EAST MAMPRUSI Feed the Future District Profile Series - February 2017 - Issue 1

DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT East Mamprusi is a district in Ghana’s . It shares boundaries with Talensi and Nabdam Districts, Bawku West and Garu-Tempane Districts to the north 1. Cover Page and to the east is the - District. It is 2. USAID Project Data bordered in the west by the West Mamprusi District and to the south by the Gusheigu and Karaga Districts. It 3-5. Agricultural Data covers a land mass of 1,706.8 square kilometers, The district has a total population of 135,580 (projected 6. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation from GSS 2010 Population and Housing Census), out of which 68,968 are females and 66,612 males with an 7. USAID Presence average household size of 6.9 persons. 8. Demographic and Weather Data The boxes below reveal levels of important development indicators measured by the Population Based Survey in 9. Discussion Questions 2015.

Poverty Prevalence 33.1* % Daily per capita expenditure 3.07 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger 56.2% Household Size 6.9 members Poverty Depth 14.2%** Total Population of the Poor 44,877

*Highest Poverty Prevalence in the Northern Region, **Highest Poverty Depth in the Northern Region

1 USAID PROJECT DATA

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

Table 1: USAID Projects Info, East Mamprusi, 2014-2016 Beneficiaries Data 2014 2015 2016 The number of direct USAID beneficiaries* Direct Beneficiaries 1062 4 ,149 8 ,448 constantly increased by about eight-fold Male 415 1,662 3,182 Female 628 2,487 5,266 between 2014 and 2016 as Table 1 shows. Undefined 19 0 0 This is a good thing given the high level of Nucleus Farmers 6 1 1 n/a Male 6 1 1 poverty and the large number of people Female - - - living under the poverty line (see page 1). Undefined Demoplots 6 1 6 n/a Eleven nucleus farmers are currently Male 6 9 operating in the district and 22 Female - - Undefined 7 demonstration plots have been established Production to support beneficiary training. See Maize Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 5 74.2 n/a Maize Yield MT/ha n/a 3 .24 n/a Infographic 1 for the demonstration plot** Rice Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 6 15.9 n/a disaggregate. In addition, the yields of Rice Yield MT/ha n/a 3 .44 n/a USAID direct beneficiaries are above the Soybean Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 3 84.7 n/a Soybean Yield MT/ha n/a 1 .34 n/a district average, see graph 3. The presence Investment and Impact of USAID development work is relatively Ag. Rural loans - - - USAID Projects Present 7 low as compared to the other districts in Beneficiaries Score 1 4 4 2014, however, that intensified in 2015. This Presence Score 2.8 District Flag Green has resulted in a satisfactory USAID

Source: Project Reporting 2014-2016 presence score*** of 2.8 for the period 2014-2016. The district is therefore flagged Infographic 1: Demo Plots in East Mamprusi, 2014-2015 GREEN**** indicating that the values of 37** 22 impact indicators have improved while good work is conducted on the ground by Demo Plots USAID projects. Find more details on USAID Presence vs. Impact 9 (Soyabean) 14 (Maize) The presence calculation includes the number of direct beneficiaries and Agricultural Rural loans in 2015. Crop Rotaton, Crop Genetics, 30Y87, ST Jenguma, Afayak, Crop Maize, DT Maize, PAN53/12, OBATAANPA Rotation, Pest Control, Plouging, Harrowing, Planting in Rows, Fertilization, Harrowing, Fertilization, Pest control. Planting in Rows, Inoculation. Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014, 2015

* “Direct Beneficiary, an individual who comes in direct contact with a set of interventions” FTF Handbook, 2016 , ** “Demonstration Plots are calculated by gender and not by crops” *** and ****See page 8 for more detail, All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 2 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

Agricultural production during the period 2010-215 in Figure 1: Share of Agricultural Production by commodity, East Mamprusi largely focused on yam, which is a major 2010 - 2015, in percent staple food grown by farmers and constitute 57.3 Cassava 10.9% percent of overall production. Other commodities Cowpea produced such as cassava, cowpea, maize, rice etc. 6.0% accounted for much smaller shares ranging between 1.5 Groundnut to 11 percent as shown in figure 1. East Mamprusi is one 8.0% of the districts with low quantities of agricultural Maize production. It accounts for only 2% of the agricultural 2.6% Yam Millet production of the Northern Region. The average gross 57.3% 5.0% Rice margin calculations were obtained from USAID project 1.5% reporting (2015) while there are no district average Sorghum 3.4% Soybean gross margins available for this district. Figure 3 contains 5.0% yield values from two sources: MOFA for the period Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2010- 2015, MOFA 2014-2015 for three commodities: maize, rice and soybean and USAID beneficiaries for 2015. Yields of Figure 2: Gross Margin per Crop of USG Beneficiaries, in USD, East Mamprusi, 2015 maize and rice of USAID direct beneficiaries are much 700 615.9 higher than the district averages reported by MOFA. 600 574.2 500

Soybean yields reported by MOFA is the same as that of 384.7 400 the direct USAID beneficiaries. Figure 4 below shows 300 that the majority of household income in East Mamprusi 200 100 comes from the agricultural sector, particularly farming. 0 Maize Rice Soybean Almost 80 percent of the income was generated from 2015 the sale of crop produce. Source: USAID Project Reporting 2015

Figure 4: Sources of Income, East Mamprusi, 2015, in percent

gift 4.9 Figure 3: Yields by commodity of USG beneficiaries and districts' average, 2014-2015, in MT/ha rice parboiling 4 3.44 3.5 3.24 shea picking 61.8 3

remittance 3.6 2.5 2 1.77 1.68 1.48 1.58 1.5 petty trading 25.1 1.5 1.34 1.05 1 sale of livestock 48.2 0.5

sale of poultry 51.2 0 Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice 2015 2014 sale of crop produce 76.2 USG Beneficiareis Others-MofA

Income by source, in % Source: USAID Project Reporting 2015, Agriculture Report 2014, MOFA 2014 Production Data, Agriculture Production Survey, K-State, 2013 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Source: RING & SPRING Survey, 2015 USAID METSS Project

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 3 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains agricultural data for East Mamprusi 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, East Mamprusi Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Total Cassava 1 1,422 1 0,800 1 2,218 1 4,210 1 4,625 1 1,963 7 5,238 Cowpea 5 ,956 5 ,781 7 ,011 7 ,838 7 ,508 6 ,972 4 1,066 Groundnut 7 ,855 7 ,875 8 ,780 1 0,030 1 0,140 1 0,693 5 5,373 Maize 2 ,605 2 ,434 2 ,024 3 ,149 3 ,132 4 ,581 1 7,925 Millet 4 ,870 4 ,728 5 ,058 5 ,340 5 ,653 8 ,673 3 4,321 Rice 1 ,777 1 ,648 1 ,581 1 ,536 1 ,645 2 ,027 1 0,214 Sorghum 2 ,992 3 ,391 4 ,165 3 ,893 3 ,960 4 ,736 2 3,137 Soybean 5 ,949 5 ,675 5 ,152 6 ,198 6 ,080 5 ,491 3 4,544 Sweet Potato 1 ,819 1 ,819 Yam 6 0,507 5 8,716 6 6,947 6 8,937 77,470 6 1,843 394,420 Yields in MT/Ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Cassava 9 .52 9 .00 1 0.87 9 .80 9 .75 8 .25 Cowpea 1 .55 1 .50 1 .80 1 .90 1 .87 1 .91 Groundnut 1 .39 1 .40 1.65 1 .70 1 .56 1 .75 Maize 1 .48 1 .05 1 .00 1 .10 1 .20 1 .69 Millet 1 .13 1 .10 1 .19 1 .20 1 .33 2 .10 Rice 1 .77 1 .68 1 .40 1 .50 1.43 1 .93 Sorghum 1 .23 1 .40 1 .70 1 .80 1 .65 1 .85 Soybean 1 .58 1 .50 1 .55 1 .60 1 .52 1 .56 Sweet Potato 1 5.96 Yam 11.97 11.65 12.08 10.12 12.2 11.87 Source: Agriculture Report 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 MOFA Table 2 above provides detailed information on specific commodities in respect of the overall production in East Mamprusi as well as the average yields for the years 2011-2015.

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 (WEAI) for East Mamprusi

What is the Women Empowerment East Mamprusi WEAI Results in Agriculture Index? Women play a prominent role in agriculture. Yet they The results of both male and female respondents on face persistent economic and social constraints. Wom- the four domains are displayed in Figure 5. en’s empowerment is a main focus of Feed the Future in Production Domain: Women feel comfortable order to achieve its objectives of inclusive agriculture with providing input related to production deci- sector growth and improved nutritional status. The sions, as indicated by 76.% of the women of the WEAI is comprised of two weighted sub-indexes: survey sample. However, they have much less con- Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) and Gender Parity trol over the use of household income than men-- Index (GPI). The 5DE index is a summation of the level 25.2% of women versus 60.5% of the male respon- of achievement in ten indicators grouped into five dents. domains: production, resources, income, leadership and Resource Domain: A majority of the women have time. The GPI compares the empowerment of women to a right to asset ownership and to purchase and the empowerment of their male counterpart in a house- move assets, 69.4% and 74.3% respectively; these hold. This section presents the results from these figures are lower than the figures of the male empowerment indicators of the 5DE for East Mamprusi, respondents. Only 29.3 % of the women have a right part of a bigger survey conducted by Kansas State to decide or have access to credit, compared to University. 32.5% of the male respondents. Access to credit is The Domains: what do they represent? almost equally low for both genders. The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals to provide input and autonomously make decisions Leadership Domain: A thin majority 61.4% - of about agricultural production. The Resources domain the women, are entitled to group membership and reflects individuals’ control over and access to produc- 81.2% feel confident to speak in public as opposed tive resources. The Income domain monitors individuals’ to 64.9% and 88.8% of men respectively. ability to direct the financial resources derived from Time Domain: The majority of women and men agricultural production or other sources. The Leadership in East Mamprusi are satisfied with the workload in domain reflects individuals’ social capital and comfort their everyday life- 74% and 92.8% respectively. The speaking in public within their community. The Time percentages dropped significantly with respect to domain reflects individuals’ workload and satisfaction satisfaction with leisure time; only 44.1% of the with leisure time. women and 45.7% of men interviewed are happy with this aspect.

Figure 5: Results from the Empowerment Domains of the WEAI, East Mamprusi, 2015, in percent Adequacy & 100 90.7 88.8 92.8 90 86.9 81.4 81.2 Differences 80 76.4 74 69.4 74.3 70 64.9 60.5 61.4 60 Together men and women obtained an adequacy score 45.7 50 44.1 40 32.5 (80% and above) in all indicators except for Control over 29.3 30 25.2 use of Household Income, Access to and Decision on 20 10 credit, Group membership and Satisfaction with leisure 0 Input in Control Over Asset Right to Access to and Group Public Satisfaction Satisfaction time. In addition, while men obtained adequacy in input in Production Use of Ownership Purchase Sell Decision on Membership Speaking with Workload with Leisure Decision Household and Transfer Credit Time production decision, asset ownership, right to purchase Income Assets Production and Income Resources Domain Leadership Doman Time Domain and sell assets, satisfaction with workload while women Domain did not. Women Men Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University The highest difference between male and female respon- dents was observed with the production domain: the control over use of household income. 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 East Mamprusi

Infographic 2: Health and Nutrition Figures, Infograph 2 focuses on the health and nutrition of Tamale, 2015 women and children in the district. Percentages and absolute numbers are revealed in the respective circles for stunting, wasting, children and women Children Stunting, 37.3%*, 8869 underweight as well as Women Dietary Diversity Women with minimum Children and some other indicators. The Dietary diversity dietary diversity, Underweight 15%*, 4562 11.8%*, 2806 score of women in East Mamprusi is three (3), which means that women consume on average only 3 types of foods out of 10. Only a mere 15% reach Women Dietary Wasting in Diversity Score, Children, 23.5%*, 3* 5588 the minimum dietary diversity of five (5) food groups. Women Dietary Diversity Score in Mam- prusi East is thus the lowest in the whole of the Women Exc. breasfed Underweight, Children (0 -5m), Northern Region. The minimum dietary diversity 74.4%** 8.6%*, 2616 Intro of Complementary score is also the lowest in the region. Wasting in Feeding, Children 6 -23m, Children also represents the highest value in the 75.8%** region. Figure 6 displays specifics of household Sources: * from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, dwelling, evaluated based on sources of water, ** from Ring & Spring Survey, 2015 energy, waste disposal, cooking fuel source, and the number of people per sleep room as measured

Figure 6: Household Dwelling Characteristics, East Mamprusi, from the PBS Survey 2015. Figure 7 and the boxes 2015, in percent below cover access to improved water source, sani- tation and hand washing facilities as measured by Access to Electricity 25.8 the RING & SPRING Survey in 2015. When combin-

Access to Solid Fuel 100.0 ing both surveys, access to improved water source ranges between 27.3% and 52.8%, while access to Persons Per Sleep Room 1.6 sanitation facilities is between 7.7 and 11.1%. This means that the majority of the population of the Improved Sanitation** 7.7 district do not enjoy these facilities. 100 percent of

Access to Improved Watersource* 27.3 the population also lacks functioning hand-wash facilities in the household. Further details are 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Percent provided in figures 8 and 9.

Figure 7: Sanitation Situation East Mamprusi, 2015

unimproved pit latrine, People with no knowledge and no slabs or no-n People with knowledge of critical 20 inadequate knowledge of aflatoxin cleanable, 14.6% pit latrine, with time of hand washing cleanable slabs, 76.4% levels 0 People without access to improved sanitation 96.4% People with access to improved sanitation facilites 97.6%** -20 11.1 % in total

-40 88.9% People with improved hand wash People with improved water facilities source -60 0.0** 52.8%** -80

-100

Sources: Figure 5: PBS 2015, Kansas State University, Figure 6: Ring & Spring Survey, 2015, 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 East Mamprusi

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 East Mamprusi is selected. Both key impact indicators, ‘prevalence of poverty’ and ‘per capita expenditure’, have improved as shown in Figure 8 and Figure 10. In 2015 poverty dropped by 48.5 percentage points to 33.1% compared to the 2012 value. However, the poverty rate is still the highest in the Northern Region. In addition, the 2015 per capita expenditure is an increase of 40.8 percent to 3.07 USD. The population calculated to be living under the $1.25/day, per person poverty line is 44,877. The positive progress of impact indicators is accompanied by a satisfactory USAID presence score of 2.8 out of 4 for the period 2014-2016. This combination signifies char- acteristics of a GREEN district, an indication of a district that is progressing well accompanied by good interven- tion work conducted on the ground. That said, the presence of other development partners and GOG interven- tions have not been taken into account. With the present high level of poverty in East Mamprusi, the district has received greater attention and presence intensified in 2015 and 2016 as compared to 2014; impact indicators has improved, there are less poor people in the district and people spend slightly more. The district just need to keep going this way.

Figure 8: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012,2015, USAID District Presence Score East Mamprusi

80.0% 64.30% 0.0% s t

60.0% i n o p 33.10% NO USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 40.0% e t a g t n n

e 20.0% e c r c r e 0.0% e P

P

LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE

n EAST MAMPRUSI i

-20.0% -40.0% i n

y t e r g

e -40.0% v a n o

Poverty Change h BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE P -60.0% C 2012- 2015 y t

-80.0% -48.5% r e v

-100.0% o AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE P -120.0% -80.0% Poverty/ 2012 Poverty/2015 Poverty Change 2012-2015 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Figure 9: Population of Poor, Non-Poor East Mamprusi, 2015

HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 160000 140000 r s

e 120000 b m

u 100000 n 90,703 i n 80000 n i o

USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag t

l a 60000 u p

o 40000 P BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 20000 44,877 0 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS EAST MAMPRUSI Population Poor 2015 Population of NonPoor 2015 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS Figure 10: Per Capita Expenditure in 2012 and 2015, in USD/day; Per Capita Expenditure Change in percent, East Mamprusi BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Per Capita Exp. t

Change n e y REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS c a 3.5 40.8% 60% r d e

3.07USD 40% P

D / n

3 i

20% U S e

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 0% g n i

2.5 a n s -20% h IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS e 2.18USD r C

u -40% t s

i 2 e d

-60% r n u t e -80% i p BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 1.5 d x -100% n E e p a -120% t x IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS i 1 -140% E a p a t i C 0.5 -160% r a p ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND e -180% P C

0 -200% r e REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS EAST MAMPRUSI P PC Exp. 2012 PC Exp. 2015 PC/Change

Source: Figure 8,9,10, 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 East Mam- prusi demographics, religious affiliation, literacy and weather indicators

Figure 11: Household Composition by groupage, East East Mamprusi has a total population of 135,580 out of Mamprusi, 2015 Children 0 to 4 which 68,968 are females and 66,612 males with an aver- Adult Males 13% 23% age household size of 6.9 persons. East Mamprusi lies in the tropical continental climatic zone and experiences average annual precipitation relative to other districts in Adult Females 22% the Northern Region, see Figure 14. It should be noted Children 5 to 17 42% that in 2010, the entire Northern Region experienced

Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University significant rainfall and flooding. In terms of religion, the majority of the population are Muslims (59.1%) followed Figure 12: Religious Affiliation, East Mamprusi, 2015, in % by Christians (22.2%) and Traditionalists (16%) as shown

No Religion Other Christian 1.8% 4.6% in Figure 12. The district accounts for a young population Ahmadi Other 1.1% 1.1% Protestant as the age of the majority (59%) of the household mem- 7.2% bers range between 0 and 17 years, as Figure 11 shows. Penecostal/Charismatic 7.9% East Mamprusi accounts for a very low level of adult edu- Islam 58.1% cational attainment as shown in Figure 13. A vast majori- Traditionalist 15.7% ty of the adults - 92% - have received no education, while

Catholic only 3.6% have had primary education and 4.3% second- 2.5% Source: East Mamprusi District Analytical Report, GSS, 2014 ary education.

Figure 13: Adult Education Attainment, East Mamprusi, 2015

Primary Level Education Secondary Level Education 3.6% 4.30% Figure 14:: Yearly average precipitation and Average Min.&Max. Temperatures in Celcius, East Mamprusi, 2008 - 2015

4000 3,791.62 40

3500 35 s

3000 30 i u m l s e m

c

2500 25 i n

i n

n e r i o 2000 20 t u a t a i t 1500 15 r i p e c p e r 1000 776.52 10 m P 549.39 552.71 549.44 e 481.50 501.45 418.00 T 500 5

0 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature

Source: awhere Weather Platform, AWhere, 2016

No Educaton 92.0%

Source: PBS 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 East Mamprusi

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

Why does East Mamprusi have the highest pover- What other agricultural or nutrition focused ty rate in the Northern Region as well as the development partners or GoG interventions highest depth of poverty rate? Have these been have previously been implemented, are ongoing, addressed specifically? and/or are in the pipeline that may impact East Mamprusi’s development?

QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4

Why are the Agriculture Production Survey Given East Mamprusi’s agricultural production, (APS) 2013 yield values so much lower than the health and sanitation figures, as well as results average yield reported by MOFA in 2013? (Figure from the presence vs impact matrix, what should 3 on page 3) USAID development work focus on in the next two years? What future development assistance would be helpful for East Mamprusi?

QUESTION 5 QUESTION 6

Why are nutrition and health related indicators Why are the quantities of produce so low in East so low in East Mamprusi? The women Dietary Mamprusi compared to other districts? The Diversity Score and the minimum dietary diversi- district accounts for only 2 percent of the overall ty are the lowest in the Northern Region. Addi- Northern Region agricultural production. tionally, wasting in children is the highest in the region. Have these been addressed specifically? Also access to water source is the lowest in the NR according to PBS 2015. Will the values from these surveys be taken into account when design- ing interventions for the district?

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