1. Masters Thesis Defense
Assessment of food security status of PSNP beneficiary
households in Ethiopia: The case of Libokemkem woreda,
south Gondar zone.
Supervisor of thesis: Dr.Temesgen Tilahun
Behailu Shewangizaw
September, 2015

2. OUTLINE
Introduction
 Background and statement of the problem
 Objectives of the study
Conceptual Framework
Methodology
 Selection of the study area
 Data type and source
 Method of data collection
 Sample size and sampling procedure
 Model specification and method of data analysis
Major Findings
 Household food security status
 Stunting (chronic malnutrition)
 Major coping strategies
 Determinants of household food security
Conclusion
Recommendation

3. INTRODUCTION
 Food security recently applied to community, local,
household & individual level (Foster 1992).
 Necessity to include nutrition into food security
evolved over time (Quisumbing 1995) .
 Food insecurity, malnutrition and vulnerability remain
high in Ethiopia (WB 2014):
29 % absolute poor,
44 % suffer from chronic malnutrition, and
43 % vulnerable to absolute poverty.

4. CONT.
 Causes of food insecurity in Ethiopia?
poverty;
weak institutions (market and land tenure);
land degradation;
insufficient landholding;
low productivity rain fed agriculture;
low off farm opportunities;
population pressure;
low literacy.
[Firehiwot 2007; Degefa 2002; Gebremedhin 2001;
Devereux-2000; Masefield 2000; Hurni 1998]

5. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
 Previous food security studies focus on process indicators.
 Studies on the nutritional status of children in PSNP woredas
are not easily available
 Attention to investigate the status of the linkage between food
security program (PSNP) and nutrition is not adequate .
 Hence the main gap is to assess food security status of PSNP
households using both process and outcome indicator:
prevalence of food insecurity (access)
prevalence of stunting (chronic malnutrition)

6. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
 General Objective
to assess the food security status of the PSNP beneficiary
households in Libokemkem district.
 Specific Objective
measurement of prevalence of household food insecurity
(access);
measurement of prevalence of stunting (chronic malnutrition);
determinants of food insecurity;
identify household coping strategies.

7. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 What does the PSNP beneficiary household food security (access
to food) status look like in the study area?
 What does the chronic malnutrition (stunting) rate of children
under five look like in the area?
 What are the factors affecting food security situation in the area?
 What are the main coping strategies in food shortage situation?

8. HYPOTHESES
 Household food security status has a positive correlation with :-
use of chemical fertilizer,
market distance,
annual income,
plough oxen,
TLU,
size of cultivated land, and
size of irrigated land;
while it is negatively associated with family size .

9. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Basic service
Extension
Market
PSNP
Conditional
cash transfer
Livelihood
assets
Cultivated land
Livestock,
Oxen
Income
Irrigation
Demographic
Factor
Family size
Education
Household
activities
On/off
farm
activities
Non-farm
activities
Access
Food
availability
Utilization
Househol
d food
security
and
nutrition
status
Food
intake
Health
status

10. METHODOLOGY
 Selection of study area
selection of Libokemkem district was purposive:
CFI districts [targeted by PSNP program];
frequent visit RRM (Rapid Response Mechanism)
Data source; Ethiopian mapping agency

11. CONT.
 Sample size and sampling procedures
two clusters of PSNP kebeles (case load)
two kebeles were selected randomly

12. CONT.
sample size (Yamane1967):- n = N/1+N*(e)²
Where: n- sample size, N -population size, e –sampling error (5%)
however, sample size scaled up to 171 (all pw in Birkute)
increase number of child
manageable
finally systemic random sampling to select respondents
Sample Kebeles Total PW - HH Sample size (PPS)
Ginazana Selqisa 149 96
Birkute 75 48
Total 224 144

13. CONT.
 Data type
 Quantitative; &
 Qualitative .
 Data source.
 Primary;
 Secondary.
 Data collection methods:
 Household survey questionnaire;
 Focus group discussion;
 Key informant interview;
 Observation; &
 Analysis of relevant documents.

14. CONT.
 Model specification and analysis
Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS):
to measure household food insecurity status
Child Anthropometry:
to measure stunting (chronic malnutrition) status
Multiple Logistic Regression Model: flexible and easily used
function; meaningful interpretation, and simpler in estimation
(Nelson 1984).
to identify the determinants of food security status.

15. CONT.
 Mixed data analysis method
 Quantitative data analysis
 descriptive statistical techniques;
 inferential statistics (simple regression using T-test as
well as maximum likelihood estimate of logit model).
 Qualitative data analysis
 narrated to substantiate quantitative findings;
 qualitative data was reduced according to similar patterns of
characteristics:
 major sources of food;
 households’ coping strategies;
 reasons to sell most of agricultural products...

16. MAJOR FINDINGS
 Household food security status
13.75 % (n=22) food secure
86.25 % (n=138) food insecure

17. CONT.
 Measurement of Prevalence of Stunting
not stunted 17; moderately 4; and severely 41

18. CONT.
Stunning by food security status
 11 food secure ; 34 food insecure

19. CONT.
 Stunting by sex
 N = 62 [F 29, M 33]
 2 out of 3 were admitted for Out Patient Therapeutic Feeding (Birkute HP).

20. CONT
 Major coping strategies

21. CONT.
 Distribution by Coping Stages
Source: Adopted from MOH (2011)
Coping Stages Marked by Percent
Stage 1 Insurance Strategies Reversible strategies 77.5
Stage 2 Crisis Strategies I
Marked by the sale of
non productive assets 16.88
Stage 3 Crisis Strategies II
Marked by sale of
productive assets 5.63

22. CONT.
 Distribution by coping stages

23. CONT
Determinants of food security
The maximum likelihood estimate of logit model
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Variable Estimated Coefficient Odds Ratio Std.
Err.
Significance Level
Family Size -.853 0.426 .17961 0.043**
Cultivable Land 6.775 875.724 2140.93 0.006***
Irrigated Land 16.707 61.222 1.5938 0.004 ***
Market Distance .572 1.772 .4058 0.012 **
Education -.737 .478 .2952 0.232
TLU .349 1.418 .8006 0.536
Annual Income .0001 1.000 .0003 0.63

24. CONCLUSION
 The farming systems is constrained by:
demographic,
biophysical,
socioeconomic , and
technological factors
 Lack of sources of employment opportunities other than on-
farm activities was found one of the challenges;
 The majority of study households are food insecure; &
 The prevalence of chronic malnutrition is also higher.

25. RECOMMENDATION
 Shift from short term support scheme to livelihood based and
development oriented approach;
 Improving productivity through technology based approach:
ss irrigation...
 Strengthening complimentarity between PSNP and other
development initiatives;
 Livelihood diversifications to improve food access through:
on farm;
off-farm;
non-farm business;
employment pathway in the local labor markets;

26. RECOMMENDATION
 Appropriate development interventions toward women:
increase women’s income earning opportunities;
reducing their work load;
IGS and decision making at household level.
 Targeted intervention within the ongoing FSP [ PSNP] :
pregnant and lactating mothers;and
 child.

27. RECOMMENDATION
 Linking the PSNP cash/food transfer with non food
contributors of nutrition:
social transformation process through
social behavioral change approach:
family planning;
nutrition promotion…

28. Thank y u!!!