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

DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT Yendi Municipality is a district in Ghana’s . The total land area of the district is 1,446.3 Km Square. The Municipality shares boundaries with six 1. Cover Page other districts: District to the east, Chereponi and 2. USAID Project Data Districts to the south, Nanumba North District 3-5. Agricultural Data to the north, and Mion Districts to the west. The district has a total population of 132,608, out of which 6. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation 66,338 are males and 66,270 females. The average 7. USAID Presence household size in the District is 5.8 persons. The boxes below reveal the level of important development indica- 8. Demographic and Weather Data tors as captured by the Population Based Survey in 9. Discussion Questions 2015.

Poverty Prevalence 20% Daily per capita expenditure* 4.48 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger 15.4% Household Size 5.8 members Poverty Depth 10.3% Total Population of the Poor 26,522

1 USAID PROJECT DATA

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

Table 1: USAID Projects Info, Yendi, 2014-2016 Beneficiaries Data 2014 2015 2016 There is a high presence of USAID proj- Direct Beneficiaries 1,781 3 ,482 6 ,500 Male 907 1 ,881 4 ,011 ects in the district. This can be observed Female 605 1 ,601 2 ,489 by the large number of direct beneficia- Undefined 269 0 0 Nucleus Farmers 3 8 n/a ries** throughout 2014-2016. The Male 3 8 district boasts of 30 demonstration Female - - Undefined plots, established to support beneficiary Demoplots 6 2 4 n/a training. See Infographic 1 for the Male 1 1 1 Female 2 demonstration plot disaggregate. Agri- Undefined 5 1 1 cultural loans were distributed in 2015 Production Maize Gross Margin USD/ha n/a n/a n/a and 2016 and the values shown in Table Maize Yield MT/ha n/a n/a n/a 1. Therefore the presence score*** of Rice Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 492.13 n/a Rice Yield MT/ha n/a 2 .84 n/a USAID development work is 3.7 out of Soybean Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 653.82 n/a 4, which means that the intervention in Soybean Yield MT/ha n/a 1 .78 n/a Investment and Impact Yendi is high when compared to other Ag. Rural loans* 1,498,104 3 03,387 districts. When the presence score is Number of Projects Present 4 4 Beneficiaries Score 2 4 4 combined with progress/regress of Presence Score 3.7 impact indicators, the district is flagged District Flag Brown to Red BROWN**** indicating that the impact Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014 - 2016 indicators values (poverty prevalence Infographic 1: Demo Plots in Yendi, 2014-2015 and per capita expenditure) contradict 37** each other***** while the project inter- 30** vention is satisfactory. Find more details Demo Plots on USAID Presence v. Impact scoring on page 8. 12(Soyabean) (Rice) (Maize) 6 16 The presence calculation is provisional and only includes the number of direct beneficia-

Crop Genetics. IR 841, Plouging, Crop Rotaton, Crop Genetics, New Release Afayak, Crop Rotation, Pest ries and Agricultural Rural Harrowing, Transplanting, Nursery Variety, Hybrid Variety, Plouging, Harrowing, Control, Fertilization, Harrowing, Mgmt, Fertilization, Pest control, Planting in Rows, Fertilization, Pest Control. Inoculation, Planting in Rows. loans. Urea Deep Placement. Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014, 2015

** “Direct Beneficiary, an individual who comes in direct contact with a set of interventions” FTF Handbook, 2016 , *please note that the number of demo plots by com-modity can be larger than the overall number of plots due to crop rotation ***and****See page 7 for more details on presence score ranges and district flag ranges *****when poverty decreases per capita expenditure should increase and vice versa, when they both increase or decrease, we say that their values are contradictory All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 2 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

Yam is the most commonly produced commodity in Figure 1: Share of Agricultural; Production by Yendi, accounting for 52% of the total agricultural Commodity in Yendi, 2010 - 2015 production during 2010-2015. Other commodities Cassava, 17% produced during this period include cassava, cowpea, groundnut, soybean, maize, millet, rice and sorghum with each produce contributing between 1 and 17 percent to Cowpea, 5% the total production. For more details refer to Figure 1. In terms of agricultural production, Yendi accounted for Yam, 52% Groundnu,t 5%

7% of the total production in the Northern Region in Maize, 5%

2015. The district is, however, the largest producer of Millet, 3% soybean in the region, accounting for 26 percent of Rice, 3% soybean production in the Northern Region. Sorghum, 1% Soybean, 9% The average gross margin calculations from USAID Proj- ect Reporting (2015) for Soybean and rice are much Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2010- 2015, MOFA higher than gross margins from the Agriculture Produc- Figure 2: Gross Margin by Commodity, USAID beneficareis and tion Survey (K-State, APS 2013) of the same commodi- district average, 2013 - 2015, USD/ha 700 653.8 ties. 600 492.13 Figure 3 contains yield values from 3 sources: USAID 500 400 projects, MOFA and APS for the period 2013-2015 for 300

200 159.8 three commodities: maize, rice and soybean. Surprisingly, 127.4 100 beneficiaries yields for soybean are lower than the 0 Maize Rice Soybean Maize Rice Soybean district average reported by MOFA in 2015. 2015 2013 Figure 4 below focuses on the sources of income in the USG Beneficiareis District General_APS Source: Agriculture Report 2013-2015, MOFA district. It shows that the majority of household income Production Data, Agriculture Production Survey, K-State, 2013 in Yendi comes from the agricultural sector, particularly farming. Almost 90 percent of the income was generated from the sale of crop production. Figure 4: Income Source in Yendi, 2015, in %

Figure 3: Yields of Maize, Rice and Soybean, beneficiaries and gift 2.39 district general, MT/ha, 2013 - 2015 rice parboiling 0.7 3 2.84 2.55 2.43 2.5 2.5 shea picking 45.38 2.05 2.12 2.01 2 1.78 1.8 remittance 2.74 1.45 1.5 1.5 petty trading 31.47 1 0.85 0.84 sale of livestock 39.24 0.5 0.39

0 sale of poultry 41.53 Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice sale of crop produce 2015 2014 2013 75.17

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 3 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains agricultural data for Yendi 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 during 2010-2015, Yendi Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Total Cassava 6 7,288 6 3,625 6 1,019 4 5,673 42,180 3 5,521 3 15,306 Cowpea 1 4,122 1 3,708 1 6,000 1 7,936 20,917 1 7,305 9 9,988 Groundnut 1 5,037 1 5,075 1 3,891 1 8,166 19,764 1 8,370 1 00,303 Maize 1 3,456 1 2,573 15,180 1 4,931 1 4,240 1 8,432 8 8,812 Millet 8 ,586 8 ,336 8 ,418 8 ,996 8 ,625 1 1,240 5 4,201 Rice 1 0,301 9 ,551 7 ,261 6 ,967 7 ,110 7 ,750 4 8,940 Sorghum 2 ,538 2 ,876 2 ,652 3 ,112 3,216 2 ,821 1 7,215 Soybean 2 8,152 2 6,854 2 5,750 2 9,624 32,410 2 4,149 1 66,939 Yam 1 67,243 1 62,293 2 02,065 1 49,873 1 45,656 1 22,493 9 49,623 Yields in MT/Ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Cassava 1 4.15 1 3.38 1 3.59 1 2.00 1 1.10 10.12 Cowpea 2 .44 2 .37 2 .50 2 .73 2 .78 2 .53 Groundnut 1 .37 1 .38 1 .30 1 .53 1 .59 1 .67 Maize 2 .05 1 .45 1 .50 1 .51 1 .31 1 .80 Millet 1 .20 1 .17 1.38 1 .40 1 .38 1 .81 Rice 2 .12 2 .01 1 .80 2 .00 2 .00 2 .50 Sorghum 1 .32 1 .51 1 .50 1 .57 1 .60 1 .55 Soybean 2 .55 2 .43 2 .50 2 .82 2 .84 2 .58 Yam 21.08 2 0.52 2 1.27 1 7.56 1 7.34 1 6.42 Source: Agriculture Report 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 MOFA Table 2 above provides detailed information on specific commodities with respect to the overall production in Yendi as well as average yields for the years 2010-2015. The infographic below shows a summary of agricultural statistics for Yendi. Infographic 2: Average Land size, Yields, Sales and other Farm indicators in Yendi, 2013

$ - $ 2.21 0.85 40% 127.4 182.9 N/A

$ - $ 0.39 0.88 N/A 18.8 236.1

$ - $ TOTAL 1.59 159.8 558.7 0.84 77% 73.9 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 fr om 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 Yendi Municipality What is the Women Empowerment Yendi Municipality WEAI Results in Agriculture Index? Women play a prominent role in agriculture. Yet they The results of both male and female respondents on face persistent economic and social constraints. the four (4) domains are displayed in Figure 5. Women’s empowerment is a main focus of Feed the Production Domain: women feel comfortable Future in order to achieve its objectives of inclusive with providing input related to production deci- agriculture sector growth and improved nutritional sions, as indicated by 85.7% of the survey sample. status. The WEAI is comprised of two weighted However, they have much less control over the use sub-indexes: Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) and of household income than men - 67.3% of women Gender Parity Index (GPI). The 5DE index is a versus 95.9% of male respondents. summation of the level of achievement in ten indicators Resource Domain: a majority of the women have grouped into five domains: production, resources, a right to asset ownership and to purchase and income, leadership and time. The GPI compares the move assets, 84.2% and 84.5% respectively; these empowerment of women to the empowerment of their figures are lower than the figures of the male male counterpart in the household. This section respondents. Only 13.7% of women have a right to presents the results from these empowerment decide or have access to credit, followed by 15.8% indicators of the 5DE for Yendi Municipality, part of a of the male respondents. Nonetheless, access to bigger survey conducted by Kansas State University. credit is almost equally low for both genders. The Domains: What Do They Represent? Yendi has a high percentage The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals Leadership Domain: to provide input and autonomously make decisions of women involved in public speaking, or speaking about agricultural production. The Resources domain freely in public as indicated by 77.3% of the women reflects individuals’ control over and access to interviewed. A high majority, 84.6%, of them also productive resources. The Income domain monitors have the right to group membership as opposed to individuals’ ability to direct the financial resources 86% of the male respondents. derived from agricultural production or other sources. Time Domain: 60 percent of the women and 86.1 The Leadership domain reflects individuals’ social capital percent of the men in Yendi are satisfied with the and comfort speaking in public within their community. workload in their everyday life. The percentages are The Time domain reflects individuals’ workload and more or less the same with respect to satisfaction satisfaction with leisure time. with leisure time; 64.6% of the women and 75.5% of the men interviewed are happy with this aspect.

Figure5: Yendi Results on Domains of Empowerment of WEAI 2015, by gender, in % Adequacy & 120 Differences 96.6 100 95.9 93.2 95.7 85.7 87.5 84.2 84.5 84.6 86 86.1 77.3 80 75.5 67.3 64.6 Together men and women obtained an adequacy score 60 60 (80% and above) in all indicators except for Access to 40 and Decision on credit and Satisfaction with leisure time.

20 13.7 15.8 In addition, while men obtained adequacy in control over

0 use of household income and asset ownership, public Input in Control Over Asset Right to Access to and Group Public Speaking Satisfaction Satisfaction Production Use of Ownership Purchase Sell Decision on Membership with Workload with Leisure speaking, women did not. Decission Household and Transfer Credit Time Income Assets 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 and Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University in the resources domain: the right to asset ownership and in the time domain: satisfaction with work load.

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 Yendi

Infograph 3: Health an Nutrition Figures, Yendi, 2015 Infograph 3 focuses on the health and nutrition of women and children in the district. Percentages and absolute num- bers are revealed in the respective circles for stunting, wast- Children Stunting, Only 58.5%* of 30%*, 6,738 ing in children, women and children underweight, Women women reach Children minimum Underweight Dietary Diversity and some other indicators. The Dietary dietary 22.5%*, 5,054 diversity, 18,235 diversity score of women in Yendi is 4.4, which means that women consume on average 4 to 5 types of foods out of 10. Women Dietary Wasting in Diversity Score, Children, 4.4* 20.5%, 4,605 More than half of the women (58.5%) reach the minimum dietary diversity of* 5 food groups. The WDDS scores are

Women Exc. breasfed some of the highest in the Northern Region. On the other Underweight, Children (0 - 5m) 3.9%*, 1,216 60.3%** Intro of hand, the district has one of the highest scores in the North- Complementary Feeding, Children 6-23m, ern Region with respect to Wasting in Children. Figure 5 79.3%** displays specifics of household dwelling, evaluated based on Sources: * from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, sources of water, energy, waste disposal, cooking fuel source, ** from Ring & Spring Survey, 2015 and the number of people per sleep room as measured from the PBS Survey 2015. Figure 6 covers access to improved water source, sanitation and hand washing facilities as mea- Figure 6: Household Dwelling Characteristics, 2015 sured by the Ring & Spring Survey in 2015. When both surveys are combined, access to improved water source Access to Electricity 52.2% ranges between 33.4% and 67.2%, while access to sanitation

Access to Solid Fuel 90.9% facilities is between 22.4 and 30.2%. A vast majority -87.91%- also lacks functioning handwash facilities in the household.

Persons Per Sleep Room 1.9% Further details are provided in Figures 8 and 9.

Figure 8: Types of improved sanitation, Yendi, 2015, in % Improved Sanitation 22.4%

Unimproved Pit Latrine, No Slabs Or Non - Cleanable KVIP Access to Improved Watersource 67.2% 45.7% 32.2%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pit Latrine, With Cleanable Slabs 4.5% Figure 7: Access to Water and Sanitation in Yendi, 2015, in % Public Toilet 17.6% 40.00% 33.40% 30.20%

20.00% 12.09% Figure 9: Types of Improved Water Source, Yendi, 2015 Protected Spring 2.5% 0.00% piped Access to No Access to Ussage of No Usage of Households with No functional protected dug well 1.3% water into Improved WaterImproved Water Sanitation Sanitation functional handwashing dwelling -20.00% Source Source Facilites Facilities handwashing 3.9% station in recommended public tap/standpipe -40.00% locations 13.1% Access to WaterSource Sanitation Handwash -60.00%

- 66.60% -69.80% -80.00%

-87.91% -100.00%

tube well/borehole 72.5%

Sources: Figure 6:from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, Figure 7,8,9,1 from Ring & Spring Survey, 2015, All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 6 PRESENCE VS. IMPACT MATRIX

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

Presence vs. Impact reveals in more detail the presence of the Feed the Future Implementing Partners in the field, in combination with impact indicators as 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 USAID projects operating in the area of key indicators measuring progress/regress in the area. The following graphs are a print screen of the Presence vs. Impact Dashboard focusing on Yendi. The values of both key impact indicators, ‘preva- lence of poverty’ and ‘per capita expenditure’, have increased, as observed in Figures 10 and 12. In 2015, poverty increased by 203 percentage points to 20% compared to the 2012 value. In addition, 2015 per capita expenditure increased by 1.4 percent to 4.48 USD. This means that the values of impact indicators contradict each other. While poverty has increased, per capita expenditure has also increased (even though the increase of the per capita expenditure is really marginal- only 1.4%). Yendi’s population calculated to be living under the $1.25/day, per person poverty line is 26,522. This progress is surprisingly accompanied by a satisfactory USAID presence, scored at 3.7 points out of 4. This combination signifies characteristics of a BROWN district, one that accounts for con- tradicting values of impact indicators and a satisfactory presence of USAID project on the ground. In addition, even though the per capita expenditure has increased, the increase is so marginal and only a 1.4% increase is keep- ing the district flag from turning into RED. That said, the presence of other development partners and GOG inter- ventions have not been taken into account. Further investigation is necessary in order to understand what is going on in Yendi. Why has poverty increased so much regardless of the presence of USAID project on the ground? What can be done differently to yield more results?

USAID District Presence Score Figure 10: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012,2015, Yendi Municipal s 40.0% 240.0% t i n

20.00% o p

20.0% 6.60%

NO USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 200.0% e t a g

0.0% t n n e e c YENDI 160.0% r c

-20.0% r e

LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE MUNICIPAL e P

P

n

i -40.0% 120.0% i n

y Poverty Change t e r

-60.0% g e 2012 - 2015 80.0% v

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE a n

o 203.0% h

P -80.0% C

40.0% y -100.0% t r e

AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE v

-120.0% 0.0% o Poverty/ 2012 Poverty/2015 Poverty Change 2012-2015 P ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Figure 11: Population of Poor, Non - Poor Yendi Municipal, 2015

HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 140000

120000 r s e b 100000 m u n 80000

USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag i n 106,086

n

i o 60000 t l a u

p 40000 o

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND P 20000 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS 26,522 0 YENDI MUNICIPAL ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Population Poor 2015 Population of NonPoor 2015 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS Figure 12: Per Capita Expenditure in 2012 and 2015, in USD/day; Per Capita BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Expenditure Change in percent, Yendi Municipal REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS Per Capita Exp. Change 4.49 20% 1.4% t 4.48USD n e

y 0% 4.48 c a

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND r e

-20% P 4.47 n

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS i U S D / d

-40% e

4.46 g i n n s -60% a e h

r 4.45 C

-80% s

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND i t u e d

4.44 r

n -100% e i t u

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS 4.43 d

-120% n E x p

4.42USD e a 4.42 i t -140% E x p a p 4.41 a C i t ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND -160% e r a p P 4.4 -180% C

REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS e r

4.39 -200% P YENDI MUNICIPAL PC Exp. 2012 PC Exp. 2015 PC/Change Source: Figure 8,9,10, Population based Survey, 2012,2015, Kansas State University, METSS, USAID Project Reporting 2014,2015 All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 7 DEMOGRAPHICS & WEATHER

This section contains facts and figures related to Yendi demo- graphics, religious affiliation, literacy and weather indicators

Figure 12: Household Composition by groupage, 2015 Yendi has a total population of 132, 608, out of which 66,338 are males and 66,270 females. The average house- Children 0 to 4 Adult Males 14% 22% hold size is 5.8 persons. The district lies in the tropical continental climatic zone and experiences average annual precipitation relative to the other districts in the Northern Region, see Figure 15. Note that in 2010, Adult Females 24% Children 5 to 17 40% Northern Ghana experienced significant rainfall and flooding. In terms of religious affiliation, majority of the Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University population are Muslims (67.2%) followed by Christians (14%) and Traditionalists (13.3%) as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Religious Affiliation, Yendi, 2010 The district has a young population as the age of 54% of Traditionalists Other Other Christian 13.2% 0.3% the household members is between 0 and 17 years, as 3.4% Pentecostal/ Charismatic shown in Figure 12. Yendi just as the rest of the Northern 2.3% No religion Region districts, accounts for a very low level of adult 1.8% Protestants 4.5% educational attainment as shown in Figure 14. A vast Catholic Islam 7.2% 67.2% majority of the adults - 85.8% - have received no educa- tion, while only 3.8% went through primary schools and Source: Yendi District Analytical Report, GSS, 2014 only 10.4% of the sample through secondary school.

Figure 14: Adult Education Attainment in Yendi, 2015

Secondary Level Education 10.40% Figure 15: Average Cumulated Precipitation in mm and Temperature Primary Level Education in Celcius Degree, Yendi, 2008 - 2015 3.8% 4000 40

3,538.4 s m u i

m 3500 35 c

l n i

C e n

3000 30 o e i r e a t t

2500 25 g i e p i c D

2000 20 n r e i

P

e d 1500 15 u e r a t a t l e

u 1000 738.4 693.8 10 639.0 691.9 689.6 610.3 p

m 530.6 m u e

c 500 5 T c A 0 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 No Educaton Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature 85.8% Source: awhere Weather Platform, AWhere, 2016 Source: Figure 13,15, 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 Yendi Municipal

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

What other agricultural or nutrition focused Why are the yields of soybean of USAID benefi- development partners or GoG interventions ciaries lower than the district average reported have previously been implemented, are ongoing, by MOFA? How can this be possible given the and/or are in the pipeline that may impact Yendi’s very good gross margins of these beneficiaries for development? the same crop?

QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4

While women are doing very well with respect What are the conditions that contribute to the to the Women Dietary Diversity Score and the large share of soybean production in Yendi (28% Minimum Dietary Diversity, this is somehow not of Northern Region soybean production). How mirrored in the health of children as the wasting can this further be supported as soybean is one values are very high. Also stunting values are not of the focused commodities of the Feed the low. What can be done to transfer the good Future strategy? figures related to women health to the youngest members of the family?

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