GARU-TEMPANE Feed the Future District Profile Series - February 2017 - Issue 1

DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT Garu-Tempane is one of the districts in Ghana’s . It has a total land area of 1,060.91 square 1. Cover Page kilometers and shares boundaries with Municipal to the north; - District to the south; 2. USAID Project Data to the west; and the Republic of 3-5. Agricultural Data Togo to the east . The district has a total population of 140,050 out of which 66,818 are males and are 6. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation 73,232 females with an average household size of 6.2 7. USAID Presence persons. The boxes below contain relevant economic indicators such as per capita expenditure and poverty 8. Demographic and Weather Data prevalence for a better understanding of its develop- 9. Discussion Questions ment.

Poverty Prevalence 23.1 % Daily per capita expenditure 3.95 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger 50.9% Household Size 6.2 members Poverty7 Depth 9 % Total Population of the Poor 32,352

1 USAID PROJECT DATA

This section contains data and information related to USAID sponsored interventions in Garu-Tempane

Table 1: USAID Projects Info, Garu-Tempane, 2014-2016 The number of direct USAID beneficiaries** Beneficiaries Data 2014 2015 2016 increased in 2016 as compared to 2014 after a drop in Direct Beneficiaries 1,550 6 40 2 ,398 numbers in 2015. The majority of beneficiaries in this Male 434 2 43 8 56 Female 1,116 3 97 1 ,542 district are women. Only one nucleus farmer is Undefined currently operating in the district and only 15 Nucleus Farmers 0 1 n/a demonstration plots have been established to support Male 1 Female beneficiary training. See Infographic 1 for the Demoplots 9 6 n/a demonstration plot disaggregate. No agricultural Male 3 loans were facilitated by USAID intervention as Female 1 Unknown 5 6 shown in Table 1. Direct beneficiaries yields and gross Production margins for the district are also available in Table 1. Maize Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 691.1 n/a The presence of USAID development work is below Maize Yield MT/ha n/a 3.14 n/a Rice Gross Margin USD/ha n/a - 6 2.8 n/a average, with a small number of beneficiaries, small Rice Yield MT/ha n/a 1.04 n/a number of demo plots and no loan during 2014-2016. Soybean Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 170.1 n/a This resulted in a USAID presence score*** of (1.4 Soybean Yield MT/ha n/a 0.68 n/a Investment and Impact out of 4). The district is flagged YELLOW**** Ag. Rural loans indicating that while the project presence or USAID Projects Present 3 intervention is below average, the impact indicator Beneficiaries Score 2 1 2 Presence Score 2014-2016 1.4 values have improved as compared to 2012. Find District Flag 2014-2016 Yellow more details on USAID Presence vs. Impact scoring on page 7. Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014-2016

Infographic 1: Demo Plots in Garu Tempane, 2014-2015 The presence calculation 37** includes the number of direct 12* beneficiaries and Agricultural

Demo Plots Rural loans.

8(Soyabean) 9(Maize)

Crop Rotaton Crop Genetics, Obatanpa, Crop Rotation, Crop Genetics, Jenguma, New released PAN12/53, Plouging, Harrowing, Planting variety, Harrowing, Planting in Rows, Inoculation, in Rows, Fertilization, Pest control, 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 **** More detail on presence score range and districtflag range can be found in page 8. All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 2 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

Figure1: Share of agricultural production by Agricultural production in Garu-Tempane involves commodity in Garu-Tempane, 2010-2014

Sweet Potato several commodities which all contributed similar shares 7.2% Cowpea Soybean 7.3% 2.0% Groundnut Sorghum 8.7% to the total quantity produced during 2012-2015. 11.5%

Garu-Tempane accounted for only 3% of the regional agricultural production during 2015.

Rice 22.3% Maize 29.6% Figure 2 contains gross margins for three commodities

Millet supported by USAID intervention in 2015 as well as the 11.4% Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2011- 2015, MOFA district average captured by APS 2013. In the case of Figure 2: Gross Margins of USG Beneficareis and district's average, USD/ha, 2013 and 2015 800.0 maize, it is obvious that the gross margin of beneficiaries 691.1 700.0

600.0 537.8 is much higher than the district average value in 2013. In 500.0 400.0

300.0 252.5 the case of rice, the beneficiaries reported negative gross 200.0 170.1 168.1

100.0

- margin while the soy gross margin reported from APS is Maize Rice Soybean Maize Rice Soybean -100.0 -62.8 2015 2013 -200.0 higher than that of the beneficiaries. USG Beneficiareis District General_APS

Source: Agriculture Project Reporting 2015, Agriculture Production Survey, 2013, Kansas State University

Yield data, presented in Figure 3, contain values of yields Figure 3: Yields of USG beneficaries and districts average, in MT/ha, 2013-2015 of these three commodities in 2015, 2014 and 2013 from 3.50 3.14 3.00 three sources: USAID beneficiaries, MOFA and 2.41 2.50 2.27 2.33

2.00 1.60 Agriculture Production Survey. Again, the figure captures 1.43 1.50 1.40 1.04 1.00 0.87 0.74 the problem in productivity of rice of the direct 0.68 0.6 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.50

- beneficiaries in 2015 compared to the district average Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice 2015 2014 2013 captured by the other source. USG Beneficiareis Others -APS Others-MofA Source: Agriculture Project Reporting 2015, Agriculture Report 2014, MOFA, Agricultrure Production Survey, 2013, Kansas State University

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

This section contains agricultural data for Garu-Tempane 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, Garu-Tempane Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Total Cowpea 3,645 3,713 2,952 3,640 2,860 2,950 19,760 Groundnut 3,241 3,600 3,652 3,960 2,048 6,980 23,481 Maize 14,545 14,280 16,800 14,280 10,950 9,056 79,911 Millet 5,523 5,512 5,908 6,120 4,890 2,940 30,893 Rice 12,064 10,901 11,464 9,760 6,076 10,152 60,417 Sorghum 4,036 4,448 4,279 4,182 7,410 6,688 31,043 Soybean 989 1,056 1,135 938 1,216 5,334 Sweet Potato 3,995 5,736 5,704 4,080 19,515 Yields in MT/Ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Cowpea 0.74 0.75 0.65 0.80 0.52 0.50 Groundnut 0.53 0.60 0.56 0.60 0.35 1.00 Maize 1.43 1.40 1.60 1.40 1.50 1.60 Millet 0.80 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.64 0.49 Rice 2.41 2.27 2.33 2.00 1.40 2.60 Sorghum 0.58 0.64 0.62 0.60 0.95 0.76 Soybean 0.60 0.64 0.74 0.70 0.64 0.80 Sweet Potato 9.40 11.03 12.40 8.50 9.00 Source: Agriculture Report 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, MOFA

Table 2 above provides detailed information on specific commodities in respect of the overall production output in Garu-Tempane, as well as the average yields for the period 2010-2015. The infographic below shows a summary of agricultural statistics including average land size per farm, yields, variable costs per hectare and commodity, as well as farm revenue. Please note that Agriculture Production Survey 2016 is underway and this dataset will be re-viewed very soon.

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

$ - $ 252.5 1.09 0.87 56% 124.3 145.3

$ - $ 0.17 0.64 38% 168.1 39.8 106.0 TOTAL TOTAL 0.19 537.8 10.7 323.1 0.64 49% 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 focuses on the Women Empowerment in Agricul- ture Index results for Garu-Tempane

What is the Women Empowerment Garu-Tempane 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. four domains are displayed in Figure 4. Women’s empowerment is a main focus of Feed the Production Domain: women feel comfortable with Future in order to achieve its objectives of inclusive providing input related to production decisions as indicated by 78.9% of the women of the survey sample. agriculture sector growth and improved nutritional However, they have much less control over the use of status. The WEAI is comprised of two weighted household income than men – 42.3% of women vs 76.8% sub-indexes: Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) and of the male respondents. This is the lowest value Gender Parity Index (GPI). The 5DE examines the five recorded in the Upper East Region. domains of empowerment: production, resources, income, leadership and time. The GPI compares the Resource Domain: A good majority of the women empowerment of women to the empowerment of their have a right to asset ownership and to purchase and move assets – 72.1% and 71.2% respectively. Only 7.3% male counterpart in the household. This section of the women have the right to decide or have access to presents the results from these empowerment credit, compared to 11.6% of the male respondents. indicators of the 5DE for Garu-Tempane, part of a bigger Nonetheless, access to credit is almost equally low for survey conducted by Kansas State University. both genders.

The Domains: What Do They Represent? Leadership Domain: 65.7% and 77.8% of the women The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals interviewed have the right to group membership and public speaking respectively. The value for group to provide input and autonomously make decisions membership is again the lowest recorded in the Upper about agricultural production. The Resources domain East Region. reflects individuals’ control over and access to productive resources. The Income domain monitors Time Domain: A majority of women and men in individuals’ ability to direct the financial resources Garu-Tempane are satisfied with the workload in their derived from agricultural production or other sources. everyday life – 65% and 74.5% respectively. The values The Leadership domain reflects individuals’ social capital decrease with respect to satisfaction with leisure time; and comfort speaking in public within their community. 50.7% of women and 64.4% of men are satisfied with the amount of leisure time at their disposal. The Time domain reflects individuals’ workload and satisfaction with leisure time. Adequacy & Figure 4: Results of Domains of Empowerment of WEAI Index for Garu- Differences Tempane, 2015, in percent 100 92.5 93.1 90 84.1 Highest differences between male and female respon- 78.9 77.8 80 76.8 74.5 72.1 71.2 72.2 dents observed with production domain: the control 70 65.7 65 64.4 over use of household income, resources domain: asset 60 55.2 50.7 ownership and in the leadership domain: public 50 42.3 40 speaking. 30 Adequacy: Together, men and women achieve adequacy 20 11.6 in all indicators but control over use of hh income, 7.3 10 access to and decision on credit, group membership 0 Input in Control Over Asset Right to Access to and Group Public Speaking Satisfaction Satisfaction and satisfaction with workload and leisure time. In Production Use of Ownership Purchase Sell Decission on Membership with Workload with Leisure Decission Household and Transfer Credit Time Income Assets addition men achieve adequacy in input in production Production and Income Resources Domain Leadership Domain Time Domain decision, asset ownership, public speaking, while Domain

Women Men women do not.

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 Garu-Tempane

Infograph 3: Health and Nutrition Figures, Garu-Tempane, 2015 Infograph 3 focuses on the health and nutrition of

Children women and children in the district. Percentages and Stunting, 34%, 7140 absolute numbers are revealed in the respective circles

Only 42%, 12,571, women reach minimum Children dietary diversity Underweight, for stunting, wasting, children and women underweight 17%, 3,570 as well as Women Dietary Diversity: The WDDS is based

on nine food groups. A woman’s score is based on the

Woman Dietary Diversity Score, Wasting in sum of different food groups consumed in the 24 hours 4 Children, 8.5%, 1,785 prior to the interview. Women Minimum Dietary Women Underweight, 15.1%, 4,420 Diversity (MDD-W) represents the proportion of

Sources: PBS 2015, Kansas State University, 2015 women consuming a minimum of five food groups out of the possible ten food groups based on their dietary

intake. The Dietary diversity score of women in

Figure 5: Household Dwelling Characteristics, Garu- Tempane, 2015 Garu-Tempane is 4, which means that women consume

on average 4 types of food out of 10. This is the highest Access to Electricity 26.6 score achieved in the Upper East Region. Around half of

Access to Solid Fuel 100.0 women (42%) reach the minimum dietary diversity of 5

Persons Per Sleep Room 1.4 food groups. Garu-Tempane has the highest rate of

stunting in children in the Upper East Region.

Improved Sanitation 14.7 Figure 5 displays specifics of household dwelling,

Access to Improved Water Source 93.6 evaluated based on sources of water, energy, waste

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 disposal, cooking fuel source, and the number of people

Sources: PBS 2015, Kansas State University, 2015 per sleep room as measured from the PBS 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 Garu-Tempane

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 Garu-Tempane.

Both key impact indicators, ‘prevalence of poverty’ and ‘per capita expenditure’, have improved. See Figure 6 and 8. In 2015, poverty decreased by 34.7 percentage points to 23.1% compared to 2012, leaving the population of the poor at 32,852 persons. In addition, the 2015 per capita expenditure increased by 41 percent to 3.95 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).

Garu-Tempane is a typical district in which clear signs of improvement have been observed amid little intervention from USAID. That said, the GOG or other donors interventions have not been captured in the calculation. Further thought should therefore go into identifying specific interventions that would give a further push to the existing development pace in Garu-Tempane and help to change the district flag from yellow to green.

Figure 6: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012,2015, USAID District Presence Score Garu-Tempane 60.0% 0.0% 35.40% s t n

40.0% i

23.10% o p

t

20.0% e n g a NO USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE e t n r c 0.0% e e GARU TEMPANE P r c n e

i -20.0%

P y n i r t

LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE

e Poverty Change

-40.0% e v 2012-2015 g o n a P -34.7%

-60.0% h C

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE -80.0% y r t e v

-100.0% o P

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

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Figure 7: Population of Poor, Non - Poor Garu-Temapane, 2015

160000

HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 140000 s r 120000 e m b

u 100000 n

n

i 107,698 n 80000

USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag o i t a l

u 60000 p o P BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 40000 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS 20000 32,352 0 GARU TEMPANE 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, Garu-Tempane BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Per Capita Exp. REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS Change

4.5 41.1% 60% t n

y 3.95 USD 40% c e a

4 r d e / 20% P

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND D n S

3.5 i

0% U e

g n

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS i -20% 3 2.8 USD n a s e -40% h r C

t u 2.5 s i -60% e d BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND -80% r e n 2 t u i p d x -100%

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS E 1.5 e n p

t a -120% i x p 1 -140% E t a C a i

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND -160% p e r 0.5 P C a REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS -180% 0 -200% e r P GARU TEMPANE 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 Garu-Tempane demographics, religious affiliation, literacy and weather indicators

Figure 9: Household Compositon by groupage, Garu-Tempane has a total population of 140,050 out of which Garu-Tempane, 2015, in % 66,818 are males and 73,232 females with an average Adult Males Children 0 to 4 17.7% 11.3% household size of 6.2 persons. The total surface area of the district is 1,060.91 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 45.2% 25.8% other districts in the Upper East Region. Figure 12 shows the

Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University average maximal and minimal temperatures as well as yearly average precipitation.

Figure 10: Religious Affiliation in Garu-Tempane, 2010 Garu-Tempane, like many other districts in the Upper East Others Region has a relatively young population as shown in Figure 9, 0.9% No Religion 2.4% Traditionalists with more than 50% of the population falling in the age range: 16.0% Catholic 11.8% 0 to 17 years old. In terms of religious affiliation, the majority of the population Protestants 14.9% are Muslims (41%) followed by Christians, who account for 38.6% of the population and traditionalists (16%). For more Islam 41.0% Penecostal/Charismat details refer to Figure 10. ic 10.9% The district accounts for a high adult illiteracy rate with 86.1% Other Christians 2.1% of adults having received no education. This is the highest Source: Garu Analytical Report, GSS, 2014 percentage reported in the Upper East region. 5.9% went through primary school only while 7.2% made it further to

Figure 11: Education Attainment in Garu-Tempane, secondary school. 2015, in %

Secondary Level Figure 12: Average Precipitation in mm and Average Temperatures in Garu- Primary Level Education, 7.20% Tempane, 2008-2015 Education, 5.9% 1400 1,333.08 40

1200 35

30 s u 1000 i c l e m n

25 C i

800 n n 706.89 i o i e

t 20 r a u t t i 600 532.68 545.87 a p i 479.34 472.51 r c 414.24 442.84 15 e r m e e P 400

, 10 T

200 5

0 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 No Educaton Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature 86.1% Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University Source: awhere Weather Platform, AWhere, 2016

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 Garu-Tempane

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

Why are the beneficiaries average rice gross margin What other agricultural or nutrition focused and yields lower than the district average? development partner or GoG interventions have previously been implemented, are ongoing, and/or are in the pipeline that may impact Garu-Tempane development?

QUESTION 3

Given Garu-Tempane’s agricultural production, 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 this 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