Food insecurity in fragile lands

Since food security is multi-faceted, the three dimensions of food availability, access and adequacy are addressed using a combination of formal surveys and qualitative tools (e.g. focussed group discussions, case studies, key informant interviews), which were so designed that they mutually enrich the investigation. The formal surveys (i.e. household production and socio-economic survey; food consumption, nutrition and health survey) are parallels to the existing national surveys regularly conducted (FIES, NNS), and were so selected to build on them in order to gain insights at im­proving their usefulness, particularly for the comprehensive assessment of food secu­rity. The various non-formal survey methods and tools were designed to give context­ual information on the results of the statistical analyses (multi-variate analyses), and to qualify and enrich the interpretation of the significant variables that were identified in the regressions.

Hypothesis 2 deals with the factors that most likely affect the households' deci­sion in composing their livelihood portfolio. Livelihoods are grouped into four types: same percentage distribution of income sources (LIVETYP1); farm income>50% (LIVETYP2); off-farm income>50% (LIVETYP3); non-farm income>50% (LIVE­TYP4), based on the income percentage criteria of the total full income of households obtained from these various income sources. This was found to be a useful classifica­tion because of the divergent trends found in LFAs, despite the similarities in cultiva­ted crop (coconut, rice, rootcrops) and livelihood activities (farming, backyard pigge­ry, domestic services, seasonal off-farm work, carpentry/construction). With this classification, it was found that one village counts more of the farming type of house­holds (Alegre), and the other more the non-farm type of households (Plaridel). The regressions on Hypotheses 1 and 2 combined with the community surveys and case studies explained and qualified the differences in livelihood portfolios. Also, it was found that livelihood types do impact significantly on the choice and productivity of crop systems and the nutritional status of children. This thesis argues for the useful­ness of the livelihood approach in exploring the linkages in food security analysis.

In addition, the data and regression results built around hypotheses 1 and 2 pro­vided insights in food availability and food access. Finally, food adequacy is dealt with in Hypothesis 3 which investigated the determinants of nutrient intake and nu­tritional status of children, the latter as proxy for health. Nutritional status was re­gressed on the livelihood types together with economic, socio-demographic and health-related variables. Coming full circle, the factors affecting nutritional status of children as well as their health conditions were identified.

The village government of Plaridel was able to adequately provide for quality drinking water from three spring water sources in the mountains, while potable drink­ing water in Alegre was accessed outside the village due to poor quality of its ground­water. Plaridel has better school and health facilities than Alegre, where households are served by one school only and have some access to health services. There were more sources of credit in Plaridel, including the Church-organized cooperative for home industry and consumption uses, while Alegre households had to contend with the usurious local moneylenders, except for one or two farmers who accessed credit from the Rural Bank in town. Plaridel has relatively more traders who are also financiers of farm capital, i.e. seed, fertilizers or wage payment. Comparative­ly, Plaridel has more in terms of economic opportunities and support services, while Alegre has more of economic constraints. The economic gains however have not been translated in terms of nutritional status.

All these basic data provide strongly for the argument that the significant and important factors that contribute to food security are not only economic in nature. Economic factors such as income and food budget are necessary but not suffi­cient conditions for food security.

Among poor households, labour is the most important resource. Labour as a variable, is a special case, and I will treat it as quasi-economic and quasi-social be­cause it has both an economic and a social value. The latter simply means that the consideration for labour use decision is not only for monetary aims but also for non-monetary rewards or benefits. This is especially true with regard to a mother's or a wife's use of labour time. In households where women play a dual role as both producer and consumer, valuation of labour is subjective because there is no 'real market' for own use of time partly because of social norms. This has an important bearing particularly in labour sub­stitution between wage and domestic work.

The main research question that this thesis deals with is: "How do the livelihoods of farming households impact on their food security in a context of ecologically fragile environments?" The explanations of the variables or factors from the interrelationship between hypotheses 1 and 2, and between hypotheses 2 and 3 clarify the answer to this question.

The livelihoods of farming households in less favoured areas are affected by the interplay of biophysical and socio-economic factors. These factors have differential impact on the different livelihood types because of the availability and competing use of labour of adult working members, the household size, the size of cultivated farm, value of farm produce, and the existence of idle lands. From direct observation and interviews it bacame apparent that idle land is the catch-all variable for poor quality land and/or the lack of capital to make use of technology and other inputs.

It will be noted that the final indicator of food security is that of nutrition ade­quacy, the latter of which is indicated by nutrient adequacy of the individual house­hold members and nutritional status of children. In the final analysis, the nutritional status of children, especially those under five, is highly significantly and positively affected when households income is obtained more from off-farm activities (LIVE­TYP3), and positively when more income comes from non-farm activities (LIVE­TYP4), and negatively when income is more from farming activities (LIVETYP2). The evidence for the latter two, however, is not conclusive.

How does the situation in ecologically less favoured areas affect the choice and generation of livelihoods?

These differential effects on the various crops show that crops respond differ­ently to various factors, and this factor-specificity has important policy implications for targeting intervention options for productivity improvement.

From Hypothesis 1, it is concluded that farming households have a diversified liveliƯhood portfolio because low productivity and low incomes from farming cannot susƯtain their lives. In summary, livelihood type has high significant correlations with the variables farm wage worker (+), age of household head (+), size of cultivated area ( - ), actual household size ( - ), value of farm produce (+), number of working children (+/- ). The evidence on the life cycle variable is not conclusive. Generally, the behaviour of the relationships shows labour shifts from one type of activity to another mainly because of household size, labour supply within household, the area and productivity of the farm.

The role of gender is critical in terms of type of labour available and employ­ment opportunity. Male labour is usually employed in off-farm activity of cash crops such as coconut and abaca, and female labour mostly for non-farm employment like native crafts and domestic services. Household size affects labour supply, espe­cially of women since their labour use on domestic chores is high. Hence, a bigger household size tends to negatively impact on their availability for off-farm (in rice) and non-farm work.

Following through the series of relations and results, the final answer to the main question is provided in this section on the food adequacy situation. On the whole, nutrient adequacy and nutritional status of households and individuals in the LFAs, as represented by the research villages, are far below the national averages.

Table 11 presents the summary of policy actions necessary to address the significant and important variables identified in this study. The initiation level indicates where policy can originate. National refers to the national agency or relevant research, development and extension institute (RDE), and local refers to provincial, municipal or village governments. The indication of both national and local implies strong coor­dination with the relevant national agency or research institute and local government unit. Effective implementation presupposes good governance, cost-sharing for cost effectiveness, good human and non-human resources management, and collaboration and partnership with non-government organizations and community-based organiza­tions present in the respective areas.

In relation to the food-based nutrient diversity approach, there is also the critical need to develop and integrate an RDE program in existing food crop improvement agenda of relevant research institutes aiming at improving the knowledge base of the nutrient content of food crops. Of the 80,000 species or so of plant sources of nutrients, only a very limited number are grown in own fields and gardens. Promoting the diversity of plant foods that can be produced in farms and gardens through im­proved food-nutrient information and nutrition campaign program have increasingly received attention in recent years as vehicles to alleviate poverty and food insecurity (Gari, 2004; Frison et al., 2006; Toledo and Burlingame, 2006).

Table 11. Summary table of significant variables and policy options.