British Food Journal

Sustainable Agricultur al Intensification Practices and Rural BritishFood Security: TheFood Case of North Journal Western Ghana

Journal: British Food Journal

Manuscript ID BFJ-01-2017-0021

Manuscript Type: Research Paper

food security, Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Practices, Keywords: Endogenous model, North Western Ghana

Page 1 of 21 British Food Journal

1 2 3 Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Practices and Rural Food Security: The Case of 4 5 North Western Ghana 6 7 8 9 Abstract 10 11 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand the impact of participation in sustainable 12 agricultural intensification practices (SAIPs) on household food security status in North Western 13 Ghana. 14 15 British Food Journal 16 Design/methodology/approach – The study utilized the Household Food Insecurity Access 17 Scale (HFIAS) indicator for the measurement of food access data from 168 households in 10 18 communities from the North Western region of Ghana for the analyses. Households were 19 20 categorized into participating households (treatment) and non-participating households (control). 21 The endogenous treatment effects model was employed to evaluate the impact of participation on 22 SAIPs training on food insecurity access scale. 23 24 25 Findings – The results show that participation in SAIPs training lower on average the household 26 food insecurity access by 2.95, approximately an 11% reduction in HFIAS score. Other significant 27 factors found to influence household food insecurity access scale are age of household head, 28 29 experience in farming, total acres owned by household, income level of the household and 30 occupation of the head of the household. 31 32 Research limitations/implications – The training programme of participation in sustainable 33 agricultural intensification practices (SAIPs) has massive implications for food security, rural 34 35 economy and farmers’ livelihoods. However, due to the unique conditions prevailing in North 36 Western Ghana, the findings of this research is limited in terms of its generalizability. Future 37 research direction in the area of SAIPs trainings and impact study replications in all qualifying rural 38 39 food production areas in Ghana, that are susceptible to household food insecurity, will provide a 40 national picture of the efficacy of SAIPs trainings on household food insecurity. 41 42 Practical implications – A proven means to decrease natural resource degradation, increase crops 43 44 yields, and increase subsistence farmers’ income, and food security is an important intervention to 45 resolve the seasonal food shortage, which last for five months in a typical year for agro-food 46 dependent farming communities in North Western Ghana. 47 48 Social implications – Ensuring household food security improvement and environmental 49 50 sustainability will help improve living standards of food producers and reduce the adverse social 51 challenges associated with food insecure communities such as health problems due to food 52 deficiencies, social inequalities, environmental pollution and natural resource degradation in North 53 54 Western Ghana. 55 56 Originality/value – The contribution of this paper is the novel thought and approach to examine 57 the impact of the SAIPs trainings on household food security in north western Ghana using the 58 59 60 British Food Journal Page 2 of 21

1 2 3 household food insecurity access scale indicator. The study also examined the factors that affect 4 5 household food security using the endogenous treatment model, which also evaluates the impact of 6 the training programme on the outcome variable. 7 8 Keywords: Food security, Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Practices, Endogenous model, 9 10 North Western Ghana. 11 12 13 1 Introduction 14 15 British Food Journal 16 Farmers in northwestern Ghana practice subsistence agriculture with low soil productivity due to 17 18 continuous mono-cropping with limited external farm inputs such as advanced seeds, chemical 19 fertilizer etc. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of access to credit market, poor physical 20 21 infrastructure, underdeveloped agricultural market, and poverty. These factors hinder the 22 23 subsistence farmers’ access to food, which make their households food insecure. Taken a cue 24 25 from the earlier failed attempt in Ghana, Sustainable agricultural intensification practices (SAIPs) 26 have been introduced in northwestern Ghana in 2010, in a research phases, as potential 27 28 interventions to decrease natural resource degradation, increase crops yields, and increase 29 30 subsistence farmers’ income, and food security (Dalton et al ., 2014). 31 32 33 The debate as to what sustainable agriculture is among agricultural practitioners (Peterson 34 and Snapp, 2015) is ongoing but the FAO definition is still popular with both researchers and 35 36 practitioners. According to FAO (2009) sustainable agricultural intensification is defined as “the 37 38 management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological 39 and institutional change to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for 40 41 present and future generations”. 42 43 44 Food security is a growing concern in the world, particularly in developing countries. Among 45 46 many definitions of food security, the World Food Summit of 1996 defines a situation “when all 47 people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to maintain a healthy and 48 49 active life.” This definition covers both physical and economic access to food that meet people’s 50 51 dietary needs and their food preferences. In general, food security is based on three pillars: food 52 53 availability, food access, and food utilization. Food availability refers to sufficient amount of 54 food is available on a regular basis. Food access refers to having sufficient resources to receive 55 56 appropriate food for a nutritious diet whereas utilization refers to how properly individual uses 57 58 59 60 2 Page 3 of 21 British Food Journal

1 2 3 the food to which they have access. Utilization primarily focuses on dietary quality, related with 4 5 inadequate intake of necessary vitamins and minerals for a healthy life (Barrett, 2010). Food 6 7 insecurity affects food intake in quantity and quality, and eventually affect nutritional status and 8 1 9 health of households (Mwaniki, 2006). 10 11 More than 60% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa depends on agriculture and about 12 13 30% of the total population leave below the poverty line in Ghana (UNDP, 2005). The northern, 14 15 upper east, and upperBritish west regions of FoodGhana have be enJournal described as the home for mostly food 16 17 insecure people (GLSS, 2000). The people of northern and upper west regions experience 18 seasonal food shortage and do not have adequate food for five months in a typical year (Quaye, 19 20 2008). Ghana living standard survey and UNDP reports have consistently shown that food 21 22 insecurity is a big challenge in Ghana, particularly in northern Ghana. 23 24 25 The main objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of household participation in 26 sustainable agriculture intensification practices (SAIPs) on household food insecurity (access) in 27 28 northwestern Ghana. The SAIPs programme was introduced in the region in 2010 to increase 29 30 soil productivity, yield and farmers’ income. Many studies have examined the status of food 31 32 security elsewhere in Africa (Poppy et al., 2014; Saaka and Osman, 2013; WFP, 2012; Reardon, 33 Matlon, and Delgado, 1988; Barrett and Maxwell, 2006; Barrett, 2006). Most of these studies 34 35 focused on examining the impact of socioeconomic, income, and farm characteristics on food 36 37 security. The contribution of this paper is the novel thought and approach to estimate the impact 38 of participation in sustainable conservation agricultural practices on food security using the 39 40 household level survey data. This work complements those few studies that have considered the 41 42 issues of food security associating with human and natural resources, health and investment 43 44 factors such as the work of Rosegrant and Cline (2003), which links innovations in agro- 45 ecological approaches and crop breeding to improve food security. Our evidence also 46 47 complements the study of Quaye (2008), which examined the coping strategies of households 48 49 during food insecure periods in Ghana. 50 51 52 53 54 1 Note that adequate availability of food is necessary, but it does not ensure access to sufficient, safe, 55 and nutritional food. For further explanation see Barrett (2010); UNDP (2005). Income, prevailing prices, 56 57 and formal or informal safety net arrangements through which people can have access to available food 58 affect food security. 59 60 3 British Food Journal Page 4 of 21

1 2 3 2 4 Literature Review 5 6 This section provides background information on sustainable agriculture, food security situation 7 8 in Africa, focusing on Ghana. It also describes factors that influence food security including past 9 10 studies in the areas of conservation agriculture and food security. 11 12 13 2.1 Sustainable Agriculture Intensification Practices (SAIPs) 14 15 British Food Journal 16 Sustainable agriculture intensification practices (SAIPs) involve components like direct seeding 17 18 without prior ploughing with either a plough or a hoe, leaving crop residue or planting of cover 19 crops and inter-cropping or crop rotation with legumes. The reasons for using SAIPs are to 20 21 reduce the rate of declining soil fertility, improve soil structure, prevent soil erosion, and allow 22 23 for sustained soil fertility (FAO, 2009). The benefits of these practices are the significant 24 25 reduction of production cost (Dalton et al., 2014) and increased yields (Balota et al., 2004; Bayala 26 et al., 2012). 27 28 29 The extant literature suggests that sustainable agricultural intensification has helped 30 31 communities improve their forest resources through community management in Mali (Tappan 32 33 and McGahuey, 2005). Ndiritu et al., (2014) found no significant socioeconomic inequalities exist 34 among gender difference in the adoption of n of components sustainable agricultural 35 36 intensification in Kenya. According to Gadanakis et al., (2015), the concept of sustainable 37 38 agricultural needs a holistic approach in integrating all the resource endowment of the farm 39 40 household and the community as whole. This is evident as agrobiodiversity is found to support 41 sustainable agricultural intensification (Omer et al., 2010) 42 43 44 SAIPs are widely practiced by the United States with about 26 million hectares under the 45 46 conservation agriculture practices (CAPs) followed by Latin America with about 26 million 47 48 hectares (representing 16.5% of total cultivable land in 2007) and China is in a position to 49 practice SAIPs in larger hectares (FAO, 2009). However, the uptake of the technology in sub- 50 51 Sahara Africa is very low with less than 1 million hectares, which is about 0.3 % of the total 52 53 cultivable land (FAO, 2009). It is worth noting that SAIPs were introduced first introduced in 54 Ghana by GTZ and Monsanto in the early 1996 (Boahen, 2007). Constraints to SAIPs uptake in 55 56 developing countries are attributed to non-availability of cash to farmers to purchase external 57 58 59 60 4 Page 5 of 21 British Food Journal

1 2 3 inputs and machines, lack of appropriate loose straw management, high cost of no-till drills and 4 5 lack of adequate extension services (Singh et al., 2008). Huggins and Reganold, 2008, also 6 7 reported on the high cost of zero-till equipment, use of residue for animal feed and fuel are some 8 9 of the factors hindering the adoption of zero-till in low income countries. In Ghana, lack of 10 cover crop seeds, lack of appropriate tools, limited promotion and little or no institutional 11 12 support were reported as challenges to no till adoption (Boahen, 2007). 13 14 15 The SAMREMBritish CRSP project introduced Food SAIPs throu Journalgh an intensive participatory research 16 17 process considering the socio-economic and farm level adaptation trial to enhance farm 18 household knowledge in the project beneficiary communities in 2009. This was aimed at 19 20 demystifying the perceptions held and to promote the use of SAIPs for sustained benefits to 21 22 both household food security improvement and the environmental sustainability. 23 24 25 26 2.2 Food Security in Africa 27 28 29 Food security is a big challenge in developing countries, especially in Africa due to an 30 31 underdeveloped agricultural sector, lack of market access, disease and infection in crops, lack of 32 physical infrastructure, and so forth. Food insecurity is amplified in rural areas by seasonality, 33 34 especially for perishable goods. Food security has worsened in Africa since 1970 and about 33 to 35 36 35% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa has the problem of malnutrition (Mwaniki, 2006). 37 38 Nearly 240 million people in sub-Saharan Africa (about 25% of the total population) do not have 39 adequate food for healthy and active life (Bremner, 2012). In spite of some advances, most of the 40 41 regions are not on right path to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Food 42 43 security is one of the primary objectives of MDGs with the goal of eradicating extreme poverty 44 and hunger (UNDP, 2015). Some of the key factors that affect food security in Africa are 45 46 explained as follow: 47 48 49 2.2.1 50 Underutilized Agricultural Sector 51 52 53 It is common knowledge that due to poor financial and educational status, households use 54 minimum amount of external farm inputs such seeds, fertilizers and chemicals which decrease 55 56 the productivity of land. During pre and post-harvest, farmers lose significant amount of food 57 58 59 60 5 British Food Journal Page 6 of 21

1 2 3 crops due to inappropriate harvesting procedures. Because of inadequate food storage, they face 4 5 high price fluctuation. During harvest time, in general, prices reach to the minimum level of a 6 7 year, when farmers can sell their crops, but when they need to buy food, they have to pay higher 8 9 prices. For example, farmers in rural area of Burkina Faso purchase foods in the hot and rainy 10 seasons before harvest. Most of the households buy some foods, but those households with the 11 12 poorest cropping outcomes are required to buy food more often (Reardon, et al., 1988). 13 14 15 About 95% ofBritish crops are grown under Food rain fed ag ricultureJournal in sub-Saharan Africa. The high 16 17 dependency of agriculture on weather makes them more food insecure if the weather is 18 unfavorable during plantation and harvest periods (Mwaniki, 2006). Food insecurity can be either 19 20 short term (e.g. starvation due to a crop failure) or chronic (long term malnutrition). The chronic 21 22 food insecurity is widespread in the regions under current research consideration and it is mainly 23 24 caused by underdeveloped agricultural sector, unfavorable government policies, lack of market 25 access etc. (Weber et al., 1988). These farmers have no or very limited access to international 26 27 markets because they have to meet some standards such as size, quantity, and quality. 28 29 30 Government policies may improve the agricultural sector making favorable policies to poor 31 32 farms and developing pro-poor institutions. However, the problem in Africa is that even if 33 governments make policies, these policies are not based on empirical information and so these 34 35 policies are not effective in reducing food insecurity (Weber et al., 1988). 36 37 38 2.2.2 Health Situations 39 40 41 Diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS also increase food insecurity in the developing 42 43 world. HIV/AIDS is one of the leading causes of adult mortality and morbidity in Africa 44 45 (Mwaniki, 2006). The household member affected by disease leads to reduction in the working 46 hours, which increases burden to achieve quantity and quality of food. In addition, the disease 47 48 affected household may severely go into the chronic food insecurity due to the need for higher 49 50 nutritional food, but reduction in working hours. 51 52 53 2.2.3 Impact of Globalization and Liberalization 54 55 56 African countries also receive benefits from globalization. The benefits obtained from 57 globalization are capital flows, technology transfer, cheaper import, and expansion of export 58 59 60 6 Page 7 of 21 British Food Journal

1 2 3 markets. However, poor families cannot receive benefits from globalization or liberalization of 4 5 the market because liberalization increases competition with matured firms or industry from the 6 7 developing and developed countries on local area. The subsistence farm or cottage industry 8 9 cannot compete with matured industries, which again lead them into food insecurity. 10 11 Food security in rural Africa and for that matter Ghana cannot be analyzed without including 12 13 socio-economic factors such as social protection, sources of income, household structures, 14 15 access to land, British water, and farm inputs, Food market acce ss,Journal nutritional knowledge among others. 16 17 Multiple factors affect food security, which has not been understood in rural Ghana and this 18 negatively impacts the effectiveness of government policy to decrease poverty and food 19 20 insecurity. There are not enough institutional developments to use government policies to 21 22 increase food security due to weak relationships among government, the private sector, and civil 23 24 society organization (Altman, et al., 2009). 25 26 Most of the African governments give high priority to decrease poverty and hunger, such as 27 28 the South African government set objective to decrease poverty by 50% from 2004 to 2014 and 29 30 food security is a crucial component in meeting the objective. The expansion of the social grants 31 32 in South Africa has decreased chronic huger, but still under-nutrition is a big issue (Altman, et al. 33 2009). Likewise, World Food Programme (WFP) and Ministry of Food and Agriculture of Ghana 34 35 conducted the 2012 Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) survey 36 37 on the three Northern regions of Ghana focusing on food insecurity and causes of food 38 insecurity. The CFSVA results indicate that more than 680 ,000 people (about 2.72% in the three 39 40 Northern region of Ghana what percentage of the population does this represents) were 41 42 considered either severely or moderately food insecure in April/May 2012 and about 20% of the 43 44 food insecure people had a very poor diet. Moreover, poor households with smaller farms, 45 female-headed households, and households with an uneducated head are more food insecure 46 47 than other households WFP (2012). 48 49 50 Saaka and Osman (2013) examined the magnitude of household food insecurity and its 51 52 consequences on the nutritional status of children in northern Ghana. They find that children in 53 food secure households are 46% more protected from chronic malnutrition than children in 54 55 food insecure households. Their results suggest that improving adequacy of the diet could reduce 56 57 chronic malnutrition in the region. Similarly, Quaye (2008) examines food security situation in 58 59 60 7 British Food Journal Page 8 of 21

1 2 3 terms of household’s food availability and the coping strategies of the households during food 4 5 insecure periods in the three regions of northern Ghana. During the food insecure periods, these 6 7 households depend on wild foods, market purchases, in-kind (food) payment from relatives and 8 9 friends, migration and wage labour. Likewise, Reardon, et al., (1988) examine strategies to ensure 10 food security in Sahleian and Sudanian zones of Burkina Faso during the period of drought of 11 12 1984 and 1985 using primary income and consumption survey data. These households receive 13 14 significant income from non-cropping occupations. Food consumption of smaller farm 15 British Food Journal 16 households is clearly different than own-production and the gap is fulfilled by food purchases in 17 the both regions. This implies that availability of food does not ensure food security for poor 18 19 families. 20 21 22 23 3 24 Conceptual and Empirical Approaches 25 26 27 The conceptual framework for food security follows multiple levels (individual, households, and 28 community) and it associates food security to political, institutional, and environmental dynamics 29 30 of the analysis. Food security is often an outcome of livelihood strategies. These strategies are 31 32 based on available assets (e.g. human, social, natural, physical, and capital resources) to 33 34 households. Livelihood strategies help cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, 35 maintaining the use of resources both now and in the future. For example, the livelihood 36 37 strategies in Ghana are crop production, livestock keeping, and trade (WFP, 2012). The 38 39 conceptual framework for food security is presented in figure 1. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 8 Page 9 of 21 British Food Journal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 British Food Journal 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Figure 1: Food and Nutrition Security Conceptual Framework 33 34 35 Source: Adopted from WFP (2012). 36 37 38 39 Since food security is a multidimensional and complex issue, estimating food security has been a 40 big challenge for researchers and practitioners. In general, analysts use proxy measures for 41 42 different aspects of food security. For example, the coping strategies index, food expenditure 43 44 index, dietary diversity measures are used to examine two or three pillars of food security 45 2 46 (Barrett, 2010). 47 48 Over the past 50 years, food access accounts for most food insecurity, which has focused on 49 50 individual-specific hunger and underweight data. 3 This concept is based on poverty reduction, 51 52 53 54 2 Three pillars of food security are availability, access, and use. For detail explanation including advantages 55 and disadvantage of each method, please see Maxwell (1996); Barrett (2010). 56 3 Hunger is defined as the physical discomfort or weakness caused by lack of food and can only be 57 58 measured at the individual level. 59 60 9 British Food Journal Page 10 of 21

1 2 3 food price, and social protection policies. Different data and methods may give different 4 5 estimates. For example, individual or household data gives higher estimates of food insecurity 6 7 than those obtained from aggregate level data. The reasons for the different estimates are intra, 8 9 inter-households distribution of nutrient and nutritional availability. The estimates of food 10 insecurity derived from survey data are highly correlated with poverty estimates (Barrett, 2010). 11 12 Likewise, caloric adequacy has been used as a household measure of food access, but it is 13 14 technically difficult, data intensive, and expensive to collect (Coates, Swindale, and Bilinsky, 15 British Food Journal 16 2007). 17 18 USAID developed The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) to estimate the 19 20 prevalence of food insecurity in the U.S. annually. The HFIAS indicator is useful to measure 21 22 food access because it is relatively simple, but methodologically rigorous (Coates et al., 2007). The 23 24 HFIAS indicator of the access factor of household food insecurity (henceforth household food 25 insecurity (access) can be used to monitor and evaluate program intervention (Coates et al., 26 27 2007). The method is based on the assumption that experience of food insecurity (access) causes 28 29 predictable reactions and responses that can be measured and quantified through a survey and 30 summarized in scale. 31 32 33 This study follows the USAID Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) measure to 34 35 examine the prevalence of food insecurity of farmers in northwestern Ghana. The HFIAS 36 37 indicator includes many domains- behaviors and attributes that relate to various aspects of food 38 insecurity. The USAID of Food and Nutrition Technical project suggest to follow the following 39 40 steps to evaluate the impact of a program on food security: 41 42 43 3.1 Study Region and Data 44 45 46 To survey the farmers, this study adopted the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance 47 48 (FANTA) Project’s questionnaire developed by USAID (Coates et al., 2007). Questions were 49 50 divided into two categories: occurrence and frequency of occurrence questions and asked with a 51 recall period of four weeks (30 days). If a respondent says “Yes” for the occurrence questions, 52 53 then go to a frequency of occurrence. If a frequency of occurrence increases, it shows that the 54 55 household is more food insecure. It means a household faces a problem of not having enough 56 57 food for more than once in a month. 58 59 60 10 Page 11 of 21 British Food Journal

1 2 3 Data was obtained from 168 households in 10 communities from the northwestern region of 4 5 Ghana. Households were categorized into participating (treatment) and non-participating 6 7 households (control). The households were selected based on a prior random sample during a 8 9 baseline study in 2010 and a mid-term study in 2012. The control households were sub-divided 10 into households within the participating communities but are not actually treated and without 11 12 households who are within 10 kilometers from the participating community. The study region 13 14 and the status of food availability of the sample size is shown in figure 2 and figure 3, 15 British Food Journal 16 respectively. The summary statistics of the sample size households by gender and community is 17 presented in Table 1. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Figure 2. Study Region 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 11 British Food Journal Page 12 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 British Food Journal 16 17 18 19 20 21 Figure 3. Household Food Availability Status in Northwestern Ghana 22 23 24 25 26 27 Table 1. Sample Households by Gender and Treatment 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4 Empirical Method and Results 49 50 51 To evaluate food insecurity from the perspective of food access for each household, occurrence 52 53 and frequency of occurrence questions are adopted from the USAID’s FANTA project (Coates 54 55 et al., 2007). The nine occurrence questions (represent generally increasing level of severity of 56 food insecurity (access) and the nine frequency of occurrence questions are used. The frequency 57 58 59 60 12 Page 13 of 21 British Food Journal

1 2 3 of occurrence questions works as follow up questions to each occurrence question. The FANTA 4 5 project suggests to use the complete sets of questions to the examine food insecurity issues. 6 7 8 4.1 The Endogenous Treatment Effects Model (ETEM) 9 10 11 The endogenous treatment-effects model is a linear model that allows for correlation structure 12 13 between unobservable affecting the household participation decisions and those affecting the 14 15 household food British insecurity access. The Food household foo Journald insecurity access (HFIAS) is a scale 16 measure with 0 meaning food access and a maximum of 27 meaning food insecurity access. The 17 18 idea is to model the treatment effect of household participation on sustainable agricultural 19 20 intensification training program on food insecurity access scale. The endogenous treatment 21 22 effects specification is used to assess the effectiveness of the household participation on food 23 insecurity access scale measure (HFIAS) as in (Greene, 2002). The outcome model can be 24 25 specified as follows: 26 27 28 = ′ + + (1) 29 30 The effect of participation (binary) on is not captured by the , because this is the case 31 32 33 of whether household participates in the sustainable agriculture intensification training 34 program or not (the case of self-selection). Hence, neglecting the potential endogeneity of 35 36 participation produces wrong estimates of the treatment effect and also, overstate the effect of 37 38 participation on household food insecurity access scale. Household participation decisions 39 (treatment) is based on the household, individual and farm characteristics , and it is modeled 40 41 as: 42 43 44 ∗ 45 = Γ + (2) 46 47 ∗ 1 > 0 48 = 49 0 ℎ 50 51 Where and are covariates that are unrelated to the error terms. The assumption is that 52 and are jointly normally distributed with mean zero and variance covariance matrix given as: 53 54 55 56 57 = 1 58 59 60 13 British Food Journal Page 14 of 21

1 2 3 The model above can be estimated using the two-step approach or the maximum likelihood 4 5 approach. Therefore, this is simultaneously modelled as a participation decision model as in 6 7 equation (2) and the outcome model as in equation (1). Consistent estimates of household 8 9 participation decision on their food insecurity access is obtained by accounting for the 10 endogenous participation. 11 12 13 4.2 Empirical Results 14 15 British Food Journal 16 The maximum likelihood estimates of the model is presented in Table 2. The results of the Wald 17 18 test justify the use the endogenous treatment-regression model as the test statistic of 10.89 is 19 20 statistically significant at 0.001 level. This indicates the null hypothesis of the no correlation 21 between the treatment and the outcome errors is rejected. The negative sign of the correlation 22 23 coefficient indicates the unobservable that tend to increase household participation decisions in 24 25 training program tend to lower their food insecurity access scale. The implication is that 26 27 unobservable factors influencing household participation increases household food access. The 28 treatment variable (participation) is positive and statistically significant. This represents the 29 30 average treatment effect of the treated (ATET) and it is 2.95. Implying that participation in 31 32 SAIPs training lower on average the household food insecurity access by about 2.95. This shows 33 that household participating in SAIPs training programme are relatively likely to increase 34 35 household food access. 36 37 38 Table 2. Maximum Likelihood Estimates of ETE Model 39 40 Treatment Outcome 41 Variables 42 Coef. S.E Coef. S.E 43 Constant 12.825*** 2.669 44 45 Gender -2.651*** 0.695 -1.559 2.772 46 47 Age -0.015 0.014 -0.076* 0.044 48 49 Education 0.027 0.096 0.195 0.309 50 Experience -0.016 0.017 0.103** 0.047 51 52 Tenure 2.488*** 0.680 -1.870 3.331 53 54 Total acres -0.095*** 0.029 0.115*** 0.047 55 Total time 0.005* 0.003 56 57 58 59 60 14 Page 15 of 21 British Food Journal

1 2 3 Organizational 2.501*** 0.386 4 5 Credit 0.403 0.334 6 7 Family labor (days) 0.007 0.009 8 9 Income -0.001*** 0.001 10 Occupation -1.086*** 0.263 11 12 Participation -2.945** 1.314 13 -0.709*** 0.133 14 15 British Food Journal 5.292*** 0.308 16 17 -3.754*** 0.801 18 19 109.27*** 20 21 10.89*** 22 ( 23 24 = ) -604.531 25 26 27 28 Where ***, **, & * represents 0.01, 0.05 & 0.10 p-levels respectively 29 30 31 4.3 Factors Influencing Household Training Participation 32 33 34 Factors affecting household participation in the SAIPs training program include gender, land 35 ownership, total land etc. The coefficient of gender variable has negative sign and significant. It 36 37 implies that female headed households are more likely to participate in the training program than 38 39 male headed households. The expected positive and significant effect of land ownership (tenure) 40 41 in the treatment model indicates that household who owns their plots are more likely to 42 participate in the training program. This makes sense since the SAIPs program is a long-term 43 44 investment and non-plot owners are not interested to invest in something that might be short- 45 46 term because they may easily lose the plot of land at any time. The expected negative and 47 48 significant effect of total land allocated to production on training show that households with 49 smaller land size are more likely to take part in the training program than those with bigger plot 50 51 sizes. 52 53 54 Distance to plot has positive and significant effect on training. The implication is that 55 56 household with distant plots are more likely to participate in the training program than those 57 with plots nearer their households. Farmer organizational affiliation has positive and significant 58 59 60 15 British Food Journal Page 16 of 21

1 2 3 effect on participation. The implication is that household with farmer organizational ties are 4 5 more likely to take part in the training program compared with those who have no ties. This 6 7 might be due to peer learning and the fact that it allows for innovations and reduces individual 8 9 conservativeness. Education, credit and family labor days have the expected positive sign, but 10 they are not insignificant. 11 12 13 4.4 Factors Influencing Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS=Outcome) 14 15 British Food Journal 16 The results show that age has a negative and significant effect on household food insecurity 17 18 access scale. The implication is that younger households’ heads are likely to have more food 19 20 access compared to their older counterparts. This result confirms the findings that younger 21 22 households’ heads will participate in SAIPs training compared to older ones. The younger 23 households are more interested in learning and hence are more likely to adopt innovations. The 24 25 results indicate that experience has positive and significant impact on household food insecurity 26 27 access scale. The implication is that farmers who have experience in farming have more food 28 29 access than less experience ones. This can loosely be related to being in the system for some 30 time and by default are older which is corroborated by the finding of the age variable. 31 32 33 Total acres allocated to agricultural production has positive and significant effect on food 34 35 insecurity access scale. It implies that households with large acreage in agricultural production 36 have high food insecurity access compared to small-holders. This can be attributed to the fact 37 38 that small-holder households were more involved in the training program and it confirms the 39 40 impact of the training on households. Household total income has negative and significant effect 41 42 on household food (insecurity) access scale. The food (insecurity) access increases with 43 increasing income. This is unexpected but can be attributed to the fact that the SAIPs training 44 45 targeted small-holder resource-poor households. The negative and significant effect of 46 47 occupation implies that households whose occupation is mainly crop production are likely have 48 49 more food access. The implication is that food producers who took part in the training program 50 will have access to food compared to non-food crop producers. 51 52 53 The most important variable in this study is participation. When farmers participate in the 54 55 SAIPs program, the predicted value of HFIAS score is 2.95 points lower than the non- 56 57 participating farmers, holding other things constant. The significant reduction of the HFIAS 58 59 60 16 Page 17 of 21 British Food Journal

1 2 3 score shows that the participating households are likely to have higher food access than the non- 4 5 participating farmers. 6 7 8 5. Conclusion 9 10 11 Sustainable agricultural intensification practices trainings are in a research phase in north western 12 13 Ghana. Past research has shown that agricultural intensification trainings and communications 14 among farmers are the effective tools to increase agricultural and crop management practices, 15 British Food Journal 16 which help to increase yields. This research investigated the impact of the SAIPs trainings on 17 18 household food security in north western Ghana using the household food insecurity access scale 19 20 indicator. We also examined the factors that affect household food security using the 21 endogenous treatment model, which also evaluates the impact of a project on the outcome 22 23 variable. The results of the endogenous treatment model indicate the HFIAS score decreased by 24 25 2.95 points, which is approximately an 11% reduction in HFIAS score. The reduction in the 26 27 HFIAS score indicates that the participating households are more likely to have higher food 28 access than the non-participating farmers. In other words, the training programme helps to 29 30 increase food security (access) in North Western Ghana. However, we may not generalize the 31 32 results beyond the study area to other rural communities due to the unique conditions prevailing 33 in North Western Ghana. Instead, SAIPs trainings can be replicated in other rural settings 34 35 susceptible to household food insecurity, to be followed by respective impact study. Future 36 37 research in the direction of SAIPs trainings and impact study replications in all qualifying rural 38 39 areas in Ghana for example will provide a national picture of the efficacy of SAIPs trainings on 40 household food insecurity. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 17 British Food Journal Page 18 of 21

1 2 3 Beharrell, B. and Crockett, A. (1992), “New age food, new age consumer”, British Food Journal, 4 5 6 Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 5-13. 7 8 9 References 10 11 12 Altman, M., T.G. Hart, and Jacobs, P.T. (2009), “Household food security status in South 13 Africa.” Agrekon, Vol. 48, pp. 345–361. 14 15 British Food Journal 16 Balota, E.L., A. Colozzi Filho, D.S. Andrade, and Dick, R.P. (2004), “Long-term tillage and crop 17 18 rotation effects on microbial biomass and C and N mineralization in a Brazilian Oxisol.” Soil 19 20 and Tillage Research, Vol. 77, pp. 137–145. 21 22 Barrett, C.B. (2010), “Measuring food insecurity.” Science, Vol. 327, pp. 825–828. 23 24 25 26 Barrett, C.B. (2006), “US Food Aid: It’s Not Your Parents’ Program Any More!” Journal of 27 28 29 Agribusiness, Vol. 24, pp.1. 30 31 32 Barrett, C.B., and Maxwell, D.G. (2006), “Towards a global food aid compact.” Food Policy, Vol. 33 34 31, pp. 105–118. 35 36 37 Bayala, J., Sileshi, G; Coe, R; Kalinganire, A; Tchoundjeu, Z; Sinclair, F and Garrity, D. (2012), 38 “Cereal yield response to conservation agriculture practices in drylands of West Africa: a 39 40 quantitative synthesis.” Journal of arid environments, Vol. 78. Pp. 13–25. 41 42 43 Boahen, P. (2007), Conservation agriculture as practised in Ghana . African Conservation Tillage 44 45 Network. CIRAD, Agritrop. 46 47 Bremner, J. (2012), “Population and food security: Africa’s challenge.” Population Reference Bureau. 48 49 Last modified February , pp. 1–5. 50 51 52 Coates, J., Swindale, A. and Bilinsky, P. (2007), “Household Food Insecurity Access Scale 53 54 (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: indicator guide”, USAID, Version 3. 55 56 57 58 59 60 18 Page 19 of 21 British Food Journal

1 2 3 Dalton, T.J., Yahaya, I. and Naab, J. (2014), “Perceptions and performance of conservation 4 5 agriculture practices in northwestern Ghana.” Agriculture, Ecosystems Environment, Vol. 187, pp. 6 7 65–71. 8 9 10 FAO (2009), “Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.” http: 11 //www.fao.org/home/en/ , (accessed on April 15, 2015). 12 13 14 FAO (1996), Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. World Food SUMMIT. 15 British Food Journal 16 http://www.fao.org/wfs/ 17 18 19 Gadanakis, Y., Bennet, R., Park, J., Areal, F. J., 2015. “ Evaluating the Sustainable Intensification of 20 arable farms”. Journal of Environmental Management , Vol. 150, pp. 288-298. 21 22 23 GLSS (2000), “Ghana living standard survey report, Published by Ghana Statistical Service, 24 25 Accra, Ghana.” 26 27 28 Greene, W.H. (2002), Econometric Analysis , 5th Edition, ed. Englewood Cliffs, H.J Prentice. 29 30 Huggins, D.R., and Reganold, J.P. (2008), “No-till: the quiet revolution.” Scientific American, Vol. 31 32 299, pp. 70–77. 33 34 35 Maxwell, S. (1996), “Food security: a post-modern perspective”, Food policy, Vol. 21, pp. 155– 36 37 170. 38 39 Mwaniki, A. (2006), “Achieving food security in Africa: Challenges and issues”, UN Office of the 40 41 Special Advisor on Africa (OSAA) , http://www.un.org/africa/osaa/reports/Achieving20Africa- 42 43 Challengespp. 44 45 46 Ndiritu, S. W., Kassie, M., Shiferaw, B. (2014), “Are there systematic differences in the adoption 47 of sustainable agricultural intensification practices? Evidence from Kenya” Food Policy , Vol. 48 49 49, pp. 117-127. 50 51 52 Omer, A., Pascual, U. and Russell, N. (2010), “A theoretical model of agrobiodiversity as 53 54 supporting service for sustainable agricultural intensification ” Ecological Economics, Vol. 69, pp. 55 1926-1933. 56 57 58 59 60 19 British Food Journal Page 20 of 21

1 2 3 Poppy, G., Chiotha, Eigenbrod, S; Harvey, C; Honz´ak, M; Hudson, M.D; Jarvis, A; Madise, N; 4 5 Schreckenberg, K and Shackleton. C. (2014), “Food security in a perfect storm: using the 6 7 ecosystem services framework to increase understanding”. Philosophical Transactions of the 8 9 Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 369, pp.1–13. 10 11 Quaye, W. (2008), “Food security situation in northern Ghana, coping strategies and related 12 13 constraints”, African Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 3, pp. 334–342 . 14 15 British Food Journal 16 Peterson B. and Snapp S. (2015), ”What is sustainable intensification? Views from experts” Land 17 18 Use Policy, Vol. 46, pp. 1-10. 19 20 Reardon, T., Matlon, P. and Delgado, C. (1988), “Coping with household-level food insecurity in 21 22 drought-affected areas of Burkina Faso.” World Development, Vol. 16, pp. 1065– 1074. 23 24 25 Rosegrant, M.W., and Cline, S.A. (2003), “Global food security: challenges and policies”, Science, 26 27 Vol. 302, pp. 1917–1919. 28 29 Saaka, M. and Osman, S.M. (2013), “Does household food insecurity affect the nutritional status 30 31 of preschool children aged 6–36 Months?” International Journal of Population Research, Vol. 1, pp. 32 33 12. 34 35 36 Singh, R., Kumar, S., Kumar, A., Chand, R. and S. Singh, S. (2008), “Multidimensional impact 37 assessment of zero tillage technology.” Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 42, pp. 13–18. 38 39 40 Tappan, G., McGahuey, M. (2005), “Tracking environmental dynamics and agricultural 41 42 intensification in southern Mali”. Agricultural Systems, Vol. 94, pp. 38-51. 43 44 45 UNDP (2005), “United Nations Development Program (UNDP): Millennium Development 46 Goals Report 2005’’, New York, NY. 47 48 49 UNDP (2015), “United Nations Development Programme.” http://www.undp. org/, (accessed 50 51 on April 25, 2015). 52 53 54 Weber, M.T., Staatz, J.M., Crawford, E.W., Bernsten, R.H and Holtzman. J.S. (1988), “Informing 55 food security decisions in Africa: Empirical analysis and policy dialogue.” American Journal of 56 57 Agricultural Economics, Vol. 70, pp. 1044–1052. 58 59 60 20 Page 21 of 21 British Food Journal

1 2 3 WFP (2012), “Comprehensive food security vulnerability analysis Ghana 2012.” 4 5 http://www.humanitarianresponse.info/system/files/documents/ files/wfp257009_0.pdf. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 British Food Journal 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 21