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

DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT Nanumba South is a district in Ghana’s . The total land area of the district is 1,789.2 Km Square. 1. Cover Page The district shares boundaries with Tatale district and the republic of Togo to the east, East Gonja 2. USAID Project Data to the west, Nkwanta district of the Volta region to the 3-5. Agricultural Data south-east, Nanumba North district to the north and finally district to the south-west. The district has 6. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation a total population of 105, 231, out of which 52,566 are 7. USAID Presence females and 52,665 males. The district has an average household size of 5.9 per-sons. The boxes below reveal 8. Demographic and Weather Data the level of important develop-ment indicators measured 9. Discussion Questions by the Population Based Survey in 2015.

Poverty Prevalence 7.5% Daily per capita expenditure 7.46 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger 27.8% Household Size 5.9 members Poverty Depth 3.1% Total Population of the Poor 7,892

1 USAID PROJECT DATA

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

Table 1: Project Collected Info in Nanumba South, 2014-2016 Beneficiareis Data 2014 2015 2016 The low number of beneficiaries* in 2014 Direct Beneficiaries 746 1755 2390 doubled in 2015, which further increased in Male 0 363 426 2016. This was accompanied by only 4 Female 746 1,392 1,964 demonstration plots established to support Undefined 0 - - beneficiary training. There is no record of Nucleus Farmers 0 - n/a agricultural loans supported through Male 0 - USAID intervention. Nanumba South is Female 0 - Undefined another district that registered a large Demoplots 0 4 n/a number of female beneficiaries. For more Male 0 3 details refer to Table 1. The presence of Female 0 1 USAID development work is relatively low Undefined as compared to other districts. This result- Production ed in a low USAID presence score** of 1.4 Maize Gross Margin USD/ha n/a n/a n/a out of 4 during the period between Maize Yield MT/ha n/a n/a n/a 2014-2016. When combining progress/re- Soya Gross Margin USD/ha n/a n/a n/a gress of impact indicators with the pres- Soya Yield MT/ha n/a n/a n/a ence score, the district is flagged Yellow*** Investments and Impact indicating that the impact indicators have Ag. Rural loans - - - improved regardless of the low USAID Beneficiaries Score 1 2 2 USAID Projects Present 3 3 presence. Find more details of USAID Pres- Presence Score Cumulative 1.4 ence v. Impact scoring on page 7. District Flag Yellow

Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014 - 2016 The presence calculation includes the number of direct beneficiaries and Agricultural Rural Loans. Infographic 1: Demo Plots in Nanumba South, 2014-2015

37** 4**

Demo Plots

1(Soyabean) 3(Maize)

Early Maturing Maize, Hybrid Maize Variety Afayak

Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014, 2015

* “Direct Beneficiary, an individual who comes in direct contact with a set of interventions” FTF Handbook, 2016 , ** and***See page 7 for more details on presence score ranges and district flag ranges explanation. Beneficiaries Score is calculated in a similar way to the presence score and focuses only on direct beneficiaries. All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 2 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

Agricultural production in Nanumba South is largely focused on Cassava and Yam, which represent the major Figure 1: Nanumba South: Share of ag. production by commodity, 2011-2014 staple foods grown by farmers and constitute 91 percent of the overall agricultural production. Other commodi- Cassava Yam 30.8% ties produced during the period between 2010-2015 60.2% include groundnuts, maize, sorghum, rice and millet, represented by much lower shares, see Figure 1.

Groundnut 1.5% In terms of agricultural production, Nanumba South is Maize 1.7% Millet ranked third among the districts in the Northern Region, 0.3% Sorghum Rice accounting for 11 percent of the overall production 1.7% 0.5% during 2010-2015. Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2010- 2015, MOFA

Figure 2: Yields of maize, rice and soybean, 2013- 2015, in MT/ha, Nanumba South There is no average gross margin calculations from 3 2.68 2.75 2.55 USAID Project Reporting (2015) while gross margins 2.5 1.91 1.90 2 1.80 from the Agriculture Production Survey (KState, APS 1.53 1.53 1.5 1.35 1.17 2013) for maize, rice and soybean are valued at 188.06 1 0.47 0.5 USD/ha, 316.4 USD/ha and 21.02 USD/ha respectively. 0 0 0 Maize Rice Soybean Maize Rice Soybean Maize Rice Soybean

2015 2014 2013

Figure 2 contains yield values from two (2) sources: MOFA APS

MOFA and APS for the period 2013-2015 for three com- Source: Agriculture Report 2013-2015, MOFA modities: maize, rice and soybean. The District averages Production Data, Agriculture Production Survey, K-State, 2013 reported by MOFA in 2013 are higher than the yields Figure3: Income Source in Nanumba South, 2015, in % reported by the 2013 Agriculture Production Survey gift 0.96

(APS) for maize and rice. rice parboiling 0.9

shea picking 1.15

Figure 3 below focuses on the sources of income in the remittance 0.96 district. It shows that the majority of household income petty trading 14.97 in Nanumba South is generated from the agricultural sale of livestock 5.15 sector, particularly farming. Almost 90 percent of the sale of poultry 12.75 sale of crop produce 88.07 income comes from the sale of crops. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

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 Nanumba South including production by commodity (MT/ha), yields (MT/ha) and average land size.

Table 2: Agricultural Production and yields in Nanumba South during 2010-2015, in MT and MT/ha Production in MT Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Total Cassava 1 57,195 148,637 176,788 116,610 1 15,200 80,700 - Cowpea 1 ,342 2,233 2,201 2,851 3 ,069 2 ,295 - Groundnut 6 ,516 6,532 5,930 7,018 6 ,973 6 ,855 - Maize 7 ,208 6,735 7,125 7,450 6 ,450 7 ,984 12,075 Millet 1 ,127 1,094 1,224 1,450 1 ,450 1 ,374 795,129

Rice 2 ,650 2,457 1,913 1,833 1 ,878 1 ,909 13,991

Sorghum 4 ,519 5,121 5,637 9,124 9 ,960 8 ,413 39,824 Soybean 1 1,859 11,312 12,551 13,028 1 3,662 10,363 42,952 Yam 2 92,757 284,091 328,321 244,074 2 44,416 159,007 7,720 Yields MT/ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Cassava 2 1.15 2 0.00 2 2.14 1 9.50 1 8.00 1 3.45 Cowpea 1 .62 1 .57 1 .64 1 .79 1 .86 1 .53 Groundnut 1 .64 1 .65 1 .40 1 .45 1 .49 1 .50 Maize 1 .91 1 .35 1 .53 1 .67 1 .50 1 .91 Millet 1 .24 1 .20 1 .44 1 .48 1 .45 1 .51 Rice 1 .90 1 .80 1 .53 1 .54 1 .43 1 .89 Sorghum 1 .52 1 .74 1 .96 2 .34 3 .32 3 .15 Soybean 2.68 2 .55 2 .75 2 .80 2 .74 2 .54 Yam 2 2.86 2 2.25 2 3.48 1 9.00 1 8.24 1 2.68 Source: Agriculture Report 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 MOFA

Table 2 above provides detailed information on specific commodities in regard to overall production in Nanumba South as well as the average yields for the years 2010-2015. The infographic below shows a summary of agricultural statistics for Nanumba South. The first bar indicates the relatively small farm size by commodity with an average farm plots of 0.35 and 0.50 respectively for maize and rice. Other agricultural data associated with Nanumba South, in-cluding variable costs per hectare and commodity, as well as farm revenue can also be seen below in infographic 2. Infographic 2: Average Land size, Yields, Sales and other Farm indicators in Nanton, 2013

$ - $ 188.06 0.35 1.17 25% 40.8 168.3

$ - $ 0.50 0.47 49% 316.4 66.1 63.2

$ - $ TOTAL 1.13 21.02 19.6 206.7 n/a 33% 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 (WEAI) for Nanumba South

What is the Women Empowerment Nanumba South WEAI Results in Agriculture Index? Women play a prominent role in agriculture. Yet they face The results of both male and female respondents on the four persistent economic and social constraints. Women’s empow- (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 providing its objectives of inclusive agriculture sector growth and input related to production decisions as indicated by 96.1% of improved nutritional status. The WEAI is comprised of two the women of the survey sample. However, they have much weighted sub-indexes: Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) less control over the use of household income than men - and Gender Parity Index (GPI). The 5DE index is a summation 30.4% of women versus 88.9% of the male respondents. of the level of achievement in ten indicators grouped into five domains: production, resources, income, leadership and time. Resource Domain: a majority of the women have a right to asset ownership and to purchase and move assets, 66.7% and The GPI compares the empowerment of women to the 89.8% respectively; these figures are lower than the figures of empowerment of their male counterpart in the household. the male respondents. Only 14.6 % of the women have the This section presents the results from these empowerment right to decide or have access to credit, followed by 18.4% of indicators of the 5DE for Nanumba South, part of a bigger the male respondents. Nonetheless, access to credit is almost survey conducted by Kansas State University. equally low for both genders.

The Domains: what do they represent? Leadership Domain: Nanumba South holds a high percentage of women involved in public speaking, or speaking freely in The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals to public in the Northern Region- indicated by 78.4% of the provide input and autonomously make decisions about women interviewed. However, only a very thin majority, 57.9% agricultural production. The Resources domain reflects of them scored adequacy in the right to group membership as individuals’ control over and access to productive resources. opposed to 68.9% of the male respondents. The Income domain monitors individuals’ ability to direct the financial resources derived from agricultural production or Time Domain: The majority of women and men in Nanumba South are satisfied with the workload in their everyday life, other sources. The Leadership domain reflects individuals’ 76.8% and 94.5% respectively. The percentages, however, social capital and comfort speaking in public within their com- dropped with respect to satisfaction with leisure time; slightly munity. The Time domain reflects individuals’ workload and more than half of the women and men interviewed are happy satisfaction with leisure time. with this aspect.

Adequacy & Figure 4: Nanumba South: Results on Domains of Empowerment of WEAI 2015, by gender, in % Differences 120 Together men and women obtained an adequacy 99 96.1 92.2 94.9 94.5 100 88.9 93.1 89.8 score (80% and above) in all indicators except 78.4 80 76.8 66.7 68.9 for Access to and Decision on credit, Group 57.9 60 52.5 54.5 membership and Satisfaction with leisure time. In 40 30.4 addition, while men obtained adequacy in control 18.4 20 14.6 over use of household income and asset 0 Input in Control Over Asset Right to Access to and Group Public Satisfaction Satisfaction ownership, public speaking, satisfaction with Production Use of Ownership Purchase Sell Decision on Membership Speaking with with Leisure Decision Household and Transfer Credit Workload Time workload, women did not. The highest difference Income Assets Production and Income Resources Domain Leadership Domain Time Domain between male and female respondents was Domain Women Men observed with the production domain: the control over use of household income and in the resources domain: the right to asset ownership.

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 Nanumba South

Infograph 3: Health and Nutrition Figures, Nanumba South, 2015 Infograph 3 focuses on the health and nutrition of women and children in the district. Percentages and absolute numbers are Children Stunting, revealed in the respective circles for stunting, wasting in 27.6*, Only 45.8%* of 5,410 Children children, women and children underweight, Women Dietary women reach Underweight minimum 25%*, Diversity and some other indicators. The Dietary diversity dietary diversity 10,937 4,899 score of women in Nanumba South is 4.0, which means that women consume on average 4 types of foods out of 10. Wasting in Women Dietary Children, Almost half of the women (45.8%) reach the minimum dietary Diversity Score, 11.5%*, 4.0* 2,254 diversity of 5 food groups. Figure 7 displays specifics of household dwelling, evaluated based on sources of water, energy, waste disposal, cooking fuel Women Exc. breasfed Underweight, Children (0- source, and the number of people per sleep room as mea- 10.1*, 2,412 Intro of 5m), 69.9%** Complementary sured from the PBS Survey 2015. Figure 6 covers access to Feeding, Children 6-23m, improved water source, sanitation and hand washing facilities 100%** as measured by the Ring & Spring Survey in 2015. When both Sources: * from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, ** surveys are combined, access to improved water source from Ring & Spring Survey, 2015 ranges between 50.6% and 72.9%, while access to sanitation facilities is between 6.8% and 17.8%. A vast majority, 956.%,

Figure 5: Access to Water and Sanitation in Nanumba also lack functioning hand-wash facilities in the household. South, 2015, in % 60.00% 50.60% Further details are provided in Figures 5 and 8.

40.00% FIgure 7: Household Dwelling Characteristics, Nanumba 17.84% 20.00% South 2015 3.54% 0.00% Access to No Access to Usage of No Usage of Households with No functional -20.00% Improved Water Improved Water Sanitation Sanitation functional handwashing Access to Electricity 47.4 Source Source Facilites Facilities handwashing station in -40.00% recommended locations -49.40% -60.00% Access to Water Source Sanitation Handwash Access to Solid Fuel 99.2

-80.00% -82.16% -100.00% -96.46% Persons Per Sleep Room 1.7

-120.00%

Improved Sanitation 6.8 Figure 6: Types of Improved Water Source, Nanumba South, 2015 Access to Improved Water Source 72.9 piped water into dwelling 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 tube 12.8% well/borehole piped water 34.0% into neighbor 4.0% Figure 8: Types of improved sanitation, Nanumba South, 2015, in % piped water to yard/plot unimproved pit flush to septic 4.0% latrine, no slabs tank or pit or non-cleanable- 3% public 17% tap/standpipe 45.2% public toilet 14% pit latrine, with cleanable slabs potable toilet 60% Sources: Figure 5:from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, with emptying Figure 6,7,8 from Ring 2015, service 6% 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 Nanumba South

Presence vs. Impact reveals in more detail the presence of the Feed the Future Implementing Partners in the field, in combination with impact indicators measured by the Population Based Survey in 2012 and 2015: per capita expenditure & prevalence 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 Nanumba South . Values of both key impact indicators, ‘prevalence of poverty’ and ‘per capita expenditure’ have improved, as observed in Figures 14 and 16. In 2015 poverty dropped by 2.6 percentage points to 7.5% compared to the 2012 value. In addition, the 2015 per capita expenditure increased by 42.6 percent to 7.46 USD. The district thus has one of the highest per capita expenditure in the Northern Region . The Nanumba South population calculated to be living under the $1.25/day per person poverty line is 7,892. This progress is interestingly accompanied by a relatively low USAID presence score of 1.4, with the highest score possible being 4. This combination signifies characteristics of a YELLOW district, one that is progressing well with relatively few USAID resources. That said, the presence of other development partners and GOG interventions have not been taken into account. Taking Nanumba South as an example, we can say that development should be addressed differently in districts that are more aggressive in their development (yellow districts) and are progressing mostly on their own means. Figure 9: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012,2015, Nanumba South Poverty Change 2012- 2015 USAID District Presence Score -2.6%

7.70% s 20.0% 7.50% 0.0% t i n o p

0.0% NO USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE NANUMBA SOUTH e a g t t n -20.0% n e e c c r r e e P

-40.0% P

LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE n i i n

y e t -60.0% g r e a n v h o

P -80.0% BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE C

y t r

-100.0% e v o P AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE -120.0% -40.0% Poverty/ 2012 Poverty/2015 Poverty Change 2012-2015 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE

Figure 10: Population of Poor, Non - Poor Nanumba South, 2015 HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 120000

100000 r s e b

m 80000 u n

i n

USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag n 60000

i o 97,339 t l a u

p 40000 o P BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 20000 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS 0 7,892 NANUMBA SOUTH ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Population Poor 2015 Population of NonPoor 2015 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS Figure 11: Per Capita Expenditure in 2012 and 2015, in USD/day; Per Capita BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Expenditure Change in percent, Nanumba South REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS Per Capita Exp.

Change t n

8 42.6% 60% e c y 7.46USD r a e ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND d 40% P

7 D / 20% n i

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS e U S 0%

6 g n

i 5.23USD

-20% a n

s h

e 5 -40% C r

u BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND s t

i -60% e r d 4 u n -80% t i IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS e d p -100%

3 n x e E -120% p a x t

i 2 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND -140% E a a p t

-160% i C

1 r -180% a p

REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS e C P

0 -200% r

NANUMBA SOUTH e 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 Nanumba South demographics, religious affiliation, literacy and weather indicators

Figure 12: Household Composition by groupage, Nanumba South 2015 Nanumba South has a total population of 105, 231, out of Children 0 to 4 Adult Males 19% 24% which 52,566 are females and 52,655 males with an ave- age household size of 5.9 persons.

Nanumba South lies in the tropical continental climatic Adult Females 20% zone and experiences average annual precipitation rela- tive to other districts in the Northern Region, see Figure15. Children 5 to 17 37%

Source : PBS 2015, Kansas State University, 2015 In terms of religious affiliation, majority of the population are traditionalists (47.8%) followed by Muslims (27.2%),

Figure 13: Religious Affiliation, Nanumba South, 2010 Christians (21%) and people with no religion (5%) as Other shown in Figure 13. 0.4%

Islam 27.2% The district accounts for a young population as 56% of Traditionalists 47.8% the household members are aged between 0 and 17 years, as Figure 13 shows.

Catholic Nanumba South just as the rest of the other districts in 6.7% Protestants the Northern Region accounts for a very low level of 3.2% No religion adult educational attainment as shown in figure 14. A 4.7% Other Christian vast majority of the adults, 88%, have received no educa- 2.7% Pentecostal/ Charismatic tion, while only 3% went through primary schools and 7.4% only 6.9% of the sample through secondary school. Source: Nanumba South District Analytical Report, GSS, 2014

Figure 15: Average Cummulated Precipitation in mm and Temperature in Figure 14: Adult Education Attainment in Nanumba Celcius Degree, Nanumba South, 2008-2015 South, 2015 - s

m 1000 40 u i m c l 900 864.55 n

Secondary Level i 35

C e

n 800 e o

Education, 6.90% i 689.07 691.80 691.28 30 t e r

a 700 t g i 587.41

25 e p

i 600 c D

e n r 500 20 i Primary Level P

e d 400 u

15 t Education, 3% e a t r

a 300 l e

u 10 200 p m m u

5 e c 100 T c

A 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature

Source: awhere Weather Platform, AWhere, 2016 No Educaton, 88%

Source: Figure 12,14, 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 Nanumba South

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

What are the conditions that contributed to the Given Nanumba South’s agricultural production, large share to overall agricultural production in health and sanitation figures, as well as results Nanumba South as compared to other districts in from the presence vs impact matrix, what should the Northern Region. Are the conditions climac- USAID development work focus on in the next teric or cultural? Has any research been conduct- two years? What future development assistance ed on this? would be helpful for Nanumba South?

QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4

Why are the quantities of rice, maize and soybean What other agricultural or nutrition focused produced in Nanumba South so low compared to development partners or GoG interventions cassava and yam? Is there a link to nutrition have previously been implemented, are ongoing, patterns or production related challenges? Do and/or are in the pipeline that may impact farmers grow more yam and cassava for econom- Nanumba South’s development? ic reasons or simply because the soil and weather conditions allow it?

QUESTION 5

Why is the per capita expenditure, at 7.46, so high as compared to the many other districts in the Region?

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