Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Impact of COVID-19 on rural women and men in Cross River and Kaduna states, Nigeria

65 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Prepared by Shweta Gupta, Muzna Alvi and Claudia Ringler
Data collected by Finmark

  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Impact of COVID-19 on rural women and men in Cross River and Kaduna states, Nigeria

  1. 1. Impact of COVID-19 on rural women and men in Cross River and Kaduna states, Nigeria Gender, Climate and Nutrition Integration Initiative (GCAN) Prepared by Shweta Gupta, Muzna Alvi & Claudia Ringler, IFPRI Data collected by Finmark January 11, 2021
  2. 2. Gender, Climate Change and Nutrition (GCAN) Framework ▪ The impact of shocks and stressors on people are not direct but follow different pathways and are influenced by different factors: o Exposure and sensitivity o Resilience capacities o Decision-making context o Responses ▪ Resilience is dynamic: well-being outcomes influence future resilience capacities ▪ The Covid-19 pandemic triggered both health and economic shocks ▪ Resilience to these unanticipated shocks requires mainly absorptive capacity and immediate coping responses
  3. 3. GCAN Framework: Health and economic shocks from Covid-19 may result in the following gendered responses/outcomes: ▪ Loss of control over income ▪ Asset dynamics ▪ Change in labor allocation, increase in care burden ▪ Changes in mobility, implication for risk of exposure ▪ Food insecurity, changes in dietary diversity ▪ Conflict
  4. 4. Key areas of inquiry ▪ Direct impacts: o Has anyone in the household been sick in the last 7 days? o Has the household lost income due to Covid-19? ▪ WASH environment (resilience capacity) ▪ Loss of control over income (bargaining power) ▪ Changes in migration of household members and remittances (labor/income) ▪ Asset, savings, borrowing, direct transfers (coping measures) ▪ Change in labor allocation, increase in care burden (coping measures/outcomes) ▪ Changes in mobility to buy food, seek medical care, fetch water/fuelwood etc., (coping measures/outcomes) ▪ Food insecurity, changes in dietary diversity (coping measures/outcomes) ▪ Conflict—work together to solve problems, fear of partner (outcomes)
  5. 5. Survey Implementation ▪ Selected countries with previous face-to-face surveys that had collected phone numbers: Ghana, Kenya, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda ▪ Working with partners on the ground or phone survey companies with local call centers o Tradeoffs in terms of response rate, sensitivity/knowledge of subject ▪ Developed a common questionnaire (20-30 mins long), 3-5 rounds over 6 months, each round lasting <2 weeks ▪ Sample includes approximately half women, half men respondents; same respondents are followed across rounds ▪ Programmed in SurveyCTO (or proprietary software of survey company) ▪ Nigeria sample drawn from ‘Agro-Processing Productivity Enhancement and Livelihood Improvement Support (APPEALS)’ survey (WB) with ~1000 female respondents, focusing on two FTF states (Kaduna and Cross River) ▪ 2 rounds completed (mid-August to mid-Sep and mid-October); third round ongoing
  6. 6. Location of respondents Kaduna state and Cross Rivers
  7. 7. COVID-19 in Nigeria ▪ First case: February 27, 2020 o January 9, 2021: 97,478 cases, 1342 deaths (Kaduna: 2418 cases, Cross River: 169 cases) ▪ Swift government action: o Travel ban for 13 countries and ban on mass gatherings March 18. Travel bans extend to all domestic and international flights in April. o March 19th federal government orders closure of schools o Lockdown in Federal Capital Territory, Lagos and Ogun states declared on 30 March, other states issue lockdown orders throughout April Source: JHU
  8. 8. Hotspot map of areas of high Covid- 19 risk in Nigeria Source: Koo, Azzarri, Ghosh and Quabili, 2021
  9. 9. Household descriptives Characteristic Kaduna state Cross River state Full sample Males (%) 49.21 50.2 49.7 Age (years) 38 (11) 39 (10) 38.4 (105) Marital status Married (%) 88 67.5 78 Single (%) 7.1 26.5 17 Widowed/Divorced (%) 5.1 6.0 5.6 Family size 9 (5.4) 5.5 (2.5) 7.2 (4.6) No. of children (<=5 years) 2.2 (2) 1 (1.2) 1.6 (1.7) No. of elderly* (>=60 years) 0.5 (0.8) 0.4 (0.6) 0.4 (0.7) Total number of observations 252 249 501 * In Kaduna, 63% respondents reported 0 elderly and in Cross River, 73% reported 0 elderly in their HH. Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  10. 10. Household descriptives (cont.) Characteristic Kaduna state Cross River state Full sample Highest education No formal schooling (%) 7 0 3.4 Primary or less (%) 14 4 9 Secondary or less (%) 37 37 37 More than secondary (%) 43 59 51 Household head Self (%) 62 67 64 Spouse (%) 38 33 36 Female headed HH (%) 13 21 17 Total number of observations 252 249 501 Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  11. 11. Primary Occupation of respondent 30 9 4 33 12 11 8 21 13 2 31 26 9 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Agriculture Livestock Casual labour Self- employed Salary No work Other Share Kaduna Cross River The sum across all occupations for any state or full sample exceeds100 since some people do both agriculture and livestock rearing. Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  12. 12. Household assets 76% 63% 46% 13% 8% 7% 6% 2% 58% 54% 26% 7% 6% 3% 4% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Farm land Chicken Goat Sheep Other Milk cow Pig Other cattle Shareofhouseholds male Female ▪ More male farmers reported ownership of the above assets by their HH than female farmers Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  13. 13. Who decides how to spend earnings of respondent? - By Gender 63 0 28 1 4 1 3 57 6 36 1 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Self Spouse Jointly with spouse Other HH member Self & other HH member Spouse & other HH member Other Respondent is male Kaduna Cross River 29 19 42 2 2 4 2 44 6 48 0 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Self Spouse Jointly with spouse Other HH member Self & other HH member No earnings of resp. Other Respondent is female Kaduna Cross River Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys ▪ Few women in Kaduna report that they decide on how to spend their earnings ▪ No men in Kaduna state that their spouse decides on how to spend their earnings
  14. 14. Who decides how to spend earnings of spouse? - By Gender 44 23 28 5 14 17 68 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Self Spouse Jointly with spouse Others % Respondent is male Kaduna Cross River 8 49 39 5 9 13 78 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Self Spouse Jointly with spouse Others % Respondent is female Kaduna Cross River Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys ▪ Clearly close to half of men in Kaduna decide on how to spend their wives’ earnings and their earnings; more joint decision-making on earnings in Cross River
  15. 15. Impact of COVID on income ▪ N= 252 for Kaduna, 249 for Cross River and 501 for full sample ▪ In both the states and full sample, nearly 4/5th of males and 4/5th of females reported their HH suffered an income loss 80.56 78.71 79.64 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Kaduna Cross River Full sample % HH suffered an income loss due to COVID Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  16. 16. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Male respondents Female respondents ShareofRespondents Round 1 Round 2 Income loss due to Covid-19, change between rounds 1 and 2 (%) ▪ The share of respondents suffering from income losses declined; presumably as economic activities resumed during the summer, alternative income opportunities were also found Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  17. 17. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Male respondents Female respondents ShareofHouseholds Round 1 Round 2 Worked in the last 7 days (%) Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  18. 18. Coping strategies to deal with income loss 72% 71% 72% 63% 24% 44% 54% 55% 55% 5% 2% 4%6% 4% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Kaduna Cross River Full sample Used savings Sold assets Borrowed money Transfers from govt. Transfers from NGO Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys ▪ Kaduna relied much more on selling of assets than Cross River ▪ More government and NGO transfers in Kaduna
  19. 19. Coping mechanisms to deal with loss of income (%) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Use savings Sale of assets Borrow money Consumed less Reduced expenditure Found alternative work Transfers ShareofHouseholds Women Round 1 Round 2 Filter: those who have lost income 0 20 40 60 80 100 Use savings Sale of assets Borrow money Consumed less Reduced expenditure Found alternative work Transfers ShareofHouseholds Men Round 1 Round 2 Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  20. 20. Impact on household care by respondent Resp. gender Kaduna Cross River Full sample Male 7 (4.4) 7 (7) 7.15 (5.8) Female 11 (7.5) 10 (10) 10.3 (9) Total 9 (6.5) 8.5 (8.7) 8.7 (7.7) N 252 249 501 Amount of time (hours) spent on caring by respondent in last 24 hours • Half of the respondents state that they spend more time on caring than before, slightly more in Cross River (55%) • Female respondents self-report more time on care than male respondents Resp. gender Kaduna Cross River Full sample Male 14.3 (7.2)9.4 (6.8) 12.2 (7.4) Female 6.5 (4.5) 6.2 (8.8) 6.4 (6.7) Total 10.6 (7.2)7.9 (8) 9.5 (7.7) N 221 168 389 Amount of time (hours) spent on caring by spouse in last 24 hours • 40% the respondents state that their spouse spends more time on caring than before, slightly more in Cross River (46%) • Male respondents report more time spent on care by their wives than women acknowledge. This result is also consistent for round 2. Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  21. 21. Mobility now as compared to pre- COVID times 6 7 5 76 73 78 18 19 16 All respondents Male Female Kaduna More Less Same 13 14 11 81 80 82 5 6 5 All respondents Male Female Cross River More Less Same ▪ Mobility severely constrained in both states; and somewhat more constrained in rural CR Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  22. 22. Mobility: Activities performed in last 2 weeks by State 92 38 19 70 57 77 62 90 35 13 59 43 66 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Buy food/ others Sell food/ others For work Medical care Attend meetings Meet friends /fam Collect water /fuelwood % Kaduna Male Female 92 43 29 46 64 74 78 95 44 19 40 47 63 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Buy food/ others Sell food/ others For work Medical care Attend meetings Meet friends /fam Collect water /fuelwood % Cross River Male Female ▪ More men reported going out than women to do various activities. ▪ In Kaduna, more respondents reported going out for medical care than in CR ▪ More water/fuelwood collection in Cross River N=124 (M), 128 (F) N=125 (M), 124 (F) Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  23. 23. Migration in household ▪ N=252 for Kaduna, 249 for Cross River, 501 for full sample 15% 29% 22% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Kaduna Cross River Full Sample A HH member migrated in the last 1 year Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  24. 24. Gender of migrant ▪ The figure reports % of HH in a state or full sample that reported a male (female) migrant out of total HHs with a migrant in that state or full sample. ▪ Eg, out of 38 HHs that reported a migrant in the last year, 87% said a male had migrated & 37% said a female had migrated from their HH. ▪ More female migrants in CR than Kaduna 87% 86% 83% 37% 54% 48% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Kaduna Cross River Full sample Male Female Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  25. 25. Global Food Insecurity Experience Scale (2-week recall, shortened) 80 69 64 77 52 76 73 73 80 64 0 20 40 60 80 100 Worried not having enough food Unable to eat healthy food Skipped a meal Ate less food than reqd Was hungry but didn’t eat Kaduna Male Female ▪ Around 70% of respondents in both Kaduna and Cross River experienced food insecurity ▪ Generally, women report higher challenges in Kaduna 80 72 71 82 68 77 70 74 75 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 Worried for not having enough food Unable to eat healthy food Skipped a meal Ate less food than reqd Was hungry but didn’t eat Cross River Male Female Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  26. 26. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Male respondents Female respondents ShareofHouseholds Round 1 Round 2 Access to food changed (%) Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  27. 27. How has food access changed--if it did--due to Covid-19? 70 16 21 34 30 66 24 31 49 39 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Unable to obtain enough food Get food from different scources Eat different foods Eat less food Other % Male Female 71 22 29 59 8 63 20 27 51 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Unable to obtain enough food Get food from different scources Eat different foods Eat less food Other % Male Female Cross RiverKaduna ▪ For 85% of households in Kaduna and 83% of households in CR food access changed because of Covid-19 ▪ Again, the situation is worse for rural women in Kaduna; but a larger share of respondents ate less food in Cross River Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  28. 28. Consumption of different food groups in the last 24 hours (share of respondents) 24 32 48 52 46 63 72 66 63 83 27 32 36 37 41 51 63 63 67 78 0 20 40 60 80 100 Eggs Dairy Nuts & seeds Other fruits Meat, poultry… Other Vit A-rich… Other veg. Leafy greens… Pulses Grains, roots & tubers Females Males Kaduna 26 34 52 52 62 66 66 57 78 77 23 48 53 56 58 61 64 67 85 88 0 20 40 60 80 100 Dairy Eggs Nuts & seeds Other fruits Other veg. Other Vit A-rich… Leafy greens… Pulses Meat, poultry… Grains, roots & tubers Females Males Cross River Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  29. 29. Dietary Diversity score 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % No. of Food groups Kaduna Full sample Male Female 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % No. of Food groups Cross River Full Sample Male Female Score (Mean/sd) N Male 5.5 (2.2) 124 Female 5 (2.2) 128 Total 5.2 (2.2) 252 Score (Mean/sd) N Male 6 (2.5) 125 Female 6 (2.3) 124 Total 6 (2.4) 249 Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  30. 30. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Women with adequate diet (5 out of 10 food groups consumed) ShareofHouseholds Round 1 Round 2 Minimum dietary diversity for women (%) Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  31. 31. Major source of drinking water across states 0 20 40 60 80 Dug well Piped water Water from spring Water kiosk Rainwater Surface water Delivered water % Kaduna Male Female 0 20 40 60 80 Piped water Surface water Dug well Rainwater Delivered water Water from spring Water kiosk % Cross River Male Female There are clear differences in water sources across the 2 states: close to 50% dug wells in Kaduna, but also surface water in Cross River 3% of sample in Cross River had no toilet facilities; Kaduna less than 1%
  32. 32. HWIES- Worried about not having enough water for HH (last 2 weeks) 58% 59% 56% 16% 18% 15% 20% 16% 24% 4% 5% 3%2% 2% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% All respondents Male Female Cross River Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Across all respondents, about two thirds do not worry about water Larger worries in Cross River, at 42%, than in Kaduna, at 28%; in both Kaduna and Cross River; women are more worried; and overall stress higher in Cross River 72% 75% 70% 12% 6% 19% 13% 15% 10% 2% 3% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% All respondents Male Female Kaduna Never Rarely Sometimes Often Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  33. 33. HWIES- Changed plans due to inadequate water 71% 71% 70% 15% 10% 20% 12% 16% 8% 2% 2% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% All respondents Male Female Kaduna Never Rarely Sometimes Often 55% 58% 53% 20% 19% 20% 17% 14% 20% 7% 9% 6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% All respondents Male Female Cross River Never Rarely Sometimes Often Larger share of respondents changed plans due to inadequate water access in Cross River; across genders in CR- - women changed plans more often Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  34. 34. HWIES- Not enough water to drink 66% 66% 66% 16% 15% 18% 14% 14% 15% 3% 4% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% All respondents Male Female Cross River Never Rarely Sometimes Often 74% 77% 72% 13% 9% 17% 12% 14% 11% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% All respondents Male Female Kaduna Never Rarely Sometimes • Larger share of respondents noted insufficient drinking water in Cross River, responses quite substantial; in Kaduna, women noted more challenges Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  35. 35. In the last 2 weeks, how frequently have you or anyone in your household had to go without washing hands because of problems with water? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Never (0 times) Rarely (1 times) Sometimes (2-5 times) Often (6-10 times) Always (more than 10 times) Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  36. 36. Speaker phone use ▪ No significant difference in use of speaker phone among men and women for a particular region. ▪ But, in Cross River, use of speaker phone is significantly greater than that in Kaduna 16 62 39 16 69 42 16 65 41 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Kaduna Cross River Full sample % Respondent used speaker phone during survey Male Female Total Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  37. 37. Private space ▪ N= 184 for Kaduna, 52 for Cross River, 236* for Full sample. ▪ Only those who did not put the phone on speaker phone were asked if they were in a private space 67% 56% 64% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% Kaduna Cross River Full sample Respondent was in private space Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys
  38. 38. Interactions between respondent & spouse- by gender 57 16 85 85 25 13 9 5 16 17 6 9 2 55 0 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Fought/ disagreement with spouse Worked out everyday problems together Afraid of spouse Afraid of other member % Males Never Rarely Sometimes Often 50 11 95 97 16 2 3 2 31 8 2 22 80 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Fought/ disagreement with spouse Worked out everyday problems together Afraid of spouse Afraid of other member % Females Never Rarely Sometimes Often N=88 males N=64 females Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys • More women had a disagreement or fought • Fewer men worked out everyday problems together • More men state to be afraid of spouse
  39. 39. Interactions between respondent & spouse- by state N=123 55 14 88 89 20 9 7 4 24 11 5 7 1 66 0 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Fought/ disagreement with spouse Worked out everyday problems together Afraid of spouse Afraid of other member % Kaduna Never Rarely Sometimes Often 48 14 97 97 28 3 3 3 14 21 0 0 7 62 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Fought/ disagreement with spouse Worked out everyday problems together Afraid of spouse Afraid of other member % Cross River Never Rarely Sometimes Often N=29 Source: IFPRI GCAN phone surveys • More respondents in Kaduna had a disagreement or fought • More respondents in Kaduna experience fear from spouse or other HH member
  40. 40. Key Conclusions so far ▪ Across states: Kaduna many more Covid-19 cases than Cross River; larger family size, less schooling, more agriculture; more conservative (men take decisions on earnings) ▪ Income shocks pervasive also in rural areas—decline between Aug/Sep and Oct/Nov; when new daily Covid-19 cases were lower as many lockdown/ economic activities had resumed ▪ Diverse coping measures were used, including using savings, borrowing, selling assets, and receiving transfers. Kaduna relied much more on selling of assets than Cross River; more government and NGO transfers in Kaduna; in round two more reliance on borrowing (presumably savings and assets starting to be depleted)
  41. 41. Key Conclusions so far ▪ Care work has increased overall (more than half of respondents note increase), presumably because children stayed home from school and sometimes urban (or foreign) migrants returned; particularly in Kaduna women spent 10-14 hours daily on care work! ▪ Migration: Almost one third of HHs had a migrant last year; women’s share of migrants higher in Cross River, households with migrants are perceived to face higher vulnerabilities (loss of remittances) ▪ Mobility is more constrained: more so in Cross River; men are more mobile than women in the sample ▪ Food insecurity Around 70% of respondents in both Kaduna and Cross River experienced food insecurity; generally, women report higher challenges in Kaduna ▪ Access to food changed because of Covid-19: more than 85% in round 1; around 78% in round 2, slightly higher for women; around half of all women respondents reduced food intake due to Covid-19
  42. 42. Key Conclusions so far ▪ Dietary adequacy better for women in Cross River and better for men in Kaduna; limited consumption of dairy and eggs; high access to meat and poultry as food in Cross River; women’s minimum dietary adequacy declined slightly between rounds 1 and 2 ▪ Poor WASH environments affecting fighting Covid-19: Clear differences in water sources across the 2 states: close to 50% dug wells in Kaduna, but also surface water in Cross River; 3% of sample in Cross River had no toilet facilities; Kaduna less than 1%; larger worries about water in Cross River, at 42%, than in Kaduna (28%); in both Kaduna and Cross River women are more worried; and overall stress higher in Cross River • Conflict levels: More women had a disagreement or fought; fewer men worked out everyday problems together; more men state to be afraid of spouse; slightly more challenges in Kaduna
  43. 43. Early Suggestions for Policy Interventions ▪ Immediately address the large food insecurity and nutrition challenges that affect rural households in Nigeria→ through food banks, food-for-work or other programs (i.e. cash transfer programs) that target poorer rural households ▪ Consider credit support programs at highly favorable rates as well as rural asset development programs (f.ex. through food-for-work) to counteract potential long-term indebtedness of rural households due to income shocks, with a focus on women ▪ Address the poor WASH environment in Nigeria ▪ Provide conflict resolution support for rural households as feasible Credit: Carla Roncoli

×