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

DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT Gushiegu is a district in Ghana’s . The District is located on the eastern corridor of the region and shares boundaries to the east with and 1. Cover Page Chereponi Districts, to the west, east 2. USAID Project Data Mamprusi District to the north and Municipality 3-5. Agricultural Data and to the south. The total land area of the District is approximately 2,674.1 square kilometers. The 6. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation district has a total population of 124,656, out of which 7. USAID Presence 63,945 are females and 60,711 are males. The average household size in the district is 7.4 persons. The boxes 8. Demographic and Weather Data below reveal the level of important development indica- 9. Discussion Questions tors measured by the Population Based Survey in 2015.

Poverty Prevalence 16.6 % Daily per capita expenditure 3.07 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger 10.1% Household Size 7.4 members Poverty Depth 5.3% Total Population of the Poor 20,692

1 USAID PROJECT DATA

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

Table 1: USAID Projects Info, Gushiegu, 2014-2016 Beneficiaries Data 2014 2015 2016 A decent number of beneficiaries** were Direct Beneficiaries 1807 3 ,973 8 ,396 reported in 2014 in Gushiegu and the Male 976 1 ,726 3 ,138 Female 471 2 ,247 5 ,258 number doubled in 2015 and again in 2016. Undefined 360 - 0 This was accompanied by a decent number Nucleus Farmers 15 1 7 n/a Male 15 1 7 n/a of nucleus farmers and demonstration plots, Female - established to support beneficiary training. Undefined Demoplots 8 2 0 n/a There were no agricultural loans distributed Male 7 9 in 2014 and 2016 and the value in 2015 was Female Undefined 1 1 1 also low. Due to the several interventions, Production the presence score** for USAID develop- Maize Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 712.84 n/a Maize Yield MT/ha n/a 3 .56 n/a ment work is 1.4 out of 4, which means that Rice Gross Margin USD/ha n/a n/a n/a the intervention in Gushiegu is above aver- Rice Yield MT/ha n/a n/a n/a Soybean Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 5 78.3 n/a age when compared to other districts. When Soybean Yield MT/ha n/a 1 .68 n/a the presence score is combined with Investment and Impact Ag. Rural loans* 17,652 - 1 ,744 progress/regress of impact indicators, the USAID Projects Present 6 district is flagged Yellow*** indicating that the Beneficiaries Score 2 1 2 Presence Score 2014-2016 1 .4 impact indicators values (poverty prevalence District Flag 2014-2016 Yellow and per capita expenditure) in overall have

Source:: USAID Project Reporting, 2014 - 2016 improved in an area where intervention is Infographic 1: Demo Plots in Gushiegu, 2014-2015 satisfactory. However, one of the progress 37** indicators has stagnated (+-5% change). Find 28* more details on USAID Presence v. Impact Demo Plots scoring and on page 8.

13 (Soyabean) The presence calculation is 16 (Maize) provisional and only includes the number of direct beneficia- ries and Agricultural Rural loans.

Crop Rotation, Pan 12/53 PREMIUM 15/64, 30F32 DT Crop Rotation, Jenguma,Afayak,Pest Maize, Hybrid Maize, Early Maturing Plouging, Control, Fertilization, Harrowing, Harrowing, Planting in Rows, Fertilization, 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 2 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

Cassava and Yam are the most commonly produced Figure 1: Share of Agricultural Production by Commodity in commodities in Gushiegu, accounting for 67% of agricul- Gushiegu, 2010 - 2015 tural production during 2010-2015. Other commodities produced during this period include soybean (6%), maize Yam 21% (6%), and other commodities as shown in Figure 1. In terms of agricultural production, Gushiegu is one of the Cassava 46% districts that accounts for a low share of overall agricul- Soybean 6% tural production in the Northern Region with only 3% share. Sorghum 4% The average gross margin calculations from USAID proj- Rice5% ect reporting (2015) for maize, rice and soybean are Millet 3% Maize 6% higher than gross margins from the Agriculture Produc- Groundnut 6% Cowpea 3% tion Survey (K-State, APS 2013). Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2010 - 2015, MOFA Figure 3 contains yield values from three (3) sources: USAID projects, MOFA and APS for the period Figure 2: Gross Margin by Commodity, USAID beneficareis and 2013-2015 for three commodities: maize, rice and district average, 2013 - 2015, USD/ha

700 soybean. Beneficiaries yields for maize rice and soybean 593.74 600 555.16 561.9 were higher than the district averages reported by 500 435.4 400 309.1 MOFA in 2015. 300 Figure 4 below focuses on sources of income in the 200 100 68 district. It shows that the majority of households in 0 Maize Rice Soybean Maize Rice Soybean Gushiegu rely on the agricultural sector: 87.7 of house- 2015 2013 USG Beneficiareis District General_APS holds cited the sale of crop produce as the main source Source: Agriculture Report 2013-2015, Agriculture Production of income followed by the sale of livestock at 29.5 Survey, K-State, 2013 percent.

Figure 4: Income Source in Gushiegu, 2015, in % Figure 3: Yields of Maize, Rice and Soybean, beneficiaries and district gift 11.35 general, MT/ha, 2013 - 2015 3.5 3.16 rice parboiling 1.74 3 2.88

shea picking 7.4 2.5 1.91 1.98 2 1.86 1.76 remittance 4.66 1.64 1.56 1.37 1.5 1.35 1.3 1.23 petty trading 11.39 1 0.8 0.56 0.45 sale of livestock 29.5 0.5 0 sale of poultry 14.74 Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice 2015 2014 2013 sale of crop produce 87.77 USG Beneficiareis Others -APS Others-MofA

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 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 Gushiegu 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 Gushiegu, 2010-2015 Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Total Cassava 5 5,865 5 2,824 4 9,916 6 8,627 6 2,100 5 3,995 3 43,327 Cowpea 3 ,818 3 ,706 4 ,124 5 ,075 5 ,075 4 ,320 2 6,118 Groundnut 7 ,438 7 ,457 6 ,996 9 ,545 8 ,342 9 ,240 4 9,018 Maize 7,253 6 ,777 6 ,577 9 ,356 7 ,978 9 ,114 4 7,055 Millet 2 ,486 2 ,414 2 ,095 3 ,461 3 ,645 4 ,896 1 ,899 Rice 5 ,099 4 ,727 5 ,283 6 ,894 7 ,062 6 ,900 3 5,965 Sorghum 3 ,661 4,150 3 ,733 5 ,148 5 ,354 5 ,273 2 4,024 Soybean 7 ,586 7 ,236 7 ,577 9 ,322 9 ,963 7 ,273 4 8,957 Yam 2 5,581 2 4,824 2 0,365 3 3,334 2 8,683 2 4,363 1 57,150 Yields in MT/Ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Cassava 15.20 1 4.20 1 4.46 1 3.80 1 3.80 1 2.53 Cowpea 1 .30 1 .26 1 .54 1 .79 1 .83 1 .63 Groundnut 1 .49 1 .50 1 .32 1 .69 1 .72 2 .00 Maize 1 .91 1 .35 1 .23 1.54 1 .32 1 .78 Millet 1 .03 1 .00 0 .89 1 .20 1 .35 1 .80 Rice 1 .86 1 .76 1 .98 2 .57 2 .67 3 .00 Sorghum 1 .23 1 .40 1 .36 1 .79 1 .84 1 .85 Soybean 1.37 1 .30 1 .56 1 .87 1 .96 1 .86 Yam 1 1.92 1 1.60 1 0.27 8 .60 9 .10 8 .67 Source: Agricultre Report 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2014 MOFA

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

Infographic 2: Average Land size, Yields, Sales and other Farm indicators in Gushiegu, 2013 $ - $ 162.6 1.39 0.56 10% 107.3 199.9

$ - $ 0.73 0.80 29% 404.7 44.6 97.9 $ $ - TOTAL 0.71 68.1 329.5 0.45 70% 27.1 Average Land Size, ha Yield, MT/ha Sales, % Gross Margin*, USD/ha Variable Costs*, USD/farm Revenue in USD/farm

Source: Agriculture Production Survey, Kansas State University, 2013 *Gross margin, variable cost and farm revenue captured from the APS in infographic 2 have been converted to USD using 2012 exchange rates (1.88 GHC to $1 USD) to align with the ‘farmer recall’ survey methodology deployed. All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 4 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

What is the Women Empowerment Gushiegu 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. Wom- the four(4) domains are displayed in Figure 5. en’s empowerment is a main focus of Feed the Future in Production Domain: The majority of women feel order to achieve its objectives of inclusive agriculture comfortable with providing input related to produc- sector growth and improved nutritional status. The tion decisions, as indicated by 93.3% of the women WEAI is comprised of two weighted sub-indexes: of the survey sample. However, women have much Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) and Gender Parity less control over the use of household income than men- 27.3% of women versus 92.1% of male Index (GPI). The 5DE index is a summation of the level respondents. of achievement in ten indicators grouped into five Resource Domain: a thin majority of the women domains: production, resources, income, leadership and have a right to asset ownership but a large majority time. The GPI compares the empowerment of women to can purchase and move assets, 63.1% versus 94.3%. the empowerment of their male counterpart in the Both figures are lower than the figures of the male household. This section presents the results from these respondents. Only 10.4% of women have the right empowerment indicators of the 5DE for Gushiegu, part to decide or have access to credit, followed by of a bigger survey conducted by Kansas State University. 11.4% of the male respondents. Leadership Domain: a thin majority represent- The Domains: what do they represent? ing only 57.8% of women of the sample have the The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals right to group membership as opposed to 68.2% of to provide input and autonomously make decisions men while only 55.6% of the women get involved in about agricultural production. The Resources domain public speaking as opposed to 97.7% of the male reflects individuals’ control over and access to produc- respondents. Time Domain: 49.5% of the women and 80.4% of tive resources. The Income domain monitors individuals’ men in Gushiegu are satisfied with the workload in ability to direct the financial resources derived from their everyday life. The percentage score is slightly agricultural production or other sources. The Leadership higher with respect to satisfaction with leisure time; domain reflects individuals’ social capital and comfort 65.5% of the women and 82.8% of the men inter- speaking in public within their community. The Time viewed are happy with this aspect. domain reflects individuals’ workload and satisfaction with leisure time.

Figure 5: Gushiegu Results on Domains of Empowerment of WEAI 2015, by gender, in % Adequacy & 120 Differences 97.3 97.7 100 93.3 96.1 92.1 94.3 96 Together men and women obtained an adequacy score 80.4 82.8 80 68.1 63.1 65.5 (80% and above) in all indicators except for resources 57.8 55.6 60 49.5 domain: access and decision on credit, leadership 40 27.3 domain: group membership. In addition to that 20 10.4 11.4 adequacy was not achieved only by women in control 0 over use of household income, 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 with Leisure speaking, satisfaction with workload and with leisure Decision Household and Transfer Credit Workload Time Income Assets time. Production and Income Domain Resources Domain Leadership Doman Time Domain Women Men The highest difference between male and female respondents was observed with the production Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University domain: the control over use of household income and in the resource domain: asset ownership.

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 5 HEALTH, NUTRITION AND SANITATION

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

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

Children absolute numbers are revealed in the respective Stunting, From Only 62.2%* of 40.7*, 9,767 circles for stunting, wasting in children, women and women reach minimum Children dietary Underweight children underweight, Women Dietary Diversity diversity, 22.7%*, 5,447 18,363 and some other indicators. The Dietary diversity score of women in Gushiegu is 4.2, which

Women Dietary Wasting in represents one of the highest values in the North- Diversity Score, Children, 4.2* 20.3%*, 4,872 ern Region. This means that women consume on average 4 to 5 types of foods out of 10. More than half of the women (62.2%) reach the minimum Women Exc. breasfed Underweight, Children (0- dietary diversity of 5 food groups. This value is again 7%*, 2,066 Intro of 5m), 52.3%** Complementary one of the highest in the Northern Region. How- Feeding, Children 6-23m, 30.5%** ever, the value for stunting in children is quite high in relation to other districts in the Northern Sources: * from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, Region. ** from RING & SPRING Survey, 2015, Figure 6 displays specifics of household dwelling, Figure 6: Household Dwelling Characteristics, Gushiegu, 2015 evaluated based on sources of water, energy, waste disposal, cooking fuel source, and number of people

Access to Electricity 32.3% per sleep room as measured from the PBS Survey 2015. As the figure shows, access to sanitation facili- ties is the lowest in the Northern Region. Access to 97.5% Access to Solid Fuel improved water source is also low. For more details refer to Figure 6. Persons Per Sleep Room 1.7 % Figure 7 and 8 provide details on the types of improved water source and sanitation used as mea-

Improved Sanitation 13.1% sured by the RING & SPRING Survey in 2015.

Access to Improved Water Source 70.2% Figure 8: Types of improved sanitation, Gushiegu, 2015, in %

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 flush to sewer Figure 7: Types of Improved Water Source, potable toilet with 12.5% Gushiegu, 2015, in % emptying service 20.7% piped water into dwelling 2% public protected dug well tap/standpipe 18% 16%

pit latrine, with cleanable slabs 66.7% tube well/borehole 64% Sources: Figure 6:from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, Figure 7,8 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 Gushiegu

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 Gushiegu. 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 34.4 percentage points to 16.6% compared to the 2012 value corresponding with 20,693 poor people in the district. In addition, the 2015 per capita expenditure stagnated, decreasing by 5 percent to 3.07 USD. The decrease is so low (+- 5% change) which is more considered a stagnation. Because the decrease in poverty is much higher than the stagnation of per capita expenditure, the first indicator gives the tone to the overall, meaning that situation in this district has improved since 2012 . This development is accompanied by a satisfactory USAID presence, scored with 3.2 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 on the ground. We say light green because the progress is not fully supported by both impact indicators as one has stagnated and the arrow sign will be confirmed by the next survey. Based on this, the situation should be observed carefully to confirm that the area is progressing and also to identify ways of accelerating the impact from the intervention.

USAID District Presence Score Figure 9: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012,2015, Gushiegu s 40.0% 25.30% 0.0% t

NO USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE i n 16.60% o p

20.0% e t n a g e

0.0% t c n LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE r GUSHIEGU e e c P

-20.0% r

e n i P

y -40.0% t i n r BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Poverty Change e e v -60.0% 2012-2015 g o P -34.4% a n

-80.0% h C AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE y

-100.0% t r e v

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

HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Figure 10: Population of Poor, Non - Poor Gushiegu, 2015

140000

r s 120000 e b

m 100000 u n

i n

USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag 80000 n 103,963 i o t 60000 l a u p

o 40000

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND P CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS 20000 20,693 0 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND GUSHIEGU Population Poor 2015 Population of NonPoor 2015 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Figure 11: Per Capita Expenditure in 2012 and 2015, in USD/day; Per Capita Expenditure Change in percent, Gushiegu REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS 3.25 0% 3.23USD t n e y

-20% c a Per Capita Exp. r

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND e

3.2 P Change -40% n i

U S D / d -5.0% e IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS

-60% g i n 3.15 n s a e -80% h r C s i t u e d BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 3.1 -100% r n e

3.07USD i t u

-120% d n

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS E x p 3.05 e a -140% i t E x p a p -160% a C i t 3

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND e r a p

P -180% C

e r

REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS 2.95 -200% P GUSHIEGU 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 Gushiegu demographics, religious affiliation, literacy and weather indicators

Figure 12: Household Composition by groupage, Gushiegu, 2015 Gushiegu has a total population of 124,656, out of which

Adult Males Children 0 to 4 18% 17% 63,945 are females and 60,711 are males. The average household size in the district is 7.4 persons. Gushiegu is one of the districts in the Northern region that accounts for the highest number of persons per household. The district lies in the tropical continental climatic zone Adult Females 22% and experiences average annual precipitation relative to

Children 5 to 17 43% other districts in the Northern Region, see Figure 15. Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University Note that in 2010, the entire Northern Ghana experi- enced significant rainfall and flooding. In terms of religion, the majority of the population in Figure 13: Religious Affiliation, Gushiegu 2010 Gushiegu are Muslims representing 68.1%, followed by

Traditionalists Other 0% Traditionalists at 22.2% as shown in Figure 13. 22% The district accounts for a young population as 60% of Other Christian 1% the household members are aged between 0 to 17 years, Pentecostal/Charismatic 1% as Figure 12 shows. No religion 2% Protestants Gushiegu just as the rest of the districts in the Northern 2% Islam 68% Catholic Region accounts for a low level of adult educational 4% attainment as shown in Figure 14. A vast majority of the adults, 92%, have received no education, while only 3.9%

Source: Gushiegu District Analytical Report, GSS, 2014 went through primary schools and only 3.4% of the sample through secondary school. Figure 14: Adult Education Attainment in Gushiegu, 2015

Secondary Level Primary Level Education 3.40% Figure 15: Average Cumulated Precipitation in mm and Education , 3.9% Temperature in Celcius Degree,Gushiegu, 2008 - 2015 5000 40 s m 4,476.9 u i m c 4500 35 l n i

4000 C e n

o

30 e i 3500 r e a t t g i 25 e p 3000 i c D

n r e 2500 20 i

P

e

d 2000 15 u e r a t a t

l 1500 e

u 10 714.3 p m 1000

555.3 m u 493.7 478.0 486.1 503.7 501.8 e

c 5 c 500 T A 0 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature

No Educa,t on 92.0% Source: awhere Weather Platform, AWhere, 2016

Source: 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 Gushiegu

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

Why has per capita expenditure stagnated in What other agricultural or nutrition focused Gushiegu 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? and/or are in the pipeline that may impact Gush- iegu’s development?

QUESTION 3

Given Gushiegu’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 to 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 9