Graph 7.1 shows the standardised group scores on the ten indices of vulnerability. The closer a household comes to the centre of the radar, the more vulnerable it is. In five indices of vulnerability, the average group scores are as expected: vulnerable households score low; secure households score high, and ‘middle group’ households are in between. These indices are: livestock ownership, acreage under cultivation, livelihood diversification, cash income and non-livestock possessions. Future studies in the area that need proxies for vulnerability could use these variables.
Households that own much livestock are also likely to score better on other indices of vulnerability. They have a relatively strong security endowment portfolio. An analysis of cross-correlations between individual indices of vulnerability (see Table 7.11) shows that livestock ownership correlates significantly and positively with the acreage under cultivation and food self-sufficiency in the past decade. There is no significant correlation between livestock ownership and the number and ‘value’ of non-agricultural income generating activities. An explanation may be that these two sources of livelihood compete with each other in terms of labour.
Households with a large farm size also score relatively well on other axes of vulnerability, especially food self-sufficiency, livestock ownership, possessions and to a lesser extent cash income and non-agricultural income generating activities. Not surprisingly, there was a significant and relatively strong positive correlation between non-agricultural activities and cash income. Perhaps more interestingly, households in which a relatively large number of members had non-farm income often had low dependency ratios. In households with high dependency ratios, the productive generation could not invest as much time in such activities. There are more interesting cross-correlations between individual indices of vulnerability, but I
Graph 7.1 Livelihood vulnerability/security profiles of the three vulnerability groups based on average index scores of vulnerability
1: Dependency Ratio
2: Livestock
3: Acreage Under Cultivation
4: Livelihood Diversification
5: Cash Income 6: Education Household Head
7: Land Tenure 8: Non-Livestock Assets
9: Food Self-Sufficiency
10: Family Networks
vulnerable middle secure
Source: Livelihood Analysis Survey
Table 7.11 Correlations between indices of vulnerability (Kendall’s tau-b).
Indices of Vulnerability D ep en d en cy Ra tio L iv es to ck N A IG A s A cr ea g e u n d er Cu lti v at io n Ca sh In co m e L an d T en u re E d u ca tio n H H -H N o n -L iv es to ck P o ss es si o n s F o o d S el f- S u ff ic ie n cy F am ily N et w o rk s Dependency Ratio Livestock 0.050 NAIGAs 0.359** -0.071 Acreage Under Cultivation 0.069 0.301** 0.155*
Cash Income 0.070 0.169* 0.422** 0.157* Land Tenure -0.164 0.030 -0.054 0.036 0.138 Education HH-H -0.187* 0.160 0.069 0.012 0.316** 0.105 Non-Livestock Possessions 0.178* 0.237** 0.202* 0.247** 0.243** 0.059 -0.051 Food Self-Sufficiency 0.006 0.261** -0.095 0.271** -0.048 -0.048 0.001 0.115 Family Networks 0.028 -0.171* -0.081 -0.071* -0.174* 0.093 -0.240* -0.008 -0.012 Overall Vulnerability Index 0.114 0.279** 0.197* 0.303** 0.348** 0.026 0.099 0.348** 0.034 -0.156
Correlations in shaded cells are significant at the 0.05 level (*) or at the 0.01 level (**)
The correlations between individual indices and overall vulnerability exclude ‘own contribution’ of individual indices
will not describe them all in detail. Anyone with a specific field of interest can look those up in Table 7.11. For a correct interpretation, Table 6.1 shows how the different indices were measured and calculated.
For three indices of vulnerability, the average scores of the vulnerability groups do not vary much: dependency ratio, land tenure situation and family networks (see graph 7.1). In chapter six, an explanation has been presented for the absence of a strong correlation between
land tenure situation and overall vulnerability.44 The weakness of the correlation between
dependency ratio and overall vulnerability can partly be explained by the fact that dependency
ratios do not vary as greatly as other indices of vulnerability, like for example livestock
ownership (see Table 6.1 for ranges). To calculate dependency ratios, a set of conversion factors has been used that determines the number of consumer units and the number of labour units in the households (see appendix 2). These conversion factors take into account that children consume less than adults; that women consume less than men and that children and elderly people do contribute to household labour, but less than people who are in their
productive age. The resultant dependency ratios45 are: 1.36 for the vulnerable households,
1.23 for the middle group and 1.20 for the secure group. If the dependency ratios are simply calculated as the total number of household members divided by the number of household members aged between 15 and 65, then the respective figures are: 1.97, 1.95 and 1.55. In other words, in secure households in the sample, every two adults aged 15-65 have to take care of one ‘dependent’. In ‘vulnerable’ households, each adult has one dependent to take care of.
The third index that does not show a clear correlation with the overall vulnerability index is ‘family networks’. We have to be cautious not to draw the wrong conclusion from this lack of correlation. As the in-depth analyses in chapter eight will show, family networks are very important sources of livelihood security. If we look at the way I quantified this variable in the analysis of vulnerability (see Table 6.1 and the section on family networks in the present chapter), it is actually surprising that no strong and significant negative correlation was found. One would expect to see vulnerable households more often as net receivers in inter-household transfers of labour, food and money.
In two indices of vulnerability, the average position of vulnerable and secure households is in accordance with expectations, but the ‘middle group’ plays a special role. These indices are the educational level of the household head and food self-sufficiency. On average, the heads of households in the secure group were much more educated than the heads of households from the vulnerable and middle group. Between the vulnerable households and households in the middle group, there was not much difference, however. Four men in the survey sample had furthered their education beyond the secondary school level. All four were in the most secure group, which indicates that investment in a long educational career does pay off. A short educational career, on the other hand, is no guarantee for a more secure livelihood. In the vulnerable group there were just as many household heads who attended primary school as in the secure group.
44
To summarise, people who do not own enough suitable farmland borrow land from other people without substantial payments.
45
Note that for the quantitative analysis of vulnerability, I used inverted dependency ratios because high scores had to indicate security rather than vulnerability. In the figures presented in this section, dependency ratios have been calculated in the conventional way (consumer units divided by labour units).
When we look at the ‘food self-sufficiency’ axis of vulnerability in graph 7.1, we see that the households in the middle group score slightly better than the households in the secure group. This is a bit surprising because the reported acreage under cultivation per consumer unit was considerably larger in the group of secure households. I have pondered over possible explanations, but none was really convincing. One important difference between the two indices relates to time. The acreage was recorded for one specific year whereas the food self- sufficiency was quantified over the past decade (see Table 6.1).
***
When we look at the average scores of households in the three vulnerability groups, a ‘livelihood vulnerability profile’ can be described for each group. This can help us to understand the depth of vulnerability and poverty and the inter-household variation of vulnerability in the research area. Let me first describe the average vulnerable household. The household has nine members, of whom four or five are in their productive age (15-65). When expressed in consumer units, the household size is 6.71 (adult male is one). In 1999, this household farmed about 2.05 hectares of land. Assuming an average yield level of 600
kg/ha46, this household can harvest about 1,230 kg of grain equivalents. Assuming a minimal
annual food consumption of 200 kg grain equivalents per capita, the household was not self- sufficient in its food production in 1999. The food gap was almost 600 kg of grain
equivalents. Before the 1999 harvest, the household spent about 55,000 cedis47 to buy maize
in the market (to bridge the food gap of the 1998 harvest). The past two years (1998 and 1999) were not exceptional, because this household had to buy grains in six out of the last ten years. The purchased grains alone cannot bridge the food gap. The household buys other foodstuffs (like konkonte) and gathers wild foods to reduce the food gap, but their food intake is most probably below minimal energy requirements.
The household had several sources of exchange entitlements to food. Firstly, they sold livestock. The animal stock of the household at the time of the survey was twenty-three
chickens and guinea fowls; four goats; one or two sheep; one pig and one cow.48 The revenue
from animal sales in 1999 was about 80,000 cedis.49 Non-farm and off-farm income is more
important than the income from animal sales, however. One woman in the household brews pito for sale, and another woman sells firewood, processes sheanut or dawadawa, engages in
petty trade or weaves baskets for sale.50 Only one man is likely to go on seasonal labour
migration or have another dry season occupation like dry season gardening or fishing.
Together with the revenue from livestock and crop sales,51 the cash income of this household
amounted to about 568,000 cedis.52 This is more than the money needed to bridge the annual
46
The assumption here is that there are no structural differences in crop yields between vulnerable and secure households. In my sample, the average estimated yields were slightly higher in the secure group, but no significant correlation existed between yield level and vulnerability rank (Kendall’s tau-b = 0.081 with significance 0.204). There were nine missing values.
47
Approximately 20 US$.
48
The average number of cattle per household in the vulnerable group was 0.9 (see graph 6.1), but only 6 households in the vulnerable group actually owned cattle.
49
Approximately 30 US$.
50
In some households, the pito-brewing woman also engages in a second income-generating activity.
51
The average revenue per vulnerable household was only 18,000 cedis (7 US$).
52
food gap, but with this money, school fees, school uniforms, hospital fees, funeral expenses, clothes, soap, kerosene for lanterns, hoe blades, building and maintenance materials, cooking utensils, soup ingredients and other items have to be bought, too. A strong focus on food secu- rity neglects the fact that the process of commoditisation is quite advanced. It would be wrong to conclude that this household is food secure because the food gap is smaller than the mone- tary income. People simply cannot spend all their monetary income on food and with a budget of about 20 US$ per person per year, it is very difficult to make ends meet. To give an indica- tion: in 1999, the fees for public Senior Secondary Schools in the region amounted to about 250,000 cedis per year. Sending one child to SSS would mean a tremendous cut in the house- hold’s budget. Vulnerable households in the research area live in hard-core poverty. They have very little ‘room to manoeuvre’ and there is very little scope for accumulating wealth in
good years.53 They are struggling to survive. Remittances from migrant relatives can some-
times bring a little relief. They are an important extra source of food54 and income (average
50,000 cedis55) for vulnerable households.
Now let me describe a relatively secure household in the research area. The household is smaller in size: it has seven members, of whom four to five are in their productive age. The household cultivates an area of about 3.26 hectares. To prepare the land, the household is likely to use bullocks or hire a tractor. Assuming an average yield level of 600 kg/ha, this household can harvest almost 2,000 kg of grain equivalents. Due to its smaller size (5.24 consumer units), the household needs a minimum of only 1,400 kg of grain equivalents per year, so there is above subsistence production. Only a small part of the surplus food is sold, however (61,750 cedis in 1999, the price of 100 kg of millet). Part of the surplus food is used to invite farm labourers in the following farming season and part of the food is stored as an insurance against crop failures in the future. Although the survey findings are not unambigu- ous about this, secure households are likely to transfer a small part of their surplus to less fortunate relatives and neighbours.
The secure household also owns more animals. Its stock consists of about thirty-five chickens and guinea fowls, nine goats, two to three sheep, four pigs and three heads of cattle.
In 1999, the revenue from animal sales was about 165,000 cedis.56 Just as in the vulnerable
household, one woman brews beer to make money and a second woman has another source of non-farm income, most probably petty trade. The difference between the non-farm income of vulnerable and secure households is to be found in the activities of the men rather than the women. Whereas among vulnerable households, only one man has a non-farm or off-farm income, among secure households two men have jobs outside farming. Moreover, the jobs of men in secure households are more rewarding. One man has either a formal job with a monthly salary; a pension or a skill like masonry, carpentry, tailoring, etc. A second man in the household goes on seasonal labour migration, has a dry season garden or engages in commercial fishing. Not surprisingly, the annual cash income of a secure household is
53
Looking at the non-livestock saleable assets, the average vulnerable household had one bicycle and one radio.
54
Nine out of twenty households in the vulnerable group received between half a bag and three bags of maize from migrant relatives in 1999.
55
Approximately 18.5 US$.
56
considerably higher than that of a vulnerable household. In 1999, it amounted to about
1,364,000 cedis.57 With 72 US$ per capita per year on top of the subsistence food needs, a
relatively secure household in the research area does not live in luxury, but the budget is manageable and leaves space for investment in assets that further increase livelihood security and the capacity to cope with adverse events in the future.
Photo 13:
Women gathering leaves to be used as soup ingredients or to be sold in the market
57