-KARNI Feed the Future District Profile Series - February 2017 - Issue 1

DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT Lambussie-Karni is one of the districts in Ghana’s . It has a total land area of 811.9 square 1. Cover Page kilometers and shares boundaries to the south with 2. USAID Project Data Jirapa District, to the east with Sissala West District, to the west with the District and to the north with 3-5. Agricultural Data Burkina Faso. The district has a total population of 6. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation 56,473 inhabitants, out of which 27,280 are males and 29,193 are females with an average household size of 5 7. USAID Presence persons. The boxes below contain relevant economic 8. Demographic and Weather Data indicators such as per capita expenditure and poverty prevalence for a better understanding of its develop- 9. Discussion Questions ment.

Poverty Prevalence 25.2 % Daily per capita expenditure 6.04 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger 39.6% Household Size 5 members Poverty Depth 7.9 % Total Population of the Poor 14,231

342 USAID PROJECT DATA

This section contains data and information related to USAID sponsored interventions in Lambussie-Karni

Table 1: USAID Projects Info, Lambussie-Karni, 2014-2016 Beneficiaries Data 2014 2015 2016 The number of direct USAID beneficiaries** Direct Beneficiaries 365 1,226 1 ,971 increased by 440% in 2016 as compared to Male 171 3 61 9 45 2014. Four nucleus farmers are currently Female 194 8 65 1 ,026 Undefined operating in the district and only eight(8) Nucleus Farmers 1 4 n/a demonstration plots have been established to Male 1 4 support beneficiaries training. See Infographic Female - - Undefined 1 for the demonstration plot disaggregate. No Demoplots 3 5 n/a agricultural loans were facilitated by USAID Male 1 2 intervention as shown in Table 1. Direct bene- Female Undefined 2 3 ficiaries yields and gross margins for the Production district are also available in Table 1. The pres- Maize Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 677.3 n/a ence of USAID development work is below Maize Yield MT/ha n/a 3.88 n/a Rice Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 5 81.4 n/a average, with a decent number of beneficia- Rice Yield MT/ha n/a 3.67 n/a ries, small number of demo plots and no loans Soybean Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 581.9 n/a during 2014-2016. This resulted in a USAID Soybean Yield MT/ha n/a 1.84 n/a Investment and Impact presence score*** of (1.4 out of 4). The Ag. Rural loans - - - district is flagged YELLOW**** indicating that USAID Projects Present 2 while the project presence or intervention is Beneficiaries Score 1.0 2 .0 1 .0 Presence Score 2014-2016 1.4 below average the impact indicator values District Flag 2014-2016 Yellow have improved as compared to 2012. . Find

Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014-2016 more details on USAID Presence vs. Impact Infographic 1: Demo Plots in Lambussie-Karni, 2014-2015 scoring on page 7. 37** 8**

Demo Plots

The presence calculation (Soyabean) (Pigeon Pea) includes the number of direct (Rice) 2 1 1 (Maize) beneficiaries and Agricultural 5 Rural loans.

Crop Rotaton, Crop Genetics, Hybrid Maize Jasmine Afayak Variety, Plouging, Harrowing, Planting in Crop Rotation. Rows, Fertilization, Pest Control. Source:: USAID Project Reporting, 2014, 2015

* Please note that the number of demoplots is smaller than the sum of separate plots by crop because crop rotation has been exercised in the same demo, ** “Direct Beneficiary, an individual who comes in direct contact with a set of interventions” FTF Handbook, 2016 , *** and ****Presence and Flag Ranges are explained in page 7 All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 343 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

Agricultural production in Lambussie-Karni involves Figure 1: Share of Agricultural Production, several commodities which account for similar shares to by Commodity, in Lambussie-Karni, 2012-2015 Cowpea the total quantity produced during 2012-2015. Lambus- Yam 13.9% 20.8% Sweet Potato sie-Karni is not one of the main producers in Upper 0.2% West. The district accounted for only 2.3% of the region- Soybean 0.3% Groundnut al production during 2012-2015. 25.7% Sorghum Figure 2 contains gross margins for three commodities 15.8%

Rice supported by USAID interventions in 2015 as well as 1.6% Maize Millet 8.7% 12.9% district average captured by APS 2013. Just in the case of Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2011 - 2015, MOFA maize it is obvious that the gross margin of beneficiaries is much higher than the district average value in 2013. Figure 2: Average Gross Margin* in Lambussie-Karni by Commodity, USG Beneficiareis and district's Yield data, presented in Figure 3, contain values of yields 800.0 average, 2013-2015, USD/ha 700.0 677.3 of these three commodities in 2015, 2014 and 2013 from 600.0 581.4 581.9 500.0 three sources: USAID beneficiaries, MOFA and Agricul- 400.0 300.0 236.4 ture Production Survey. Again the figure captures the 200.0 100.0 - superiority in yields of the direct beneficiaries in 205 Maize Rice Soybean Maize* Rice* Soybean* 2015 2013 compared to the other district averages captured by the USG Beneficiareis District Average_APS Source: Agriculture Project Reporting 2015, Agriculture Production other sources. Survey, 2013, Kansas State University

Figure 3: Average Yields by Commodity in Lambussie-Karni, USG Beneficaries and district's average, 2013-2015, MT/ha 4.50 3.88 4.00 3.67 3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00 1.84

1.50

0.87 0.89 0.80 0.86 1.00 0.85 0.54 0.55 0.50 0.39 0.83

- Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice Maize* Soybean* Rice* 2015 2014 2013 USG Beneficiareis Others -APS Others-MofA Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2011- 2015, MOFA, APS 2013, USAID Project reporting 2015 All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 344 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains agricultural data for Lambussie-Karni 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, 2012-2015, Lambussie-Karni Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 Total Cowpea 4 ,159 4 ,037 2 ,837 2 ,870 1 3,903 Groundnut 6 ,630 6 ,488 5 ,728 6 ,822 2 5,668 Maize 2 ,038 1 ,880 2 ,125 2 ,671 8 ,714 Millet 3 ,544 3 ,548 2 ,751 2 ,971 1 2,814 Rice 4 32 4 18 3 65 3 68 1,583 Sorghum 3 ,607 4 ,155 3 ,963 4 ,070 1 5,795 Soybean 1 01 1 05 5 7 7 0 3 33 Sweet Potato 1 90 1 90 Yam 5 ,752 5 ,433 4 ,764 4 ,743 2 0,692 Yields in MT/Ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 Cowpea 0 .75 0 .73 0 .58 0 .60 Groundnut 0 .76 0 .75 0 .73 0 .80 Maize 0 .87 0 .80 0 .85 0 .90 Millet 0 .55 0 .55 0 .50 0 .54 Rice 0 .89 0 .86 0 .83 0 .84 Sorghum 0 .48 0 .56 0 .55 0 .57 Soybean 0 .54 0 .55 0.39 0 .44 Sweet Potato 1 1.88 Yam 1 0.85 1 0.25 9 .25 9 .30 Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2012- 2015, MOFA

Table 2 above provides detailed information on specific commodities in respect of overall annual production in Lambussie-Karni as well as average yields for the years 2012-2015. The infographic below shows a summary of agricultural statistics for Lambussie-Karni, as captured in the Agriculture Production Survey, 2013.

Infographic 2: Average Land size, Yields, Sales and other Farm indicators in Lambussie-Karni, 2013

$ - 0.52 $ 0.69 14% 236.4 102.1

$ - $ 0.37 0.58 n/a n/a 40.1 89.3 TOTAL TOTAL 0.40 0.31 n/a n/a 142.2 306.1 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 345 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

What is the Women Empowerment Lambussie-Karni Results in Agriculture Index? Women play a prominent role in agriculture. Yet they face The results of both male and female respondents on the persistent economic and social constraints. Women’s empow- four(4) domains are displayed in Figure 4. erment is a main focus of Feed the Future in order to achieve Production Domain: women feel comfortable with its objectives of inclusive agriculture sector growth and providing input related to production decisions as improved nutritional status. The WEAI is comprised of two indicated by 75% of the women of the survey sample. weighted sub-indexes: Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) However, they have less control over the use of house- hold income than men– 51.2% of women vs 92.2% of the and Gender Parity Index (GPI). The 5DE examines the five male respondents. domains of empowerment: production, resources, income, Resource Domain: a majority of the women have a leadership and time. The GPI compares the empowerment of right to asset ownership and to purchase and move women to the empowerment of their male counterpart in the assets- 75.9% and 74.4% respectively. These figures are household. This section presents the results from these slightly lower than the figures for the male respondents. empowerment indicators of the 5DE for Lambussie-Karni, Only 12.8% of the women have a right to decide or has part of a bigger survey conducted by Kansas State University access to credit, compared to 15% of the male respon- . dents. Nonetheless, access to credit is almost equally low The Domains: what do they represent? for both genders. The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals to Leadership Domain: 76.7% and 66.2% of the women provide input and autonomously make decisions about interviewed have the right to group membership and agricultural production. The Resources domain reflects individ- public speaking respectively. uals’ control over and access to productive resources. The Time Domain: The majority of women and men in Income domain monitors individuals’ ability to direct the finan- Lambussie-Karni are satisfied with the workload in their cial resources derived from agricultural production or other everyday life- 73.9% and 82% respectively. The values remain more or less the same with respect to satisfac- sources. The Leadership domain reflects individuals’ social tion with leisure time; 76.6% of women and 74.4% of capital and comfort speaking in public within their community. men are satisfied with the amount of leisure time at their The Time domain reflects individuals’ workload and satisfac- disposition. tion with leisure time.

Figure 4: Results of Domains of Empowerment from WEAI 2015, in percent, Lambussie - Karni, 2015 Adequacy & 120 98.7 93 Differences 100 88.2 92.2 82.9 80 82 75 75.9 74.4 76.6 73.9 76.7 74.4 80 66.2 Highest differences between male and female respon- 60 51.2 dents observed with production domain: the control 40 15 over use of household income and in the leadership 20 12.8 domain: public speaking 0 Input in Control Over Asset Right to Access to and Group Public Satisfaction Satisfaction Adequacy: Together, men and women achieve adequacy in Production Use of Ownership Purchase Sell Decission on Membership Speaking with with Leisure Decission Household and Transfer Credit Workload Time all indicators but access to and decision on credit and Income Assets Production and Income Resources Domain Leadership Doman Time Domain satisfaction with leisure time. In addition men achieve Domain adequacy in input in production decision, control over Women Men use of household income, asset ownership, right to Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University purchase and sell assets, group membership, public speaking and satisfaction with workload, while women do not.

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 346 HEALTH, NUTRITION AND SANITATION

This section contains facts and figures related to Health, Nutrition and Sanitation in Lambussie-Karni

Infograph 3: Health and Nutrition Figures, Infograph 3 focuses on the health and nutrition of Lambussie Karni, 2015 women and children in the district. Percentages and

Children absolute numbers are revealed in the respective circles Stunting, 22.6%, 1864 for stunting, wasting, children and women underweight Only 29.0%, 3801, women Children reach minimum Underweight as well as Women Dietary Diversity: The WDDS is based dietary 13.9%, 1146 diversity on nine food groups. A woman’s score is based on the

sum of different food groups consumed in the 24 hours

Women Dietary Wasting in Diversity Score, Children, prior to the interview. Women Minimum Dietary 3.3 12.1%, 998 Diversity (MDD-W) represents the proportion of Women Underweight, 6.4%, 839 women consuming a minimum of five food groups out of

Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University, 2015 the possible ten food groups based on their dietary

intake. The Dietary diversity score of women in Lambus-

sie-Karni is 3.3, which means that women consume on

Figure 5: Household dwelling Characteristics, average 3 to 4 types of foods out of 10. A low percent- Lambussie-Karni, 2015

Access to Electricity 44.4 age of women (only 29%) reach the minimum dietary

Access to Solid Fuel 91.7 diversity of 5 food groups.

Persons Per Sleep Room 2.0 Figure 5 displays specifics of household dwelling, evaluat-

Improved Sanitation 22.9 ed based on sources of water, energy, waste disposal,

Access to Improved Water Source 82.7 cooking fuel source, and the number of people per sleep

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 room as measured from the PBS Survey, 2015. Lambus- Percent

Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University, 2015, sie-karni accounts for low levels of access to improved

water source in the Upper West region.

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 347 PRESENCE VS. IMPACT MATRIX

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

Presence vs. Impact reveals in more detail the presence of the Feed the Future Implementing Partners in the field, in combi- nation with impact indicators measured by the Population Based Survey in 2012 and 2015: per capita expenditure & preva- lence of poverty. This combination aims to show relevance of the presence of key indicators measuring progress/regress in the area. The following graphs are a print screen of the Presence vs. Impact Dashboard focusing on Lambussie-Karni. Both key impact indicators, ‘prevalence of poverty’ and ‘per capita expenditure’, have improved. See Figure 6 and 8. In 2015, poverty decreased by 16 percentage points value to 25.2% compared to 2012. In addition, 2015 per capita expendi- ture increased by 102.7 percent to 6.04 USD. This is accompanied by a below average USAID presence score of 1.4 out of 4. Therefore the district is flagged YELLOW (below satisfactory presence and improving impact indicators). Lambussie-Karni is a typical district in which clear signs of improvement were to be observed accompanied with little inter- ventions from USAID. That said, the GOG and other donors interventions are not captured in the calculation. Further thought should go into methods that would give a further push to the existing development pace in Lambussie-Karni.

USAID District Presence Score Figure 6: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012,2015, Lambussie-Karni s

30.00% t 40.0% 0.0% 25.20% i n

NO USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Poverty Change o p

20.0% 2012-2015 e

t -16.0% a g n 0.0% t e n c LAMBUSSIE-KARNI e LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE r c e

-20.0% r P e

P n

i -40.0% i n y

t e BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE r g

e -60.0% v a n o h P -80.0% C

y

AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE -100.0% t r e v

-120.0% -40.0% o ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Poverty/ 2012 Poverty/2015 Poverty Change 2012-2015 P

Figure 7: Population of Poor, Non - Poor Lambussie-Karni, 2015 HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 60000

50000 r s e b

m 40000 u n

42,242 i n

USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag 30000 n i o t

l a 20000 u p o

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND P 10000 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS 14,231 0 LAMBUSSIE-KARNI ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Population Poor 2015 Population of Non Poor 2015 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS Figure 8: Per Capita Expenditure in 2012 and 2015, in USD/day; Per Capita Expenditure Change in percent, Lambussie-Karni

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND t

Per Capita Exp. n e

Change c r REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS y a 7 102.7% 120% e d P 100% n i D / 6.04USD 80% ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 6 e g U S 60%

n a n

i 40%

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS 5 h s 20% C e

r 0% s u e t 4 -20% i r d -40% u

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND t n 2.98USD i

e -60% 3 d p -80% n x IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS e E 2 -100% p x a -120% t E i -140% a t a p ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 1 -160% i C

-180% a p r C e -200% REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS 0 P r

LAMBUSSIE-KARNI e

PC Exp. 2012 PC Exp. 2015 PC/Change P Source: Figure 6,7,8, 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 348 DEMOGRAPHICS & WEATHER

This section contains facts and figures related to Lambus- sie-Karni demographics, religious affiliation, literacy and weather indicators

Figure 9: Household composition by groupage, Lambussie-Karni, 2015 Lambussie-Karni has a total population of 56,473, out of

Adult Males Children 0 to 4 which 27,280 are males and 29,193 females with an average 22% 18% household size of 5 persons. The total surface area of the

district is 811.9 square kilometers.

The District lies in the tropical continental climacteric zone.

Average precipitation and temperature are similar to the

Adult Females Children 5 to 17 other districts in the Northern Region. Figure 12 shows the 26% 34% average maximal and minimal temperatures as well as yearly Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University average precipitation. Lambussie Karni, like many other

Figure 10: Religious Affiliation, Lambussie-Karni, 2010 districts in the Upper West Region has a relatively young Others 0.2% population as shown in Figure 9, with more than 50% of the Traditionalist No Religion 4.4% 19.2% population falling in the age range: 0 to 17 years old.

In terms of religious affiliation, the majority of the population

are Christians (50.7%) followed by Muslims, who account for Catholic 45.9% 25.5% of the population and traditionalists (19.2%). For more Islam 25.5% details refer to figure 10. Other Christians Protestant 1.2% 1.0% The district accounts for a low adult literacy rate with 75.5% Pentecostal/Charismatic 2.6% of them having received no education. Only 5.6% went

Source: Tamale Metropolis Analytical Report, GSS, 2014 through primary school while 18.9% made it further to

secondary school. Figure 11: Education Attainment in Lambussie - Karnie, 2015 Secondary Level Figure 12: Average Accumulated Precipitation in mm and Education Average Temperature in Celcius, in Lambussie - Karni, 2008 - 2015 18.90% 700 36 614.2 598.6 600 558.7 34 s 526.5 532.0 i u l c m 488.6 32 500 468.3 452.1 e m C

Primary Level

i n 30 i n

400

Education5.6% e r i o 28 t u a 300 t a i t

26 r i p e c 200 p e

r 24 m P e

100 22 T

0 20 No Educaton 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 75.5% Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature Source: awhere Weather Platform, AWhere, 2016 Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 349 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

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

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

Why does Lambussie-Karni produce so little com- Given Lambussie-Karni’s agricultural production, pared to other districts in UW Region? health and sanitation figures, as well as results from the presence vs impact matrix, where should USAID development work focus on in the next two years? What future development assistance would be helpful for Lambussie-Karni?

QUESTION 3

What other agricultural or nutrition focused develop- ment partner or GoG interventions have previously been implemented, are ongoing, and/or are in the pipeline that may impact Lambussie-Karni develop- ment?

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 350