CHEREPONI Feed the Future Ghana District Profile Series - February 2017(Revised Nov. 2017) - Issue 1

Chereponi is a district in Ghana’s Northern Region. It shares DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT borders with Gushegu District to the West; District to the North; Saboba and Yendi Districts to the 1. Cover Page South-West and The Republic of Togo. To the East is bordered by River Oti. The total surface area of the district is 1,374.7 2. USAID Project Data square kilometers. 3-5. Agricultural Data The district has a total population of 60,706 (projected from GSS 2010 Population and Housing Census) - 30,911 females 6. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation and 29,795 males-with an average household size of 6.5 7. USAID Presence persons. The prevalence of poverty in Chereponi is 28.8% and the average daily per capita expenditure is US $ 2.76. Feed 8. Demographic and Weather Data the Future Ghana District Profile Series-Draft (October 2016) All data and information including full citations can be 9. Discussion Questions accessed at www.ghanalinks.org

Poverty Prevalence 28.8% Daily per capita expenditure 2.76 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger 46.4% Household Size 6.5 members Poverty Depth 7.8% Total Population of the Poor 17,483

CHEREPONI

1 USAID PROJECT DATA

This section contains data and information related to USAID sponsored interventions in Chereponi

Table 1: USAID Project Info Chereponi 2014-2016 Beneficiaries Data 2014 2015 2016 The number of USAID direct beneficiaries Direct Beneficiaries 3,066 2 ,046 3 ,976 in the increased during Male 790 1 23 5 83 Female 2,189 1 ,923 3 ,393 the period 2014-2016, reaching 3,976 Undefined 87 - persons in 2016. Four nucleus farmers are Nucleus Farmers 3 3 n/a currently operating in the district and Male 3 3 n/a Female - - - thirteen (13) demonstration plots have Undefined been established to support beneficiary Demoplots 11 2 n/a training since 2014. See Infographic 1 for Male 4 the demonstration plot disaggregate. In Female 1 Undefined 6 2 - addition, the yields and gross margins of Production USAID direct beneficiaries are above the Maize Gross Margin USD/ha n/a n/a n/a district averages, see Table 1. The presence Maize Yield MT/ha n/a n/a n/a Rice Gross Margin USD/ha n/a n/a n/a of USAID development work is relatively Rice Yield MT/ha n/a n/a n/a average as compared to other districts. This Soybean Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 5 60.0 n/a results in a USAID presence score of 2.1 Soybean Yield MT/ha n/a 1 .54 n/a Investment and Impact ****out of 4. The district is flagged RED*** Ag. Rural loans* - - - indicating that the impact indicators have Projects Presence 3 worsened in an area where the USAID Beneficiaries Score 4.0 2 .0 2.0 presence is satisfactory. Find more details Presence Score Cumulative 2.1 District Flag RED on USAID Presence v. Impact scoring on page 7. Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014-2016

Infographic 1: Demo Plots in Chereponi, 2014-2015 The presence calculation includes the number of direct beneficiaries and Agricultural 37** 13* Rural Loans.

Demo Plots

9 (Soyabean) 1(Rice) 4 (Maize)

Crop Rotaton, Hybrid Variety, Jenguma, Crop Rotation, Pest Control, Fertilization, Inoculation, Planting in Rows, Harrowing

Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014, 2015

* “Direct Beneficiary, an individual who comes in direct contact with a set of interventions” FTF Handbook, 2016 , ***ADVANCE, RING and FinGAP, ****See page 7 for more detail, *****number of demo plots is smaller than the sum of separate plots by crop because crop rotation in the same demo All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 2 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains agricultural data for Chereponi, such as production by commodity, gross margins and yields.

The main commodity grown in Chereponi is yam, Figure 1: Share of Ag. Production by Commodity, 2010- accounting for 43% of the overall agricultural production 2015, Chereponi in the district. Other commodities produced include Cassava 15% cassava, groundnuts, cowpea, millet, soybean and rice, Cowpea 4% Yam whose share to overall production for the period 43% 2012-2015 range from 3 to 15 percent. Chereponi Groundnut accounts for the lowest quantity of agricultural produce 7% in the Northern Region, representing only 0.8% of the overall agricultural produce in the region. Maize 3%

Millet The average gross margin calculations were obtained 4% from USAID project reporting (2015) and the Agricul- Sweet Potato Rice 0% Sorghum 5% Soybean 16% ture Production Survey (K-State, APS 2013), see Figure 2. 4% It is clear that USAID direct beneficiaries obtained Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2011- 2015 MOFA higher Soybeans gross margins in 2015 than the 2013 average. Figure 2: Average Gross Margin, USAID beneficaries and district's average, 2013-2015, USD/ha Figure 3 contains yield values of three commodities: 600 560 maize, rice and soybean from 2 sources; MoFA Produc- 500 tion Surveys 2013-2015 and Agriculture Production 400 372.4 Survey 2013. Beneficiaries are not available for this 300 district. 200

100

Figure 4 below shows that the majority of household in 0 Chereponi rely on the agricultural sector particularly Soybean Soybean 2015 2013 farming with 75% of the households relying on the sale USG Beneficiaries District General_APS of crops/produce as their main source of income. Source: USAID Project Reporting 2015, Agriculture Production Survey, K-State 2013 Figure 4: Income by source in percent, Chereponi 2015 *Gross margin values captured from the APS in figure 2 have been converted to USD using 2012 exchange rates (1.88 GHC to $1 USD) to align with the ‘farmer recall’ survey methodology deployed. gift 1.45

Figure 3: Average Yield by Commodity, USAID beneficareis and rice parboiling 3.8 districts' average, 2013-2015, MT/ha 2.5 shea picking 5.77 2.03 1.92 1.98 2 1.84 remittance 0.98 1.73 1.76 1.65 1.5 1.15 1.5 petty trading 10.02 1.3 1.31 1.46 sale of livestock 10.22 1

sale of poultry 16.99 0.5

sale of crop produce 75.46 0 Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2015 2014 2013 Percent Others-APS Others-MofA

Source: RING & SPRING Survey, 2015 USAID METSS Project Source: USAID Project Reporting 2015, Agriculture Report 2014, MOFA 2014 Production Data, Agriculture Production Survey, K-State, 2013 All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 3 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains agricultural data for Chereponi including production by commodity (MT/ha), yields (MT/ha) and average land size.

Table 2: Agricultural Production and Yields by commodity in MT and MT/ha, 2010-2015, Chereponi Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 Total Cassava 4 ,953 4,683 3,983 7,082 20,701 Cowpea 2 ,151 1,414 1,262 1,309 6,136 Groundnut 2 ,432 2,438 2,140 2,517 9,526 Maize 1,187 1,109 1,045 1,138 4,479 Millet 1 ,443 1,401 1,204 1,283 5,332 Rice 2 ,159 2,002 1,792 1,712 7,665 Sorghum 5 ,160 5,848 5,981 4,563 21,552 Soybean 2 ,153 1,201 1,116 1,299 5,769 Sweet Potato 40 40 Yam 1 5,143 14,695 14,045 16,406 60,289 Yields in MT/Ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 Cassava 9 .43 8.92 7.95 8.03 Cowpea 1 .58 1.53 1.52 1.54 Groundnut 1 .50 1.51 1.49 1.52 Maize 1 .84 1.30 1.31 1.42 Millet 1 .44 1.40 1.32 1.35 Rice 2 .03 1.92 1.98 2.00 Sorghum 1 .47 1.68 1.68 1.73 Soybean 1 .73 1.65 1.76 1.83 Sweet Potato 13.33 Yam 12.48 12.15 12.15 10.43

Table 2 above provides detailed information on specific commodities in regard to overall production in Chereponi, as well as average yields for the years 2012-2015. The infographic below shows a summary of agricultural statistics for Chereponi. The first bar indicates the relatively small farm size by commodity with average farm plots at 0.74, 0.66 and 0.51 hectares respectively for maize, rice, and soybean. Other agricultural data associated with Chereponi, including variable costs per hectare and commodity, as well as farm revenue can also been seen below in infographic Infographic 2: Average Land size, Yields, Sales and other Farm indicators in Chereponi, 2013

$ - $ 302.2 0.74 1.54 41% 112.6 273.8

$ - $ 0.66 1.46 52% 732.1 54.1 227.5

$ - $ TOTAL 0.51 372.4 48.2 502.8 1.15 39% Average Land Size, ha Yield, MT/ha Sales, % Gross Margin*, USD/ha Variable Costs*, USD/farm Revenue in USD/farm

Source: Agriculture Production Survey, Kansas State University, 2013 *Gross margin, variable cost and farm revenue captured from the APS in infographic 2 have been converted to USD using 2012 exchange rates (1.88 GHC to $1 USD) to align with the ‘farmer recall’ survey methodology deployed. All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 4 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains information on domains of empower- ment of the Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index for Chereponi

What is the Women Empowerment Chereponi WEIA Results in Agriculture Index? Women play a prominent role in agriculture. Yet they The results of both male and female respondents on the face persistent economic and social constraints. Wom- four(4) domains are displayed in Figure 5. en’s empowerment is a main focus of Feed the Future in order to achieve its objectives of inclusive agriculture Production Domain: women feel comfortable with sector growth and improved nutritional status. The providing input related to production decisions, as indicated by 80.5% of the women of the survey sample. WEAI is comprised of two weighted sub-indexes: However, they have much less control over the use of Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) and Gender Parity household income than men- 25.4% of women as against Index (GPI). The 5DE index is a summation of the level 63% of male respondents. of achievement in ten indicators grouped into five domains: production, resources, income, leadership and Resource Domain: a majority of the women have a right time. The GPI compares the empowerment of women to to asset ownership and to purchase and move assets, the empowerment of their male counterpart in the 79.1% and 86.8% respectively; these figures are lower household. This section presents the results from these than the figures of the male respondents. Only 1.9 % of empowerment indicators of the 5DE for Chereponi, women have the right to decide or have access to credit, part of a bigger survey conducted by Kansas State followed by 2.2% of the male respondents. Access to University. credit is almost equally low for both genders. Leadership Domain: In Northern region, Chereponi has The Domains: what do they represent? the lowest rates of women - 49.6% and men - 79.6% The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals involved in public speaking or speak freely on public to provide input and autonomously make decisions Issues. On the other hand, 53.1% of men and 55.7% of about agricultural production. The Resources domain women scored adequacy in group memberships. reflects individuals’ control over and access to produc- tive resources. The Income domain monitors individuals’ Time Domain: The majority of women and men in ability to direct the financial resources derived from Chereponi are satisfied with the workload in their agricultural production or other sources. The Leadership everyday life, 97.8% and 98.4% respectively, the values domain reflects individuals’ social capital and comfort drop significantly with respect to satisfaction with leisure speaking in public within their community. The Time time – 59% women and 65.9% men. domain reflects individuals’ workload and satisfaction with leisure time.

Figure 5: Results on Domains of Empowerment from WEAI Survey, for Chereponi, 2015 Adequacy & 120.0% Differences 98.4% 95.7% 96.8% 97.8% 100.0% 93.5% 86.6% 80.7% 79.1% 79.6% 80.0% 75% Both men and women obtained an adequacy 65.9% 55.7% 59% score (80% and above) in input in production 60.0% 53.1% 49.6% decision; right to purchase, sell and 40.0% 23.3% transfer assets; and satisfaction with workload. 20.0% 1.9% 2.2% In addition, while men obtained adequacy in 0.0% Input in Control Over Asset Right to Access to and Group Public Satisfaction Satisfaction asset ownership, women did not. Production Use of Ownership Purchase Sell Decision on Membership Speaking with with Leisure Decision Household and Transfer Credit Workload Time The highest differences between male and female Income Assets respondents was observed with the production Production and Income Resources Domain Leadership Domain Time Domain Domain domain: the control over use of Woman Men household income and public speaking. Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 5 HEALTH, NUTRITION AND SANITATION

This section contains facts and figures related to Health, Nutrition and Sanitation in Chereponi

Infograph 3: Health and Nutrition Figures, Savelugu Nanton, 2015 Figure 6: Household dwelling Characterstics, Chereponi, 2015

Children Stunting, From 31.4* to 40%**, 4724 Access to Electricity 37.50% Women with Children minimum dietary Underweight diversity, 17.3%**, 26.7%**, 3538 2044 Access to Solid Fuel 95.60%

Wasting in Women Dietary Children, Diversity Score, 3.1** 8.8%**, 1040 Persons Per Sleep Room 1.6

Women Exc. breastfed Underweight, Childeren (0- Improved Sanitation** 5.50% 15.7%**, 2079 Intro of 5m), 69%* Complementary Feeding, Children 6-23m, 47.1%* Access to Improved Watersource* 69%

Sources: * from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% ** from Ring & Spring Survey, 2015

People with knowledge of 3 Households with severe People with improved hand wash critical times for hand washing or moderate hunger facilities * 88.9%** 46.4%* 2.42%**

People with improved sanitation Sources: *PBS 2015, Kansas 14%** People with no knowledge or facilities* * State University, ** from Ring inadequate knowledge of aflatoxin 14%** & Spring Survey, 2015 levels* 95.4%**

Figure 7: Sanitation Situation in Chereponi, 2015 Figure 8: Water Access Situation, Chereponi 2015 Pit latrine, with 80 Cleanable slabs, 24.3% Unimproved pit latrine, 20 no slabs or non-cleanable, Tube well / Borehole, 94.6%

67.4% s 60 s

People without access to improved sanitation e 0 c c s a e c People with access to improved sanitation facilites t c u a

o t

h 40 u t i o -20 w h t i r Public tap / standpipe, 5.4% o w

r h o t

i h w t -40 20 i

86% e l w

p e l o p e o

P People without access to improved e -60 f p watersource o

f

t 0 o n t e n c People with access to improved r e c e r -80

P watersource e

P 32.8% -20 67.2% in total

-100 unimproved pit latrine, no slabs or non-cleanable public toilet pit latrine, with cleanable slabs

-40 Source: Ring & Spring Survey, 2015, METSS public tap/standpipe tube well/borehole

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 6 PRESENCE VS. IMPACT MATRIX

This section provides an analysis of USAID presence vis-a-vis impact indicators in Chereponi

The USAID Presence vs. Impact matrix reveals, in more detail than previously available, the impact that USAID Feed the Future presence in a district is having on key impact indicators captured from the 2012 and 2015 Feed the Future Population Based Survey. The following graphs are a print screen of the Presence vs. Impact Dashboard when Chereponi is selected. Both key impact indicators, ‘prevalence of poverty’ and ‘per capita expenditure’, have increased and decreased respectively, see Figure 9. In 2015 poverty increased from 24.6 % to 28.8% compared to the 2012 measure. In addition, the 2015 per capita expendi- ture dropped by 8 percent to 2.76 USD. The Chereponi population calculated to be living under the $1.25/ day, per person poverty line is 17,483 persons. This district level progress is accompanied by a below average USAID presence score of 2.1, with the highest score possible being 4. This score signifies characteristics of a RED district, indicating that the impact indica- tors have reduced in an area where USAID intervention is above average. That said, the presence of other development partners and GOG interventions have not been taken into account. Chereponi is the typical example of a district where research and reflection needs to take place, in order to see what can be done better to achieve better results. This could certainly help to shift the district light from red to green.

Figure 9: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012,2015, USAID District Presence Score Chereponi

24.60% 40.0% 40.0% 28.80% s t i n

20.0% o p NO USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE e t

0.0% a g n t e

CHEREPONI n c e r

-20.0% c e r P e

LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE P n

i -40.0% i n y

t r e e -60.0% g v a n o h BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE P

-80.0% Poverty Change C

y

2012-2015 t r

-100.0% 17.1% e v o

AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE -120.0% 0.0% P Poverty/ 2012 Poverty/2015 Poverty Change 2012-2015 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Figure 10: Population of Poor, Non - Poor Municipal, 2015

HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 70000

r s 60000 e b

m 50000 u n

i n 40000 USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag n 43,223 i o t

l a 30000 u p o P BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 20000 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS 10000 17,483 0 CHEREPONI ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Population Poor 2015 Population of NonPoor 2015 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Figure 11: Per Capita Expenditure in 2012 and 2015, in USD/day; Per Capita REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS Expenditure Change in percent, Chereponi t n e y 3.05 0% c a r d

3USD e

-20% P

3 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND D / Per Capita Exp. n i

Change U S -40% e 2.95 g IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS n

i -8.0%

-60% a n s 2.9 h e r C

u -80%

t i 2.85 s e BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND d -100% r n u e t

2.8 i p

2.76USD -120% d IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS x n E

2.75 e a -140% p t i x

2.7 E a p -160% a t ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND C i

r 2.65 -180% e a p P REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS C

2.6 -200% r e

CHEREPONI P PC Exp. 2012 PC Exp. 2015 PC/Change

Source: Figure 9,10,11 Population based Survey, 2012,2015, Kansas State University, METSS, USAID Project Reporting 2014,2015

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 7 DEMOGRAPHICS & WEATHER

This section contains facts and figures related to Chereponi demographics, religious affiliation, literacy and weather indicators

Figure 12: Household composition in Chereponi by groupage, 2015 Chereponi has a total population of 60,706- 30,911 females Adult Males and 29,795 males- with an average household size of 6.5 23% Children 0 to 4 19% persons.

Located in the Savannah Ecological Zone, Chereponi has experienced a reduction in precipitation since 2012 as shown in Figure 15. It experiences average annual precipitation Adult Females Children 5 to 17 23% 35% relative to other districts in the Northern Region. Note that in 2010, the entire Northern Ghana experienced significant Source: Figure 12, PBS Survey 2015, Kansas State University rainfall and flooding.

The household composition of Chereponi is interesting as its adults men and women are the same at 23% as shown in Figure 12. It however, has a young population of 54% from 0 to Figure 13: Religious Affiliation, Chereponi, 2015 Catholic 17 years. No Religion 8.3% 2.4% In terms of religion, the majority of the population are Protestant 5.3% Muslims, representing 58.8%, followed by 21.4% Christians, Pentecostal/ 17.3% traditionalist and 2.4% no religion as shown in Figure Charismatic 7.3% 13.

Only 2.8% and 4.9% of the population have primary and Traditionalists secondary education respectively. The majority (91.5%) of the 17.5% Islam 59.3% population have no education as shown in Figure 14. 76.3% of people residing in Chereponi are considered as being economically active. Of the 76.3%, only 4.4% are identify as unemployed (GSS, 2014). Source: Chereponi District Analytical Report, GSS, 2014,

Figure 14: Adult Education Attainment in Chereponi, 2015 Figure 15: Average Accumulated Precipitation in mm and Average Temperatures (celsius) in Chereponi, 2015 Secondary Level Education, 4.80%

3500 3,304 40 s u 3000 35 i s l m e

m 30 C

2500

Primary Level n i n i

n 25 Education, 2.8% e o 2000 r i t u t a 20 t a i r

p 1500 e i c 15 p e m r 1000 e P 10

639 641 T 567 539 502 455 500 338 5

0 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No Educaton, Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature 91.5% Source: awhere Weather Platform, AWhere, 2016 Source: Figure 14, PBS Survey 2015, Kansas State University

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 8 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

This section contains discussion questions and potential research topics as a result of the data and analysis presented on Chereponi

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

What could have led to the drop in direct benefi- Why is little agriculture produce produced in ciaries from 2,656 in 2014 to 1,763 in 2015 as Chereponi? The district has the lowest level of shown in Table 1? production in Northern Region with only 0.8% share of agricultural production.

QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4

Given Chereponi’s agricultural production, heath From MoFA’s data (Figure 1, page 3), the three and sanitation figures, as well as results from the main focus crops – maize, rice and soybean - only presence vs impact matrix, what should USAID make up 11% of the district’s agricultural produc- development work focus on in the next two tion. Why this low percentage and what could be years? What future development assistance done to increase it? would be helpful for Chereponi in order to change the district flag from red to green ?

QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4

What other agricultural or nutrition focused Almost an equal number of men and women are development partners or GoG interventions satisfied with workload, however, the difference have previously been im-plemented, are ongoing, between control over use of household income is and/or are in the pipeline that may impact Chere- huge as shown in Figure 5 page 5. What are the poni development? contributing factors to the difference in income control?

The Feed the Future Ghana District Profile Series is produced for the USAID Office of Economic Growth in Ghana by the Monitoring, Evaluation and Technical Support Services (METSS) Project. The METSS Project is implemented through:

The information provided is not official U.S. government information and does not represent the views or positions of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Government.

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 9