#1UNITED STATES USAID ERNATIONAL DE AGENCY VELOPMENT HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages OUTCOME ANALYSIS Nigeria USAID FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE March 2018 Save the Children#2The HEA analytical framework HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages HEA is based on a range of information (qualitative and quantitative) collected on the ground or secondary information is a comparative analysis in time structured around 2 pillars: Step 1 Livelihood Zoning % of households 50 40 30 & ° 10 HEA Baseline Step 2 Wealth Breakdown very poor poor midde better off BASELINE + % of min, food energy requirements 0 20- 8 8 Step 3 Livelihood Strategies Step 4 Problem Specification HEA Outcome Analysis Step 5 Analysis of Coping Capacity Step 6 Projected Outcome food cash income expenditure medicine clothes Ohh items food charcoal sales Ochicken sales labor sales purchase wild foods labor exchange crops + Crop loss of 75% Local labor rates down 50% Food prices doubled Chicken prices down 50% Migratory labor increased 50% Draw down on surplus/ stocks Expand production (wild foods/fish) Expand income Switch expenditure HAZARD COPING 150 Livelihoods Protection Threshold 130 110 Survival Threshold 90 % of annual food eq ㅎㅎ 영웅홍홍홍 50 30 -10 food cash income expenditure lcans medioine lothes Oh items food Dobarocal sales Gosloken sales labor sales paroha se wild foods labor exchange 01ops = OUTCOME#3Outcome Analysis HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages The objective of an outcome analysis is to investigate the effects of hazards (or other changes) on future access to food and income at household level#4Expected results (1/2) The projected Outcome Analysis results allow: - HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages 1. Comparison of the projected situation of the households against 2 thresholds: - Survival threshold: level of total income (in food or in cash) needed to satisfy the 2100 Kcal per person per day as well as the essentials expenditures linked to preparation and consumption of food. - - Livelihoods protection threshold: level of total income needed to ensure the basic survival and maintain local livelihoods Harvest Milk Labour Livestock sales Petty Trade 200 150 Livelihoods protection Threshold 100 Survival Threshold 50 0 Charcoal sales Reference year Effect of the shock without copying strategy Projected results GAP#5Expected results (2/2) 2 HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages ②. To identify the socio-economic group(s) affected by survival or livelihoods protection deficits ③. To identify, for an area, the seasonality of the deficit for an affected group on a consumption year Period of Deficit Komondjari, Burkina Faso, Very Poor category % min. food energy needs 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% OND J F M A M J JASON ■deficit total expenditure#6Period of Analysis HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages This is an update to the October 2017 analysis, the period or consumption year covered by the analysis is September 2017 August 2018 for seven livelihood zones in northern Nigeria. -#7Updated Livelihood Zone Map USAID May 2014 NGVT NGOJ HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages NIGERIA - LIVELIHOOD ZONES 1030 NG01 Coastal Fing N002-Southern Cocos, Pain O and Kola NG03-South-Central Yam, Cassava, and Banana NOD4-Southeast Moe. Bart and Grant AFEWS NET NGOS-Niger and Benue River Floodplain Rice and Fishing N006-Central Plan Yam and Cassava NGOT-Mamba Pau Catte, Cocoa and Tea N008-Central Highland Maize and Soybean NGO9-Northeastern Highland Maize, Cocoyan, Potatoes, and Livestock NG10 North-Central Maize. Sorghum, and Coton NG11-Northern Floodplain irigated Rice, Wheat and Vegetables NG12-Northeast Mist Cowpee, and Sesame NG13-Sahel Mixed Cereals and Livestock NGI Came International Boundaries States Lates •Capital Cities 100 200 300 400 Kilometers#8N Previous Livelihood Zone Map USAID FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NGO Benin NG09 NG02 -Sokoto NORTHERN NIGERIA - LIVELIHOOD ZONES Niger International Boundaries HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages FEWS NET FAMINE EARLY NARNING SYSTEMS NETWORK NG04 NG13 NG17 NGII States NG12 0 Capital Cities NG13 Lakes NGM4 NGIS NG16 0 45 90 180 270 360 Kilometers Kano NGIO NGOS NG18 Maiduguri NG 19 NG08 NG06 NGOT NG27 NG33 NG31 NG29 NG28 NG32 NG30 NG40 NG41 NG39 NG42 NG44 NG34 NG35 NG36 Abuja NG43 NG37 NG38 NG21 NG20 NG22 NG23 NG26 NG14 NG25 Cameroon NG01 NW fishing and rice NG02 Rimasokoto irrigated rice, millet, and vegetables NG03 NW millet, cowpeas, and groundnuts NG04 NW millet and sesame NG05 NW irrigated wheat and vegetables NG06 NW sorghum, cowpeas, and groundnuts NG07 NW cotton, maize, and rice NG08 NW cotton, groundnuts, and mixed crops NG09 - Niger River rice dominant NG10 NW cotton and maize NG11 Hadejia Valley mixed economy NG12 - NE fishing dominant NG13 NE rice and chilli peppers NG14 NE fishing, maize, and cowpeas NG15 NE wheat and chili peppers NG16-NE millet and cowpeas NG17 - NE Yobe lowland rice NG18 - NE millet, cowpeas, and groundnuts. NG19 NE sorghum, millet, and cowpeas NG20 - NE maize and sorghum NG21 - NE sorghum, groundnuts, and cowpeas NG22 - NE maize, cotton, and soybeans NG23 NE vegetables and maize NG24 NE rice, maize, and sorghum NG25 NE sorghum, cotton, and cowpeas NG26 - NE maize, cowpeas, and cotton NG27 NE special grasing area NG28 NE maize and groundnuts NG29 NE sorghum, maize, and cowpeas NG30 NE rice and sweet patatoes. NG31 NC maize and sorghum NG32 NC maize, groudnuts, and rice NG33 - NC maize dominant, sorghum, and tubers NG34 - NC yams, cassava, and sorghum NG35 - NE rice, sweet potatoes, and cotton NG36 NC sweet potatoes dominant NG37 NC sorghum, sesame, and rice NG38 River Benue fishing dominant NG39 Niger River floodplain rice and sorghum NG40 NC maize and yams NG41 NC yams, maize, and sorghum NG42 - NC ginger, sorghum, maize, and tubers NG43 NC cassava and sorghum NG44 NC rice, sorghum, melon, and cassava#9Benin NG!! NGA NG03 Lagos NGO NG02 Sokoto NGTO Niger NG13 NG08 NGII NGOS Abuja NGOS NG03 Port NGO Harcourt NG!! NGTO NG13 Maiduguri NG12 NGII Man NG09 NGOS NG07 NG04 NGOJ NG02 NG02 NGO NG09 HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages NE Millet, Cowpea, Sesame (NG12) Cameroon North Central Maize, Sorghum, Cotton (NG10)#10Millet & Sesame Zone (MAS) Millet, Cowpea & Groundnut (MCG) Sorghum, Cowpea & Groundnut (MCG) Cotton, Groundnu t& Cereals (CGC) N NG02 -Sokoto NGO Niger NG04 NG03 NG17 NGII NG12 NG13 NG14 NGIS NG16 Kano NGIO NGOS NG18 Maiduguri NG08 NG06 NG07 NG09 Benin NG27 NG33 NG31 NG29 NG28 NG32 NG30 NG40 NG41 NG42 NG39 NG44 NG34 NG35 NG36 Abuja NG43 NG37 NG38 NG19 NG21 NG20 NG22 NG23 NG26 NG24 NG25 Cameroon HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages Hadejia Valley Mixed Economy (HVM)#11Livelihood Zones and Areas Covered LZ description State LGAs HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages Katsina Baure, Daura, Dutsi, Mashi, Zango & Sandamu Bungudu, Gusau, Maru & Tsafe Millet & Sesame LZ (MAS) NW Cotton, Groundnuts & mixed Cereals LZ (CGC) Zamfara Hadejia Valley Mixed Economy LZ (HVM) Kafin Hausa, Auyo, Guri, Kiri Kassama, Malam Madori & Kaugama Jigawa Maize, Sorghum and Cotton LZ (MSC) Bauchi Alkaleri, Bogoro, Dass, Gamjuwa, Ningi, Toro & Tafawa Balewa Millet, Cowpeas and Sesame LZ (MCS) Bauchi Millet Cowpeas and Groundnuts LZ (MCG) Jigawa Sorghum Cowpea and Groundnut LZ (SCG) Zamfara Misau, Katagum, Gaide, Gamawa, Darazo & Damban Gagarawa, Buji, Jahun, Birnin Kudu, Kiyawa, Dutse, Miga & Taura Anka, Bukkuyum & Gumi#12Analysis Team Composition HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages The analysis team comprised of members from: 1.NEMA 2.Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 3.Bauchi State Ministry of Agriculture 4.Representatives of ADP from Bauchi, Jigawa, Katsina and Zamfara States 5.IFAD Jigawa 6.IFAD Katsina 7.Jigawa State Min of Budget and Economic Planning 8.Zamfara State Min of Budget and Economic Planning 9.Save the Children 10.Zamfara State Emergency Management Agency 11. Majesty Community Rural Development Foundation#13Result Summary HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages The analysis shows that the very poor households in MAS livelihood zone would likely face survival deficits of 5%, the very poor in MAS, CGC and MCS livelihood zone would likely face a livelihood protection deficit of 11%, 8% & 3% respectively, likewise the poor household also in MAS livelihood zone would likely face a livelihood protection deficit of 2% respectively, while the remaining wealth groups across the LZs are not expected to face any deficit. Households without deficits would be able to access food and income for survival and maintenance of livelihood activities and assets for the period covered by the analysis. Households facing survival deficit would need urgent intervention/support to save lives during the deficit period, while households facing livelihood protection deficit would also need support to protect their existing livelihood assets to prevent depletion of asset and use negative coping strategies.#14OA Result Summary MHEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages Country LZ description Baseline State LGAs Population Wealth Groups % Population Timing of Deficit Survival Deficit LP Deficit (%Kcal) VP 34% Jun-Aug, 2018 5% 11% Millet & Sesame LZ (MAS) Sept09-Aug10 Katsina Baure, Daura, Dutsi, Mashi, Zango & Sandamu P 32% No deficit No deficit No deficit 1,351,607 M 19% No deficit No deficit No deficit BO 16% No deficit No deficit No deficit VP 26% August, 2018 No deficit 8% NW Cotton, Groundnuts & mixed Sept11-Aug12 Zamfara Bungudu, Gusau, Maru & Tsafe P 26% August, 2018 No deficit 2% Cereals LZ (CGC) 1,604,678 M 26% No deficit No deficit No deficit BO 22% No deficit No deficit No deficit VP 38% No deficit No deficit No deficit Kafin Hausa, Auyo, Guri, Hadejia Valley Mixed P 20% No deficit No deficit No deficit NIGERIA Sept10-Aug11 Kiri Kassama, Malam Economy LZ (HVM) 1,333,560 M 23% No deficit No deficit No deficit Madori & Kaugama Jigawa BO 19% No deficit No deficit No deficit VP 30% No deficit No deficit No deficit Alkaleri, Bogoro, Dass, Maize, Sorghum and 2,259,076 P 26% No deficit No deficit No deficit 2012-13 Bauchi Gamjuwa, Ningi, Toro & Cotton LZ (MSC) M 23% No deficit No deficit No deficit Tafawa Balewa BO 21% No deficit No deficit No deficit VP 27% August, 2018 No deficit 3% Millet, Cowpeas and 2012-13 Sesame LZ (MCS) Misau, Katagum, Gaide, Gamawa, Darazo & Damban 1,817,466 P 29% No deficit No deficit No deficit M 25% No deficit No deficit No deficit Bauchi BO 18% No deficit No deficit No deficit VP 34% No deficit No deficit No deficit Gagarawa, Buji, Jahun, Millet Cowpeas and Groundnuts LZ (MCG) 1,878,024 P 21% No deficit No deficit No deficit Sept12-Aug13 Birnin Kudu, Kiyawa, Dutse, Miga & Taura M 20% No deficit No deficit No deficit Jigawa BO 26% No deficit No deficit No deficit VP 33% No deficit No deficit No deficit Sorghum Cowpea and Groundnut LZ (SCG) 756,288 P 20% No deficit No deficit No deficit Sept12-Aug13 Zamfara Anka, Bukkuyum & Gumi M 23% No deficit No deficit No deficit BO 24% No deficit No deficit No deficit#15% minimum food needs Total Income (food+cash) District: Bungudu Livelihood Zone: NGCGC Household type: VP 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% ref vear Curr.vear thresholds. O animal products cons. animal products sold own crops consumed Danimals sold Olabour formal emp Osmall business gifts food other own crops sold ■labour-casual/payment in kind self-employment wild foods gifts cash food transfer - official Olabour-public works Thresholds ■I/hoods protection cash transfer - official survival % min. food energy needs Sources of Food HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages District: Bungudu Livelihood Zone: NGCGC Household type: VP 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% baseline + hazard + coping survival deficit □ food transfer - official □ purchase other □ gifts - food wild foods labour - casual/payment in kind □own crops consumed □ animal products cons.#16% minimum food needs Total Income (food+cash) District: Bungudu Livelihood Zone: NGCGC Household type: P 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% ref year Danimal products cons. own crops consumed O animals sold Olabour formal emp Osmall business gifts -food other Olabour public works Thresholds I/hoods protection thresholds Curr.vear O animal products sold □own crops sold labour - casual/payment in kind self-employment wild foods gifts cash □ food transfer - official cash transfer official survival % min. food energy needs Sources of Food HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages District: Bungudu Livelihood Zone: NGCGC Household type: P 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% baseline + hazard + coping survival deficit food transfer - official □ purchase other gifts -food wild foods labour - casual/payment in kind □ own crops consumed □ animal products cons.#17% minimum food needs Total Income (food+cash) District: Baure Livelihood Zone: Household type: 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% NGMAS VP ref.vear O animal products cons. own crops consumed Danimals sold Olabour formal emp Osmall business □ gifts -food other Olabour - public works Thresholds I/hoods protection thresholds Curr.vear O animal products sold own crops sold ■labour - casual/payment in kind self-employment wild foods Ogifts cash □ food transfer official cash transfer - official □ survival % min. food energy needs Sources of Food HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages District: Baure Livelihood Zone: NGMAS Household type: VP 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% baseline + hazard + coping survival deficit □ food transfer - official □ purchase other gifts -food wild foods labour-casual/payment in kind own crops consumed □ animal products cons.#18Total Income (food+cash) District: Misau Livelihood Zone: Household type: NG12 VP 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% % minimum food needs % min. food energy needs Sources of Food District: Misau Livelihood Zone: Household type: NG12 VP 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 0% ref.year O milk □ crops □ livestock sales □ 0 □ small business payment in kind wild foods/other □ employment Thresholds ■I/hoods protection curr.year thresholds O milk sales crop sales □ local labour self employment □ gifts □ 0 20% 0% baseline + hazard + coping crops □ food aid cash transfer survival □ milk □ local labour □ payment in kind □ purchase survival deficit □ gifts wild foods/other □ food aid HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages#19OA Result Summary HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages CGC HVM MAS MCG SCG MSC MCS V.Poor LPD=11% No deficit No deficit No deficit LPD=3% SD=5% LPD=8% No deficit Poor LPD=2% No deficit Middle No deficit No deficit Better-off No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit No deficit#20Quantification of Food Needs HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages State Livelihood Zone Beneficiaries In need of Food needs in Metric Tonnes Support Katsina Millet & Sesame 457,018 15,493,000 Zamfara Cotton Groundnut 742,567 10,944,000 and Mixed Crop Bauchi Millet Cowpeas & 497,459 2,724,000 Sesame TOTAL 1,818601 29,161,000#21Conclusion HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages . Rainfall was well established and evenly distributed in the 2017 season. Insecurity "Cattle Rustling" in CGC LZ remains and continue to affect livestock production especially Cattle Generally, for the period analyzed, the very poor & poor households within the Millet & Sesame, Cotton Groundnut and Mixed Crop and Millet Cowpeas & Sesame LZs would need support to be able to meet their basic food/non food needs as well as maintain their livelihood.#22Recommendations HEASAHEL household economy approach analyse de l'économie des ménages • ● Need for an intervention within the projected deficit period to support the very poor and poor household on both survival and livelihood protection deficit to ensure adequate protection of their fragile livelihoods assets. and survival, as this would prevent depletion of assets and adoption of negative coping strategies. Need to support the farmers on preservation activities for crops as well as increased Government support to boost crop production. Government to provide adequate security to ensure the protection of lives and properties across these zones especially CGC in Zamfara sate. Continually monitor prices of grain as the lean season progresses Monitor the herd dynamics in Zamfara as they are vulnerable and prone to rustling Focus on development interventions to improve resilience among the vulnerable households.#23UNITED STATES USAID ERNATIONAL DE AGENCY VELOPMENT www.hea-sahel.org THANK YOU USAID FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Save the Children