Grain Marketing Research Project, Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation, Addis Ababafood security, food policy, Ethiopia, food aid, Food Security and Poverty, Q18,

Anonymous

English

Research Papers in Economics

Grain Marketing Research Project
Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation, Addis Ababa
MARKET ANALYSIS NOTE #6
Grain Market Research Project
Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation
March 1998
Food Aid Targeting in Ethiopia:
A Study of Household Food Insecurity
 and Food Aid Distributions
1
Introduction
For more than two decades, annual distributions of hundreds of thousands of metric tons of food aid
have been channeled into safety net programs designed to alleviate the impact of food shortages in Ethiopia.
Despite the massive size and duration of this effort, there remain many unanswered questions about its
effectiveness and about its longer-term impact on the population it is designed to benefit. Recently,
government and donor concern about Ethiopia’s increasing dependence on food aid, coupled with the
implicit demand for greater accountability in its use, has spawned great interest and debate about how
efficient the food aid targeting system is in ensuring that food reaches those who need it the most (Sharp
1997). A second, related fear is that large quantities of food aid, if poorly targeted, may depress market
prices for food and may result in domestic production disincentives (Jayne and Molla 1995; Molla et al.
1997; Maxwell et al. 1994). Both of these concerns are expressed in Ethiopia’s National Policy on Disaster
Prevention and Management (TGE 1993). 
This analysis note examines food aid targeting efficiencies and the determinants of food aid
distributions in rural Ethiopia during the 1995-96 agricultural year. It is based on survey data from a
nationwide, randomly selected sample of 4,166 farm households. The findings and conclusions presented
here are intended to help inform ongoing debate in the area of food aid targeting.
Food aid targeting is here defined as “restricting the coverage of an intervention to those who are
perceived to be most at risk in order to maximise the benefit of the intervention whilst minimizing the cost”
(Jaspars and Young 1995). Targeting errors of inclusion (distributions to food secure weredas and
households) and errors of exclusion (no distribution to food insecure weredas and households) are estimated
by comparing household-level food availability with household food aid receipts. 
Household-level food availability is measured as all inflows of food grains over the 1995-96
agricultural year (production, purchases, exchanges received) minus all food outflows (sales and exchanges
given). Food aid receipts are measured at the household level by type of commodity, month received, and
type of program (e.g., free food, food for work). Survey results show that, overall, 20.0% of farm
households participated in food aid programs during the 1995-96 reference period. Free food distributions
account for the largest share at 64.6% of food aid received by sampled households, with the remaining
35.4% being distributed through food-for-work programs.
Discussion of Key Findings
Even in this relatively good harvest year, results show that 43.2% (3.8 million) of Ethiopia’s farm
households are food insecure, or have available for consumption less than the minimum nutritional
requirement of 1,680 kilocalories in grains (Figure 1). The deficit households show a total food gap of 1.40 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
M
e
t
r
i
c
 
T
o
n
s
 
(
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
 
W
h
e
a
t
 
E
q
u
i
v
Food Deficit HHs Food Secure HHs
Food Deficit/Secure Households
Food Needs and Availability
by Household Deficit/Secure Status
1680 kcals
(3.8 m mt)
Food Aid
(.13 m mt)
1680 kcals
(3.3 m mt)
Food Available
(7.9 m mt)
Food Deficit
  (1.3 m mt) Food Aid
(.11 m mt)
Food Available
  (1.9 m mt)
    5.0 m
Households
    3.8 m
Households
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
M
e
a
n
 
k
c
a
l
s
 
f
o
o
d
 
a
i
d
 
p
e
r
 
p
e
r
s
o
n
 
d
a
y
 
 
0-1000 kca 1000-1679  1680-2799  2800+ kcal
Food Availability (kcal/person day)
Food Aid Receipts by
Food Availability
Market Analysis Note #6
Grain Marketing Research Project
Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation, Addis Ababa
2
Figure 1
Figure 2
million metric tons (difference between food available and food needs at 1,680 kilocalories per person per
day requirement from grains). Food aid distributions reduced this deficit by approximately 8%, to 1.3
million metric tons. 
Food aid programs, either in the form of free food or food-for-work are vital to the health and well-
being of these deficit households. Targeted deficit households succeed in lowering their food deficit from
735 kcal per person-day to 313 kcal, or by an average of 59% through the receipt of food aid. However,
due to unsuccessful food aid targeting overall, only
22.3% of these deficit households are selected as
beneficiaries. The remaining 77.7% of food
insecure households have no food aid safety net.
A key finding of the study is that there is no
significant association between household food
availability (need) and food aid receipts (either free
or food-for-work) during this sample year—a result
of high errors of exclusion and inclusion at both the
wereda and household levels. This finding holds
true even when controlling for other key
characteristics of the households such as age,
gender, and education of the household head, off-
farm income, land and livestock ownership, family
labor availability, and fundamental agroecological
characteristics of weredas such as rainfall and
elevation. 
Results also show that, all else equal, improved wereda-level targeting has greater potential for
reducing these errors than does improved household-level targeting. There is greater variation between
weredas in terms of household vulnerability than there is within weredas.0 
1000 
2000 
3000 
4000 
5000 
M
e
a
n
 
K
c
a
l
s
 
f
r
o
m
 
g
r
a
i
n
s
 
p
e
r
 
p
e
r
s
o
n
 
d
a
y
Male Female 13-59 Years 60+ Years
Sex and Age of Head of Household
Food Requirements and Food
Access by Sex and Age of Head
Food Aid
Net Food Available
1680
Kcals
0 
500 
1000 
1500 
2000 
2500 
3000 
3500 
M
e
a
n
 
K
c
a
l
s
 
F
o
o
d
 
A
i
d
 
P
e
r
 
P
e
r
s
o
n
-
D
a
y
0 yrs 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4 yrs 5 yrs
Years of Food Aid in Past Five Years
Food Aid in Current Year (1995-96) by
Past Years of Food Aid Participation
(Historical Pattern)
Market Analysis Note #6
Grain Marketing Research Project
Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation, Addis Ababa
3
Figure 3
Figure 4
Four factors are identified as principal causes of the high level of targeting error and the resulting low
correlation between food insecurity and participation in food aid programs. They are as follows:
Needy and well-off are food aid beneficiaries. First, the primary beneficiaries of food aid programs
are found to be households at the extremes in terms of food availability: those with the least and those with
the most food available (see Figure 2). This pattern seems to hold across numerous regions of the country.
While targeting efficiencies are enhanced by the provision of food aid to the most vulnerable group, they
are seriously reduced by the flow of food aid to food secure households. Sharp, in her 1997 review of food
aid targeting in Ethiopia, and Hill (1994) have alluded to the potential for community-level factors to
unduly influence the system in the selection of beneficiaries. Such factors may include, “deliberate
manipulation of distribution systems by those in control... resistance by local authorities to the general
principle of prioritizing the needy, and the political use of food aid for electioneering” (Sharp 1997, p. 34).
Our data do not permit us to count out these sorts of explanations for why highly food-secure households
receive the quantities of food aid that they do.
Over emphasis on women and the aged.
Second, the Food Security Strategy (FDRE 1996)
and the beneficiary selection criteria used by several
key NGOs involved in the distribution of food aid
underscore the special vulnerability of women and
the elderly under conditions of food shortages. Our
data show that a disproportionate number of female
and aged heads of households received food aid,
irrespective of their food needs (see Figure 3). We
found that households headed by women and those
aged 60 years and above are no less food secure
than are those headed by men or younger farmers.
When broken out by type of food aid program, all
of the “over-targeting” of women and the elderly
occurs in the distribution of free food; food-for-
work receipts show no significant differences by
gender or age. Thus, the practice of targeting women and the aged, to the extent that it is used exclusively
in place of truly need-based criteria, has contributed to increased targeting error.
Lack of flexibility. Third, the strongest determinant of food aid receipts is the number of years over
the past five years or more that households have received food aid (see Figure 4). This is largely because
years of food aid reflect the progressive build-up of
“institutional capacity” in the food aid delivery
system over time. By this we mean the investments
made by government agencies and NGOs in such
things as personnel, contacts and knowledge of the
area, offices, trucks, and institutional reputation. All
of these investments create a compelling reason to
continue the flow of food aid to the same areas it
has always gone—areas known for chronic drought
and food shortfall. Because of the tremendous flow
and momentum built up in the food aid delivery
system, altering its course to meet the needs of
deficit households in other areas of the country that
may not benefit from the same extent of0 
1000 
2000 
3000 
4000 
5000 
M
e
a
n
 
k
c
a
l
s
 
p
e
r
 
p
e
r
s
o
n
 
d
a
y
 
(
g
r
a
i
n
s
)
Tigray     Amhara     Oromya     SNNPR/SEPA Other Kill
Region
Food Availability and
Food Aid by Region
Food Aid
Food Availability
1680
Kcals
Market Analysis Note #6
Grain Marketing Research Project
Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation, Addis Ababa
4
Figure 5
   Table 1. ANOVA and Multiple Classification Analysis of Food Aid Distributions
by Food Availability and Region, Controlling for Covariates*
Predicted Mean Kcal Food Aid per Person-day
Unadjusted
(a)
Adjusted
for
Factors
(b)
Adjusted
for Factors
and
Covariates
(c)
Sig.
 of main
 effects
Food Availability (kcal) per person-day 0.484
   Extreme Food Deficit HHs (<1000 kcal) 141 117 97
   Moderate Food Deficit HHs (1000-1679 kcal) 58 72 71
   Moderate Food Security HHs (1680-2799 kcal) 70 76 75
   High Food Security HHs (2800+ kcal) 133 135 152
          Eta/beta 0.02 0.02 0.02
         
Region 0.000
     Tigray        829 824 455
     Amhara 99 102 64
     Oromya 23 22 80
     SNNPR or SEPA 30 29 86
     Other killil  35 38 79
          Eta/beta 0.13 0.13 0.06
*Covariates (sig.):  Age (.024) and sex (.023) of head; food aid in wereda (.763); land (.696); TLU
(.523); off-farm income (.976); household labor (.181); years of food aid (.000); and rainfall (.776). 
infrastructure and institutionalization, is a
formidable challenge, one that was not met in 1995-
96. Improving the flexibility of the food aid delivery
system to extend or shift the safety net when conditions
require is a concept that clearly needs greater
attention; current inflexibilities in the system are a
major cause of food aid mistargeting in Ethiopia.
Regional concentration. Fourth, households
in the region of Tigray are far more likely to have
received food aid, regardless of need, than
households in any other region, thereby decreasing
targeting efficiency (see Figure 5). Part of the
reason for this flow of food aid to the region is that
Tigray is one of the country’s historically deficit
areas in which a significant investment in food aid
institutional capacity has been made. The region is also known for its substantial community-based
development projects and large public works programs (micro-irrigation, dam construction, soil
conservation, etc.) that are implemented as food-for-work activities. Because of the labor-intensive natureMarket Analysis Note #6
Grain Marketing Research Project
Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation, Addis Ababa
5
of these projects, it is conceivable that a large number of food secure households may benefit from
participating in them. As Sharp (1997) puts it, “despite the openness and fairness of the community
targeting system in Tigray, the tendency to spread food aid within communities, and the pressure on the
baito members to include as many people as possible, seem to be the same here as elsewhere.”
But only about half of Tigray’s success in attracting food aid can be accounted for by such built-up
capacity and infrastructure. Multivariate analysis reveals that other factors must also be taken into
consideration, factors not measured in this study (see Table 1). As with the finding described above
regarding the flow of food aid to the most food secure households, inconsistencies between stated national
food aid targeting goals and the delivery system as it is practiced, may be worthy of deeper consideration
and further research. Such research should have two objectives: first, to directly test the hypothesis that
the institutionalization of food aid can be detrimental to targeting objectives, particularly in harvest years
that do not conform to historical patterns; and second, to examine the types of disincentive effects that
observed targeting errors may exert on food grain production and marketing in areas where they may occur.
Implications and Recommendations
Based on the results of this study and subsequent discussions with major participants in the food aid
delivery system, several key study implications and recommendations for improving food aid targeting in
Ethiopia have emerged. They are as follows:
Area targeting:
Increase flexibility in the food aid delivery system. Ethiopia’s food aid delivery system has built up
capacity primarily in areas of chronic food deficit. As a result, food aid continues to flow to these
historically deficit areas even in years such as 1995-96 when some of the more severe food shortages are
found in other areas of the country. The key challenge is to modify the system in ways that will make it
more flexible, with the capacity to respond to food needs wherever they may occur.
Emphasize area targeting. More emphasis should be placed on identifying the most food insecure
weredas (area targeting) as the first step in the food aid targeting process. Efficient area targeting has a
greater likelihood of reaching vulnerable households, and possibly at lower cost, than does household-level
targeting. Also, the effectiveness of household targeting may be enhanced by accurate area targeting, at
least in those areas where the majority of households are food insecure. 
Coordinate crop production estimates. The Central Statistical Authority, the Ministry of Agriculture,
the Food and Agriculture Organization Crop Assessment Missions, and others currently publish annual
crop production estimates. These estimates are often inconsistent and, at times, even contradictory in their
implications for food aid programming. As crop production estimates currently constitute the basis upon
which needs assessments are made, it is important that efforts be made to understand differences in the
methodologies used and to coordinate their interpretation for purposes of a unified approach to food aid
deliveries in Ethiopia. 
Complete area targeting guidelines. Current efforts by the DPPC in the preparation of food aid
targeting guidelines at the national and regional levels and for the various socio-economic systems
(sedentary agriculture, pastoralists, cash-crop producing areas, etc.) should be finalized and implemented.
Expand area vulnerability profiles. Current efforts by the DPPC to prepare vulnerability profiles for
disaster-prone areas should continue and be expanded to cover more areas. Vulnerability profiles facilitate
needs assessment and the identification of appropriate interventions in the areas they cover.
Household targeting:
Underscore national policy on food aid targeting. Consistent with the National Policy on Disaster
Prevention and Preparedness, priority should be given to targeting the most food insecure and poorest of
the poor households in emergency (employment generation schemes) as well as food aid development (food-
for-work) projects. Wereda and peasant association officials currently hold authority for the local-levelMarket Analysis Note #6
Grain Marketing Research Project
Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation, Addis Ababa
6
1.This note is based on research initially reported in: Daniel Clay, Daniel Molla, and Debebe Habtewold . 1998.
“Food Aid Targeting in Ethiopia: A Study of Household Food Insecurity and Food Aid Distributions.” GMRP
Working Paper #12. Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation. Addis Ababa. Support for this research
was provided by the United States Agency for International Development Mission to Ethiopia and by the Ministry
of Economic Development and Cooperation of the Government of Ethiopia, under the Food Security II Cooperative
Agreement. The authors gratefully acknowledge comments from members of the Technical Committee of the Grain
Market Research Project, from the Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission (DPPC), and from members
of the community of donors and NGOs involved in the food aid delivery system.
selection of food aid beneficiaries. Increased sensitization and awareness of the National Disaster
Prevention and Preparedness Policy should be pursued aggressively to facilitate a better understanding of
the National Policy among those entrusted to implement it.
Rethink the guidelines and criteria used for identifying the most vulnerable households. The current
focus on women and the elderly is not an effective way to target food insecure households. Indicators that
reflect household food availability per adult equivalent will help improve targeting efficiencies. 
Eliminate local pressures that undermine effective targeting. Actively reinforce the importance of
targeting vulnerable households and assist local-level food aid administrators in eliminating the pressures
and incentives to distribute food aid to the more food secure households.
References
FDRE. 1996. “Food Security Strategy 1996.” Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.
Hill, J. 1994. “Report on a Visit to Wolaita Ethiopia.” CAFOD (Catholic Fund for Overseas
Development). London.
Jaspars, S., and Young, H. 1995. “General Food Distribution in Emergencies from Nutritional Needs to
Political Priorities, ODI/Euronaid Relief and Rehabilitation Network.” Good Practice Review 3, Overseas
Development Institute, London.
Jayne, T.S. and Daniel Molla. 1995. “Toward a Research Agenda to Promote Household Access to Food
in Ethiopia,” Food Security Research Project Working Paper #2, Ministry of Economic Development and
Cooperation, Addis Ababa.
Maxwell, S., Belshaw, D., and Alemayehu Lirenso. 1994. “The Disincentive Effect of Food-for-Work on
Labour Supply and Agricultural Intensification and Diversification in Ethiopia.” Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 45 (3).
Molla, Daniel, Hagos Gebre, T.S. Jayne and James Shaffer. 1997. “Designing Strategies to Support a
Transformation of Agriculture in Ethiopia.” Grain Market Research Project Working Paper #4, Ministry
of Economic Development and Cooperation, Addis Ababa. 
Sharp, Kay. 1997. Targeting Food Aid in Ethiopia. Save the Children Fund (UK).
TGE. 1993. “National Policy on Disaster Prevention and Management,” Transitional Government of
Ethiopia, Addis Ababa
Notes

Designing Strategies to Support a Transformation of Agriculture

Food Security Strategy

General Food Distribution

Targeting Food Aid in Ethiopia. Save the Children Fund

The Disincentive Effect of Food-for-Work on Labour Supply and Agricultural Intensification and Diversification in

Toward a Research Agenda to Promote Household Access to Food

Food Aid Targeting in Ethiopia: A Study of Household Food Insecurity and Food Aid Distributions

Food Aid Targeting in Ethiopia: A Study of Household Food Insecurity and Food Aid Distributions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics