0.031 0.023
Sudan 0.351*** 0.145 -0.078*** 0.021
Membership 0.274*** 0.071 -0.086*** 0.022
No 267 350
LR chi2 22.80*** 66.85***
Log
likelihood
-248.405 -1343.761

19. Conclusions
 Food security status of smallholders in the PLS is generally
low – less than 30 percent.
 In the KKM PLS, as the SSA CP was implemented, there was
an increase in percentage of households who are food secure
 The evidence suggests that although women are members of
IPs, FHHs experience more food insecurity than MHHs
 Generally, members of IPs are food secure than non
members
 De facto FHH whose husbands are not around are more food
secure than de jure where the husband/family had assets,
but will be chronically food insecure where the husbands do
not leave productive assets

20. Conclusions
 Factors that determine food security among MHHs and
FHHs are different suggesting differences in intra-
household decision making and outcomes
 Marital status, ownership of productive assets, location
and membership of IPs are some of the factors that
determine household food security in the study area.
 To enable FHHs become food secure and thereby increase
their productivity, it is necessary to encourage active
participation in the IPs.

21. Acknowledgements
FARA
IITA