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

DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT Saboba is a district in Ghana’s . is bounded by River Oti, an international bound- ary for Ghana and the Republic of and the Tatali 1. Cover Page District to the East, to the North, 2. USAID Project Data Gushiegu and Karaga Districts to the West, to the 3-5. Agricultural Data South-West, and to the South. The District covers a total land area of approximately 1,751.2km². It 6. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation has a total population of 74,704, out of which 37,958 7. USAID Presence are females and 36,746 are males. The average house- hold size in the district is 6.9 persons. The boxes below 8. Demographic and Weather Data reveal the level of important development indicators 9. Discussion Questions measured by the Population Based Survey in 2015.

Poverty Prevalence 31.5 % Daily per capita expenditure 2.59 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger 56.7% Household Size 6.9 members Poverty Depth 11.2% Total Population of the Poor 23,532

* Daily per capita expenditure are the lowest in the Northern Region, Households with moderate or severe hunger: highest value in Northern Region 127 USAID PROJECT DATA

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

Table 1: USAID Projects Info, Saboba, 2014-2016 Beneficiaries Data 2014 2015 2016 A decent number of beneficiaries** were Direct Beneficiaries 2474 2 ,301 5 ,991 reported in Saboba district during 2014 - Male 1437 1 ,318 2 ,654 Female 1037 9 83 3 ,337 2016. In addition, several demonstration Undefined 0 0 0 plots have been established to support bene- Nucleus Farmers 2 2 n/a Male 2 2 n/a ficiary training. There were no agricultural Female - Undefined loans distributed in 2014 and 2016 while a Demoplots 9 2 0 n/a modest value was reported in 2015. Due to Male n/a 9 Female 1 1 these interventions, the presence score** of Undefined 8 10 n/a USAID development work is 3.1 out of 4, Production Maize Gross Margin USD/ha n/a n/a n/a which means that the intervention in Saboba Maize Yield MT/ha n/a n/a n/a is above average when compared to other Rice Gross Margin USD/ha n/a n/a n/a Rice Yield MT/ha n/a n/a n/a districts. When the presence score is com- Soybean Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 6 26.0 n/a bined with progress/regress of impact indica- Soybean Yield MT/ha n/a 1 .73 n/a Investment and Impact tors, the district is flagged light GREEN*** Ag. Rural loans* 9 5,286 indicating that in general, the impact indica- USAID Projects Present 5 Beneficiaries Score 3 3 3 tors values (poverty prevalence and per Presence Score 2014-2016 3.1 capita expenditure) have improved, while one District Flag 2014-2016 Light Green of the indicators has stagnated (+-5% Source:: USAID Project Reporting, 2014 - 2016 change) in an area where intervention is Infographic 1: Demo Plots in Saboba, 2014-2015 above average. Find more details on USAID 37** Presence v. Impact scoring and on light green 30* definition on page 7. Demo Plots

22 (Soyabean) The presence calculation is 9(Maize) provisional and only includes the number of direct beneficia- ries and Agricultural Rural loans.

Crop Rotation, DT Maize, ST Maize Hybrid Maize, Crop Rotation, Jenguma, Afayak, TSOPest Plouging, Harrowing, Planting in Rows, Fertilization, Control, Fertilization, Harrowing, Pest control Inoculation, Planting in Rows

Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014, 2015

* Number of demo plots by commodity does not fit with the total because of crop rotation **“Direct Beneficiary, an individual who comes in direct contact with a set of interventions” FTF Handbook, 2016 , ***and****See page 7 for more detail on presence score ranges and district flag ranges. All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 128 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

Yam is the most commonly produced commodity in

Saboba, accounting for 69% of agricultural production Figure 1: Share of Agricutural Production by during 2010-2015. Other commodities produced during Commodity in Saboba, 2012-2015 Cassava 6% this period, which contributed much lower shares to the Cowpea 3% Groundnut 6% overall agricultural production include cassava (6%), Maize 3% soybean (6%), maize (3%) and other commodities as Millet 3% shown in Figure 1. In terms of agricultural production, Saboba is one of the districts that contributed less to the Rice 2% overall production of the Northern Region. The district’s Sorghum 6% share of agricultural production in the Region is only 2%.

The average gross margin calculations from USAID proj- Soybean 2% ect reporting (2015) for soybean is higher than the Yam 69% gross margins from the Agriculture Production Survey (K-State, APS 2013). Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2010 - 2015, MOFA Figure 3 contains yield values from 3 sources: USAID projects, MOFA and APS for the period 2013-2015 for Figure 2: Gross Margin by Commodity, USAID beneficareis and district three commodities: maize, rice and soybean. Beneficia- average, 2013 - 2015, USD/ha 700 626 ries yields for soybean are the same as the district aver- 600 500 435.4 400 ages reported by MOFA in 2015. 309.1 300 Figure 4 below focuses on sources of income in the 200 168 100

0 district. It shows that the majority of households in Maize Rice Soybean Maize Rice Soybean 2015 2013

Saboba rely on the agricultural sector: 73.9 percent of USG Beneficiareis District General_APS households cited the sale of crop produce as their main Source: Agriculture Report 2013-2015, Agriculture Production source of income followed by petty trading at 18 Survey, K-State, 2013 percent.

Figure 4: Income Source in Saboba, 2015, in % Figure 3: Yields of Maize, Rice and Soybean, beneficiaries and district general, MT/ha, 2013 -2015 gift 2.58 2.5 2.12 2.05 2 rice parboiling 2 1.89 1.2 1.75 1.73 1.66 1.65 shea picking 1.45 1.41 2.34 1.5 1.3 1.13 remittance 7.33 1 0.68 petty trading 17.99 0.5 sale of livestock 12.13 0 Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice sale of poultry 8.7 2015 2014 2013 sale of crop produce 73.89 USG Beneficiareis Others -APS Others-MofA

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Source: RING & SPRING Survey, 2015 USAID METSS Project Source: Agriculture Report 2013-2015, MOFA Production Data 2013-2015, Agriculture Production Survey, K-State, 2013

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 129 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains agricultural data for Saboba 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, in Saboba, 2010-2015 Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 Total Cassava 5 ,557 5 ,254 4 ,452 5 ,169 2 0,432 Cowpea 2 ,151 2 ,088 2 ,026 3 ,116 9 ,381 Groundnut 5 ,201 5 ,214 5 ,250 7 ,201 2 2,866 Maize 2 ,792 2,609 2 ,293 2 ,774 1 0,467 Millet 2 ,819 2 ,737 2 ,969 3 ,287 1 1,812 Rice 1 ,682 1 ,560 1 ,399 3 ,245 7 ,886 Sorghum 4 ,943 5 ,603 5 ,015 5 ,910 2 1,471 Soybean 2,153 2 ,053 1 ,815 2 ,223 8 ,244 Yam 6 8,339 6 6,316 5 2,925 6 0,249 2 47,829 Sweet Potato 7 ,586 2 0 7 ,606 Yields in MT/Ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 Cassava 1 0.91 1 0.32 8 .94 8 .79 Cowpea 1.68 1 .63 1 .53 1 .55 Groundnut 1 .49 1 .50 1 .68 1 .70 Maize 2 .05 1 .45 1 .30 1 .48 Millet 1 .41 1 .37 1 .40 1 .47 Rice 2 .00 1 .89 2.12 2 .25 Sorghum 1 .47 1 .79 1 .68 1 .92 Soybean 1 .75 1 .66 1 .65 1 .71 Yam 1 3.35 1 3.00 1 2.15 1 1.23 Sweet Potato 1 0 Source: Agriculture Report 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2014 MOFA

Table 2 above provides detailed information on specific commodities in regard to the overall production in Saboba as well as average yields for the years 2010-2015. The infographic below shows a summary of agricultural statistics for Saboba.

Infographic 2: Average Land size, Yields, Sales and other Farm indicators in Saboba, 2013 $ - $ N/A 0.77 1.13 5% 176.8 261.5

$ - $ 0.28 1.41 7% N/A 15.4 130.4 $ $ - TOTAL 0.19 343.6 390.3 0.68 66% 6.52 Average Land Size, ha Yeild, MT/ha Sales, % Gross Margin*, USD/ha Variable Costs*, USD/farm Revenue in USD/farm

Source: Agriculture Production Survey, Kanas 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 130 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains information on domains of empower- ment of the Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) for Saboba

What is the Women Empowerment Saboba 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(4) domains are displayed in Figure 5. en’s empowerment is a main focus of Feed the Future in Production Domain: A majority of women feel com- order to achieve its objectives of inclusive agriculture fortable with providing input related to production sector growth and improved nutritional status. The decisions as indicated by 89.7% of the women of the WEAI is comprised of two weighted sub-indexes: survey sample. However, women have much less Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) and Gender Parity control over the use of household income than men— 29.1% of women versus 76.8% of the male Index (GPI). The 5DE index is a summation of the level respondents. of achievement in ten indicators grouped into five Resource Domain: A majority of the women have a domains: production, resources, income, leadership and right to asset ownership and can purchase and time. The GPI compares the empowerment of women to move assets— 71.2.% and 90.6%. Both figures are the empowerment of their male counterpart in the lower than that of the male respondents. Only 6.3% household. This section presents the results from these of women have a right to decide or have access to empowerment indicators of the 5DE for Saboba, part of credit as against 7% of the male respondents. a bigger survey conducted by Kansas State University. Leadership Domain: less than half- only 45.1%- of women of the sample have a right to group mem- The Domains: what do they represent? bership, which is almost similar to the men’s figure The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals marked a to 49.4%; only 57.6% of the women get to provide input and autonomously make decisions involved in public speaking as opposed to 88.4% of about agricultural production. The Resources domain the male respondents. reflects individuals’ control over and access to produc- Time Domain: 98.8% of the women and 100% of men in Saboba are satisfied with the workload in tive resources. The Income domain monitors individuals’ their everyday life. The women’s value is the highest ability to direct the financial resources derived from among the districts in the northern region. The agricultural production or other sources. The Leadership percentages are lower with respect to satisfaction domain reflects individuals’ social capital and comfort with leisure time; only 59.8% of the women and speaking in public within their community. The Time 72.3% the men interviewed are happy with this domain reflects individuals’ workload and satisfaction aspect. with leisure time. Adequacy & Figure 5: Saboba Results on Domains of Empowerment of WEAI 2015, by gender, in % Differences 120 Together men and women obtained an adequacy score 98.8100 100 94.8 95.9 96.8 89.7 90.6 88.4 (80% and above) in all indicators except for resources 76.8 80 71.2 72.3 domain: access and decision on credit, leadership 57.6 59.8 60 49.4 45.1 domain: group membership, time domain: satisfaction 40 29.1 with leisure time. In addition to that adequacy was not 20 6.3 7 achieved only by women in: control over use of 0 Input in Control Over Asset Right to Access to Group Public Satisfaction Satisfaction household income, asset ownership, public speaking. Production Use of Ownership Purchase Sell and Membership Speaking with with Decission Household and Transfer Decission Workload Leisure Time Income Assets on Credit The highest difference between male and female Production and Income Domain Resources Domain Leadership Doman Time Domain respondents was observed with the production Women Men domain: the control over use of household income, in Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University the resource domain: asset ownership and time domain: public speaking.

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 131 HEALTH, NUTRITION AND SANITATION

This section contains facts and figures related to Health, Nutrition and Sanitation in Saboba

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

Children Stunting, From absolute numbers are revealed in the respective Only 25.4%* of 30.2*, 4,130 women reach Children circles for stunting, wasting in children, women and minimum Underweight dietary 20.6%*, 2,817 children underweight, Women Dietary Diversity diversity, 4,193 and some other indicators. The Dietary diversity

Women Dietary Wasting in score of women in Saboba is 3.1, which is one of the Diversity Score, Children, 3.1* 3.2%*, 438 lowest values in the Northern Region. This means that women consume on average 3 types of foods

Women Exc. breasfed out of 10. Only one fourth of the women (25.4%) Underweight, Children (0- 16.7%*, 2,757 Intro of 5m), 63.5%** reach the minimum dietary diversity of 5 food Complementary Feeding, Children 6-23m, groups. This value is again one of the lowest in the 13.5%** Northern Region. The value for wasting in children Sources: * from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, is the lowest among the other districts in the ** from RING & SPRING Survey, 2015, Northern Region. Additionally, the percentage of Figure 6: Household Dwelling Characteristics, Saboba, 2015 women underweight is one of the highest in North- ern Region. Access to Electricity 68.5% Figure 6 displays specifics of household dwelling,

Access to Solid Fuel 96.8% evaluated based on sources of water, energy, waste disposal, cooking fuel source, and the number of Persons Per Sleep Room 1.9% people per sleep room as measured from the PBS Survey 2015. Figure 7 and 8 provide details on the Improved Sanitation 19.4% types of improved water source and sanitation used as measured by the RING & SPRING Survey in Access to Improved Water Source 53.6% 2015. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Figure 8: Types of improved sanitation, Saboba, 2015, in % public toilet potable toilet with 3% emptying service 3% Figure 7: Types of Improved Water Source, Saboba, 2015, in % kvip 26% piped water into neighbor 0.0% public tap/standpipe protected dug well 16.2% 17.8%

tube well/borehole 64.3% pit latrine, with cleanable slabs Sources: Figure 6:from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, Figure 7,8 from RING & SPRING Survey, 2015, 68% All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 132 PRESENCE VS. IMPACT MATRIX

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

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 Dash- board focusing on Saboba. One of the key impact indicators, ‘prevalence of poverty’ has improved while the other ‘per capita expenditure’, has stagnated, as observed in Figures 9 and 11. In 2015, poverty decreased by 21.8 percentage points to 31.5% compared to the 2012 value, corresponding to 23,532 poor people in the district. In addition, the 2015 per capita expenditure has stagnated, decreasing by 4.4 percent to 2.59 USD. This is the lowest per capita expenditure value for the whole of the Northern Region. The decrease in expenditure is so low that it is considered more of a stagnation. Because the decrease in poverty is much higher than the stagnation of the per capita expenditure, the first indicator gives the tone to the overall, meaning that the situation in the district has improved since 2012 . This development is accompanied by an aver- age USAID presence, scored with 3.1 points out of 4. This combination signifies characteristics of a light GREEN district, one that accounts for progress of impact indicators and good project presence in the ground. We say light green because the progress is not fully supported by both impact indicators as one of them has stagnated (+-5% change) and the arrow sign will be confirmed by the next survey. Based on this, the situation should be observe carefully to confirm that the area is progressing and also to identify ways of accelerating the impact from the inter- vention. Figure 9: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012,2015, USAID District Presence Score Saboba s 60.0% 40.30% 0.0% t NO USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE i n 31.50% o

40.0% p

e t

n 20.0% Poverty Change a g e t c n

r 2012- 2015

LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 0.0% e e c P - 21.8% r

e

n -20.0% i SABOBA P

y t -40.0% i n

r e

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE e g v -60.0% o a n P -80.0% h C

y

AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE -100.0% t r e -120.0% -40.0% v o ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Poverty/ 2012 Poverty/2015 Poverty Change 2012-2015 P Figure 10: Population of Poor, Non - Poor Saboba, 2015

HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 50000 45000 r s

e 40000 b

m 35000 u n

30000 i n

n 25000 38,270 i o USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag t 20000 l a u

p 15000 o

P 10000 BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 5000 6,024 0 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS SABOBA Population Poor 2015 Population of NonPoor 2015 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS Figure 11: Per Capita Expenditure in 2012 and 2015, in USD/day; Per Capita Expenditure Change in percent, Saboba

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND t n e c y r

REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS a e

d 2.72 2.71USD 0% P

n D / i

2.7 Per Capita Exp. -20% e U S

Change g ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 2.68 -40% n i

-4.4% a n

h IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS s 2.66 -60% e C r

s u 2.64 -80% t e i r d

2.62 -100% u n t BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND i e d p 2.6 2.59USD -120% n x e IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS E 2.58 -140% p a x t i 2.56 -160% E a a p t i

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND C -180% 2.54 a p r e C

2.52 -200% P

REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS r

SABOBA e P PC Exp. 2012 PC Exp. 2015 PC/Change * Prevalence of poverty and per capita expenditures measured in 2012 correspond to the greater area of Tolon Saboba while the values in 2015 correspond with Saboba. All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 133 DEMOGRAPHICS & WEATHER

This section contains facts and figures related to Saboba demographics, religious affiliation, literacy and weather indicators

Figure 12: Household Composition by groupage, Saboba, 2015 Children 0 to 4 Saboba district has a total population of 74,704, out of 13% Adult Males which 37,958 are females and 36,746 are males. The aver- 25% age household size in the district is 6.9 persons. The district lies in the tropical continental climatic zone and experiences average annual precipitation relative to other districts in the Northern Region, see Figure 15. Children 5 to 17 Note that, in 2010 the entire northern Ghana experi- Adult Females 39% 23% enced significant rainfall and flooding. Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University In terms of religion, the majority of the population in the district are Christians, representing 55.6% of the popula-

Figure 13: Religious Affiliation, Saboba 2010 tion, followed by Traditionalists at 28.6% as shown in

Other 0.6% Islam Figure 13. 9.4% Traditionalists 28.6% The district accounts for a young population as 52% of Catholic 19.3% the household members are aged between 0 to 17 years, as Figure 12 shows.

Other Christian 6.1% Saboba, just as the rest of the districts in the Northern Protestants 15.8% Region, accounts for a low level of adult educational Pentecostal/Charismatic No religion 14.4% 5.8% attainment as shown in Figure 14. The majority of the adults (76.2%) have received no education, while only 9%

Source: Saboba District Analytical Report, GSS, 2014 went through primary schools and only 14.6% of the sample through secondary school. Figure 14: Adult Education Attainment in Saboba, 2015 Secondary Level Primary Level Education , 6.20% Figure 15: Average Cumulated Precipitation in mm and Temperature Education , 6.1% in Celcius Degree,Saboba, 2008 - 2015 5000 40.00 4,476.95 m

4500 s

m 35.00 u

i c n l i

4000

n 30.00 C e o

i 3500 e a t t i 25.00 r e g p 3000 i e c D r e 2500 20.00 n P i

d 2000 e e 15.00 u a t l r a t

u 1500 e m 10.00 p u

1000 m

c 714.28 e c 493.70 477.98 555.29 486.05 503.66 501.81

5.00 T A 500

0 0.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature No Educaton , Source: awhere Weather Platform, AWhere, 2016 87.7% Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 134 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

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

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

Why has per capita expenditure stagnated in What other agricultural or nutrition focused Saboba while poverty has decreased? Is there a development partners or GoG interventions story behind this fact and how has intervention have previously been implemented, are ongoing, affected this outcome? Why does Saboba have and/or are in the pipeline that may impact Sabo- the lowest per capita expenditure in the North- ba’s development? ern Region?

QUESTION 3

Given Saboba’s agricultural production, health and sanitation figures, as well as results from the presence vs impact matrix, what should USAID development work focus on in the next two years? What future development assistance would be helpful change this district flag from light Green to Green?

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 135