assistance options for vulnerable households in ghana

July 2010 This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Jason Wolfe of USAID/EGAT/PR/MD.

TRIP REPORT ASSISTANCE OPTIONS FOR VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS IN GHANA

TRIP REPORT ASSISTANCE OPTIONS FOR VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS IN GHANA

Jason Wolfe, U.S. Agency for International Development DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Context and Rationale........................................................................................................................................................ 6 USG Foreign Assistance Objectives........................................................................................................................... 6 GoG Priorities for Food Security................................................................................................................................ 6 USAID Strategies and Investments to Date.............................................................................................................. 7

Situation Assessment.......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Role of Poverty .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Role of Household Cash Flow .................................................................................................................................. 10

Investment Options.......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Smoothing Income: Income Diversification ........................................................................................................... 11 Smoothing Consumption: Savings-Led Financial Services ................................................................................... 12 External Assistance: Remittances and Social Safety Nets ..................................................................................... 13

Feasibility Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 14 Effects of Income Diversification............................................................................................................................. 14 Opportunities for Income Diversification............................................................................................................... 14 Effects of Savings-Led Financial Services ............................................................................................................... 16 Opportunities for Savings-Led Financial Services.................................................................................................. 17 Coherence with GoG and USAID Initiatives ......................................................................................................... 18

Annex A. Terms of Reference.................................................................................................................................... 19

Annex B. Works Consulted ........................................................................................................................................ 20

Annex C. Individuals and Institutions Consulted ................................................................................................... 23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Food Insecurity by Region in Ghana ........................................................................................................ 7 Table 2. Vulnerability to Food Insecurity by Region in Ghana ........................................................................... 7 Table 3. Child Nutrition by Region in Ghana......................................................................................................... 8 Table 4. Characteristics of Livelihood Groups in Ghana ..................................................................................... 9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Wealth Quintile Map.................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2. Sources of Food by Wealth Quintile....................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3. Sources of Food by Livelihood Group................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4. Average Monthly Expenditures on Food and Non-Food Items in Ghana ...................................... 10 Figure 5. Food Expenditures by Wealth Group and Urban/Rural in Ghana................................................... 10 Figure 6. Monthly Cash Flow for Farming Households in Northern Ghana ................................................... 11 Figure 7. Impact of Income Diversification on Monthly Cash Flow for Households in Northern Ghana 14


ACRONYMS

ADVANCE Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement project

ASCA Accumulating savings and credit association

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment (led by the World Food Programme in 2008)

DFID United Kingdom Department for International Development

FASDEP II Ghana Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy

FtF Feed the Future

GHFSI Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative

GLSS-5 Ghana Living Standards Survey, Fifth Round (2008)

GoG Government of the Republic of Ghana

GSSP Ghana Strategy Support Program

IDE International Development Enterprises

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

LEAP Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty

METASIP Ghana Medium-Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan

MFI Microfinance institution

MOFA Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture

PASA Participating Agency Service Agreement

ROSCA Rotating savings and credit association

SHG Self-help group

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USG United States Government

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organisation


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In aggregate, Ghana is considered to be generally food secure, with only 5 percent of the population deemed food insecure and another 9 percent vulnerable to food insecurity. However, this nationwide perspective masks important regional dynamics and disparities. Persistent food insecurity is concentrated in the poorest areas of the country. The rural northern regions have the highest rates of food insecurity in the country and high prevalence of both wasting and stunting among children under five.

Poor asset wealth was strongly correlated with chronic malnutrition and other nutritional status indicators, particularly in the northern savannah zone. Asset wealth is a proxy for household purchasing power, and stunting was attributed to a lack of food access leading to poor and borderline food consumption. The CFSVA 2008 suggests that increasing household purchasing power would lead to better diets and longer-term nutritional status for children.

Markets are a significant source of food for all households in Ghana, with 80 percent of all households purchasing food during the period immediately following the main harvest. Although variations do occur, this phenomenon is remarkably consistent across income segments and livelihood groups. Even among agricultural livelihoods (cash crops, food crops, and agropastoralists), only about 30 percent of households get their food from their own production –which is remarkably low, especially during the harvest period. In this context, limited household purchasing power is a clear barrier to food access and improved food security.

For poor farmers in Ghana, their main source of income is likely to come from sales of staple crops following the main harvest in September-November. These households may have other income sources throughout the year from other economic activities or sales of stored crops. However, their central challenge is to finance household consumption – with food purchases as a major expense – throughout the year. They may accomplish this through a variety of mechanisms: supplementary income-generating activities, retaining the value of harvest sales through savings or other liquid assets, or relying on external assistance in the form of remittances, credit, social safety nets, or outright charity.

USAID’s development challenge is to improve cash flow among households vulnerable to food insecurity so that they have cash (or cash-equivalent assets) available to purchase food, especially during periods of the year when household food stocks are low or exhausted. Geographically, the evidence clearly points to Ghana’s northern regions (Upper East, Upper West, and Northern) as the primary focus for investments in this area.

Three primary intervention strategies should be considered, and two are recommended for investment:

Smoothing household income streams throughout the year through income diversification interventions (recommended)

Smoothing household consumption throughout the year through asset accumulation and financial services interventions (recommended)

Preventing extremely negative coping strategies through access to external assistance such as social safety nets and remittances (not recommended)

Interventions to improve cash flow and strengthen purchasing power at the household level support GoG and USAID priorities for food security. Existing USAID investments, particularly under the ADVANCE project, promote greater commercialization of staple crops and advance integration of smallholder farmers into competitive value chains. These interventions aim to expand smallholder income but, nevertheless, also reinforce the current situation where smallholder incomes are concentrated around the main harvest and cash flow is constrained during other periods of the year. Income diversification and savings-led financial services can complement these interventions to ensure that target households are less vulnerable to food insecurity.

USAID’s research and experience repeatedly show that food security is a complex issue, and silver bullet solutions rarely exist. A balanced portfolio of strategic investments, supported by actionable evidence and stakeholder buy-in, is critical to addressing the multifaceted problems facing food-insecure populations in a dynamic market environment. USAID can find the focus it requires for efficient management, effective implementation, and accountable results through well-articulated objectives and a strategic focus on target populations.


CONTEXT AND RATIONALE

USAID has traditionally considered food security to consist of three inter-related components: access, availability, and utilization. Recently, a fourth factor has also become more prominent: resiliency or stability.

Availability: adequate production/import of food staples and distribution from surplus to deficit areas within the country

Access: adequate household resources to finance the consumption of food staples throughout the year

Utilization: adequate daily caloric intake and dietary diversity to meet nutritional needs

Resiliency/stability: adequate strategies and/or mechanisms for households to manage their risk to future food security shocks

These factors are inextricably linked. Food availability influences the cost of access and proper utilization. Access shapes household decisions about which available food items are purchased and how they are consumed. Adequate knowledge of nutritional needs will drive the demand and use of certain foods. Underlying all of these factors is empowering households and other actors to make informed decisions and investments both now and in the uncertain future.

In Ghana’s unique context, USAID’s central hypothesis is that accelerated commercialization of staple crops will increase food availability both nationally and regionally, expand incomes for smallholder households, and advance agricultural development and growth.

USG Foreign Assistance Objectives

Prompted by sharply rising food prices in 2008, the U.S. Government boldly launched the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, now known as Feed the Future, to coordinate an inter-agency response to the immediate crisis and lay the foundation for longer-term food security. Feed the Future embraces the principles established by donors at the L’Aquila G8 Summit in 2009:

Adopt a comprehensive approach to food security that focuses on advancing agriculture-led growth, reducing under-nutrition, and increasing the impact of humanitarian food assistance

Invest in country-led plans

Strengthen strategic coordination–globally, regionally, and locally

Leverage the benefits of multilateral institutions

Deliver on a sustained and accountable commitment

GoG Priorities for Food Security

Through its Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP II) and Medium-Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (METASIP), the Government of Ghana has articulated six priorities for food security and agricultural development:

Food security and emergency preparedness

Increased growth and reduced income variability

Increased competitiveness and enhanced integration into domestic and international markets

Sustainable management of land and environment

Science and technology applied in food and agriculture development

Improved institutional coordination and stakeholder engagement


USAID Strategies and Investments to Date

USAID/Ghana’s first wave of food security investments focus on improving the availability of staple foods in domestic and regional markets as well as on strengthening government policies, capacity, and coordination. Such investments support the country-led approach advocated by the USG and CAADP and also maximize Ghana’s potential to contribute to regional food security. Primary activities currently include:

The Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement (ADVANCE) project is USAID’s flagship program, led by ACDI/VOCA, focusing on strengthening commercial value chains for a range of staple foods.

The Ghana Strategy Support Program (GSSP) utilizes IFPRI’s expertise to support GoG’s food security strategy development and implementation through focused research, assessments, and technical assistance.

A Participating Agency Service Agreement (PASA) with USDA embeds advisors in GoG ministries to build internal capacity, strengthen coordination both within the government and with external stakeholders, and support implementation of GoG food security strategies.

SITUATION ASSESSMENT

In aggregate, Ghana is considered to be generally food secure, with only 5 percent of the population deemed food insecure and another 9 percent vulnerable to food insecurity. However, this nationwide perspective masks important regional dynamics and disparities. Persistent food insecurity is concentrated in the poorest areas of the country. As illustrated in Table 1 and Table 2, the rural northern regions have the highest rates of food insecurity in the country – as much as seven times the national average.

A third (34 percent) of the population in Upper West region is food insecure followed by 15 percent of Upper East region and 10 percent of Northern region. This equals about 453,000 people, more than the rest of the rural areas combined. By contrast, the lowest prevalence of food insecurity occurs in Accra (2 percent) and the rural areas in Greater Accra (1 percent) and Western region (1 percent).

Table 1. Food Insecurity by Region in Ghana

REGION NUMBER %

Upper West Rural 175,000 34%

Upper East Rural 126,000 15%

Northern Rural 152,000 10%

Ashanti Rural 162,000 7%

Eastern Rural 58,000 4%

Urban (Other) 297,000 4%

Brong Ahafo Rural 47,000 3%

Volta Rural 44,000 3%

Central Rural 39,000 3%

Urban (Accra) 69,000 2%

Western Rural 12,000 1%

Greater Accra Rural 7,000 1%

Total 1,200,000 5%

Source: CFSVA (2008)

Table 2. Vulnerability to Food Insecurity by Region in Ghana

REGION NUMBER %

Upper East Rural 163,000 20%

Northern Rural 275,000 17%

Upper West Rural 69,000 13%

Brong Ahafo Rural 152,000 11%

Ashanti Rural 218,000 10%

Eastern Rural 116,000 8%

Urban (Other) 572,000 8%

Volta Rural 88,000 7%

Western Rural 93,000 6%

Central Rural 56,000 5%

Urban (Accra) 158,000 4%

Greater Accra Rural 14,000 3%

Total 2,007,000 9%



Throughout the country, about 2 million people are vulnerable to become food insecure, meaning that their food consumption patterns were barely acceptable when surveyed in November and are likely to deteriorate during the lean season (March to September) or following a natural or man-made shock. The rural areas of Upper West, Upper East and Northern regions account for roughly a quarter of the country’s population vulnerable of becoming food insecure.

People residing in rural areas are disproportionately worse affected than their counterparts in urban areas. Rural populations are about twice as likely to be either food insecure or vulnerable to food insecurity than urban residents.

Malnutrition rates among Ghanaian children are elevated but below emergency levels according to WHO standards. Nationally, acute malnutrition (wasting) stands at 7 percent and chronic malnutrition (stunting) at 22 percent. Taken together, 11 percent of children nationwide are underweight.

Again, national averages obscure significant variation at the regional level. As shown in Table 3, the northern regions (Upper West, Upper East, and Northern) demonstrate high prevalence of both wasting and stunting. Stunting is also elevated in the forest zone, although wasting is consistent with the national average.

Role of Poverty

Poor asset wealth was strongly correlated with chronic malnutrition and other nutritional status indicators, particularly in the northern savannah zone. Asset wealth is a proxy for household purchasing power, and stunting was attributed to a lack of food access leading to poor and borderline food consumption. The CFSVA 2008 suggests that increasing household purchasing power would lead to better diets and longer-term nutritional status for children.

1 Wasting is an anthropometric measure of “weight for height” reflecting acute malnutrition, which is the result of

reduced energy intake over a short period of time due to either food shortage or poor health.

2 Stunting is an anthropometric measure of “height for age” reflecting chronic malnutrition, which results from longer-term macronutrient deficiencies.

3 Underweight is an anthropometric measure of “weight for age” and acts as a composite measure of both acute and chronic malnutrition.

Table 3. Child Nutrition by Region in Ghana

REGION WASTING1 STUNTING2 UNDERWEIGHT3

Upper West Rural 12% 26% 17%

Upper East Rural 11% 27% 16%

Northern Rural 8% 30% 18%

Volta Rural 9% 18% 10%

Western Rural 5% 23% 9%

Central Rural 7% 22% 15%

Greater Accra 6% 11% 7%

Eastern Rural 7% 19% 8%

Ashanti Rural 7% 28% 14%

Brong Ahafo Rural 6% 22% 11%

Total 7% 22% 12%



Unusually, acute malnutrition was not correlated with asset wealth. Wasting is seen as function of disease (diarrhea and fever) in the northern regions, which could be improved through improved access to cleaner water, health services, and better hygienic practices.

From a livelihoods perspective, Ghanaians engaged primarily in farming had a disproportionately higher prevalence of vulnerability and food insecurity. This is attributed to low productivity that limits agricultural incomes to levels that are unable to sustain farming households throughout the year. Indeed, annual per capita incomes for this population fall below the national poverty threshold (of 540 cedis), as illustrated in Table 4. Staple food farming is the largest livelihood source for Ghanaians (25 percent of households), and 40 percent of these households fall in the poorest wealth quintile. Figure 1 also shows that severe poverty is concentrated in the northern savannah regions.

Such low purchasing power at the household level results in a large share of income devoted to food purchases. Ghana has two nutrition-based poverty lines: a lower threshold of 420 cedis accounting for essential foodstuff purchases and an upper threshold of 540 cedis accounting for both basic food and non-food expenditures. Farmers’ mean annual incomes of 441 cedis fall just above the lower poverty line, yet this indicates that farming households barely earn enough to purchase all the food they need to consume in a year to meet basic nutritional requirements. Median incomes of 222 cedis, which may be more representative of the majority of farming households, are roughly half the extreme poverty line and reflect the significant vulnerability of this group.

Table 4. Characteristics of Livelihood Groups in Ghana Figure 1. Wealth Quintile Map

LIVELIHOOD % OF HOUSE-HOLDS

MEAN ANNUAL INCOME

MEDIAN ANNUAL INCOME

% IN POOREST WEALTH QUINTILE

Agropastoralist 2% ¢593 ¢222 63%

Farming (food crops) 25% ¢441 ¢250 40%

Fishing 2% ¢757 ¢265 34%

Food Processing 3% ¢512 ¢267 32%

Unskilled Labor 3% ¢503 ¢321 28%

Farming (cash crops) 8% ¢644 ¢378 22%

Assistance/Remittances 9% ¢742 ¢538 17%

Artisan 3% ¢1,106 ¢476 15%

Petty Trading 11% ¢736 ¢409 12%

Prepared Food Selling 3% ¢754 ¢340 10%

Commercial Trading 2% ¢1,178 ¢767 8%

Skilled Labor 3% ¢1,506 ¢675 8%

Self-employed 9% ¢1,070 ¢601 3%

Salaried & Services 16% ¢1,655 ¢952 2%

Source: CFSVA (2008) Source: CFSVA (2008)


Markets are a significant source of food for all households in Ghana, with 80 percent of all households purchasing food during the period immediately following the main harvest. Although variations do occur, this phenomenon is remarkably consistent across income segments (see Figure 2) and livelihood groups (see Figure 3). Even among agricultural livelihoods (cash crops, food crops, and agropastoralists), only about 30 percent of households get their food from their own production –which is remarkably low, especially during the harvest period. Nationwide, the average Ghanaian tends to spend a little more than half (52 percent) of their monthly household budget on food purchases (see Figure 4). When disaggregated by wealth group, as in Figure 5, it is clear that the urban poor spend a greater share of their monthly budgets on food – yet food still constitutes more than half of monthly expenses for the rural poor. In this context, limited household purchasing power is a clear barrier to food access and improved food security.

Role of Household Cash Flow

For poor farmers in Ghana, their main source of income is likely to come from sales of staple crops following the main harvest in September-November. These households may have other income sources throughout the year from other economic activities or sales of stored crops. However, their central challenge is to finance

Figure 2. Sources of Food by Wealth Quintile

Figure 3. Sources of Food by Livelihood Group


Figure 4. Average Monthly Expenditures on Food and Non-Food Items in Ghana

Figure 5. Food Expenditures by Wealth Group and Urban/Rural in Ghana



household consumption – with food purchases as a major expense – throughout the year. They may accomplish this through a variety of mechanisms: supplementary income-generating activities, retaining the value of harvest sales through savings or other liquid assets, or relying on external assistance in the form of remittances, credit, social safety nets, or outright charity.

Using data on households in northern Ghana from the most recent Ghana Living Standards Survey, it is possible to make a rough estimate of the monthly cash flow for these households through the year. Figure 6 shows a relative windfall in household revenues from the annual grain harvest followed by a prolonged period of negative monthly cash flow. During this time, households will struggle to finance a basic level of household consumption (primarily consisting of food) through whatever means they have available to them. While this model assumes a healthy per capita income level above the national poverty line, it is clear that irregular cash flow can significantly constrain household purchasing power.

INVESTMENT OPTIONS

USAID’s development challenge is to improve cash flow among households vulnerable to food insecurity so that they have cash (or cash-equivalent assets) available to purchase food, especially during periods of the year when household food stocks are low or exhausted. Geographically, the evidence clearly points to Ghana’s northern regions (Upper East, Upper West, and Northern) as the primary focus for investments in this area.

An obvious investment option is to increase household income from their main farming activities (e.g., grains and other staple foods) through advancements in productivity, storage, and marketing efficiencies. However, this option is not appealing for both developmental and operational reasons. Expanding income from staple crop farming continues to concentrate households’ income sources in one period of the year (although this period could be prolonged through crop storage) and does not effectively address their difficulties in sustaining income and/or consumption levels throughout the year. Operationally, USAID is already investing in this type of intervention strategy through the ADVANCE project and should not duplicate or undermine these investments.

Three primary intervention strategies should be considered:

Smoothing household income streams throughout the year through income diversification interventions

Smoothing household consumption throughout the year through asset accumulation and financial services interventions

Preventing extremely negative coping strategies through access to external assistance such as social safety nets and remittances

Smoothing Income: Income Diversification

Poor households regularly seek to diversify their income sources as a way both to mitigate risk associated with any individual activity as well as to sustain household cash flow throughout the year. The challenges associated with income diversification are more or less identical to any kind of enterprise development activity:

Identifying opportunities that can be competitive in target markets

Upgrading farmer activities/operations to meet the needs of target markets and generate attractive net incomes for the farmers

Figure 6. Monthly Cash Flow for Farming Households in Northern Ghana

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Source: Author’s calculations using GLSS-5 data


Addressing transaction efficiencies to get product to market and both revenue and information back to the farmers

Promoting mutually beneficial market relationships between farmers and their buyers, suppliers, and service providers

Intervening in a way that market relationships and upgrading are self-sustaining

Additionally, income diversification in this context presents its own unique challenges:

Aligning opportunities with existing farmer skills, capacities, resources, and relationships

Identifying opportunities with sufficiently low barriers to entry so that large numbers of farmers could become involved (essentially, low risk / low return activities) but with prospects for larger growth over time through incremental upgrading (higher risk / higher return activities)

Timing opportunities with the agricultural calendar to maximize the impact on household food security – opportunities should not conflict with other agricultural activities important for food security and also generate income during periods of low cash availability in the household

Ensuring opportunities do not perpetuate or exacerbate imbalanced gender relations within households or communities but rather leverage the positive roles that women can play in household food security

Smoothing Consumption: Savings-Led Financial Services

One of the biggest misconceptions is that very poor or very vulnerable households cannot save. Both rigorous research and practical experience demonstrate quite the contrary.4 Poor households save simply because they have to. Their meager incomes trickle in from a variety of sources with great inconsistency. In the face of tremendous uncertainty, they save small amounts of money whenever and however they can to guard against future loss of income and to maintain spending on essential items. However, the informal ways that they save are not always the most effective – not sufficiently safe, accessible, or protective. Providing more structure to this existing propensity for saving has proven highly effective in strengthening household’s ability to insure themselves against future shocks.

Even when households have accumulated a minimal level of assets to insure themselves in the event of future shock, they may still be managing risk in terms of protecting their consumption levels rather that increasing their income levels. Accessing and employing stronger mechanisms to manage household cashflow and even out their consumption is a necessary prerequisite to engaging in more growth-oriented activities.

The most common asset-accumulation activities are to facilitate new mechanisms for saving financial and other assets or to link target households with existing mechanisms. Individual savings accounts are only available from a limited number of financial institutions in Ghana (rural banks, regulated MFIs, and commercial banks) that are located primarily in urban areas and typically target less vulnerable clients. Accordingly, more informal savings mechanisms that do not depend on financial institutions are often more appropriate and accessible for more rural and more vulnerable households. Such mechanisms use self-selected groups of individuals or households to mutually pool and guarantee each other’s savings, and they are derived from traditional arrangements (such as susu in Ghana) that are easily understood by most households.

Mechanisms for savings other assets can be equally important. Some households maintain stocks of food both for home consumption but also as a store of value that can be easily liquidated in times of crisis. Promoting community-based seed or grain banks can be a useful strategy to bolster household self-insurance strategies. Similarly, interviews with households in northern Ghana revealed a pre-existing tendency for investing in poultry and small ruminants as a savings strategy. These small animals require relatively low costs to maintain and offer unique characteristics as a savings account on legs. They are easily convertible into cash when needed, but not so easy as to provide constant temptation to finance potentially frivolous purchases.

4 D. Collins et al. (2009) and S. Rutherford (1999) provide compelling examples and insights.


Typical credit activities include access to credit through structured, though often informal, mechanisms as well as leveraging reciprocal and shared resources through stronger social networks. Access to appropriate loan products for household consumption is very similar for this outcome as access to appropriate savings products. Informal, group-based formats are common, easily understood, and replicated organically.

As households begin to access and use credit for home consumption, it is an excellent opportunity to introduce concepts of financial education. More regular cashflow, larger resources available for purchases, and greater needs for repaying loans may be entirely new phenomena for some households, requiring greater financial discipline and planning than they are accustomed to. The relatively new field of financial education seeks to introduce households to better behaviors and tools for managing their finances and their engagement with financial services. These new behaviors can be strong accelerators for achieving this outcome and advancing towards more income-oriented outcomes.

Informal savings and lending are most successful when they conform to the following success factors:

Safety and accessibility of savings. Savings mechanisms do not contribute to this outcome unless they provide a secure repository for and relatively uncomplicated access to the savings. Safety is ensured through physical means (e.g., a lockbox) as well as social cohesion and transparency, which are addressed below. Different models provide varying levels of accessibility, primarily because of the way savings schemes are also linked to lending activities. Some models are time-limited and provide access to members’ savings every time they dissolve – and moreover they can be timed to dissolve when cash is most needed (e.g., at planting time or when school fees are due). Other models provide more limited or no access to savings (unless an individual leaves the group); PEPFAR should carefully consider whether these models are appropriate for target households to achieve this outcome.

Strong social cohesion. Informal groups started by members who self-select into the group for the purpose of saving and lending together exhibit the strongest social cohesion and mutual trust, which are fundamental for individuals to pool their resources for lending and guarantee repayment through peer pressure.

Ownership. Groups are most effective when it is their responsibility to set the rules of the group – officer and member roles, lending practices, interest rates, and when and how the group may dissolve. These rules will vary from group to group and tend to change over time within the same group. Empowering the group to make these decisions ensures that it is relevant to their needs and that they have ownership over the activity.

External Assistance: Remittances and Social Safety Nets

Households vulnerable to food insecurity may utilize various forms of assistance to prevent long-term harm to their health and livelihoods when confronted with a shock. Such external assistance may include cash and in-kind gifts from relatives and community members, remittances from migrant workers, or monetary and non-monetary assistance from more formal safety nets. IFPRI research has demonstrated a range of positive impacts that these interventions can generate if designed, financed, and implemented appropriately.5

Ghana’s Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) initiative is intended to provide such a safety net to extremely poor households meeting its criteria. Although LEAP is supposed to reach 7 percent of the population by 2012, the CFSVA notes that it still operates at a very small scale and struggles to expand due to financial constraints.

While strengthening LEAP and other complementary forms of external assistance would directly address chronic food insecurity in Ghana, USAID has limited capacity in this area. Ethiopia is USAID’s only bilateral program in Africa addressing social safety nets (the “Productive Safety Net Program”). By contrast, the World Bank and European bilateral donors (DFID in particular) have a greater mandate and stronger capacity to intervene in this area – and, indeed, they are already formulating their plans in Ghana. USAID should

5 M. Adato (2007) and A. Fiszbein (2009) have the most extensive synthesis of evidence.


continue to let these donors play a leadership role, while seeking to leverage and coordinate their work as it evolves.

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

Income diversification and savings-led financial services appear to offer the best investment options to achieve USG food security objectives given USAID’s comparative advantages. Assessing the feasibility of these two options involves examining:

The probable outcomes of both intervention strategies on household purchasing power

The opportunities for intervention

The risks associated with interventions

The relationship between these interventions and other investment strategies pursued by USAID and the Government of Ghana

Effects of Income Diversification

Figure 7 estimates baseline monthly cash flow for a typical household and then examines the effect of selected off-season economic opportunities. The baseline model uses data from GLSS-5 and assumes that household income comes primarily from typical field crop production (groundnut, maize, sorghum, and millet) and that consumption levels remain fairly consistent throughout the year. This model presumes that income equals consumption but shows that monthly expenses outstrip monthly revenues for three-quarters of the year. By contrast, participation in three different off-season opportunities shows positive effects on monthly cash flow. Cashew production results in positive cash flow for 9 months, shea butter processing for 6 months, and vegetable production for 8 months. While these models are highly idealized and rely on interpolated annual data, the overall trends they indicate are compelling for USAID’s food security priorities in Ghana.

Opportunities for Income Diversification

Stakeholder interviews and literature reviews suggest the following range of income diversification opportunities to consider (in alphabetical order):

Cashew production and/or processing

Figure 7. Impact of Income Diversification on Monthly Cash Flow for Households in Northern Ghana

BASELINE: GRAIN PRODUCTION ONLY SCENARIO 1: BASELINE + CASHEW PRODUCTION



SCENARIO 2: BASELINE + SHEA BUTTER PROCESSING SCENARIO 3: BASELINE + VEGETABLE PRODUCTION



Source: Author’s calculations based on data from GLSS-5 (2008), TechnoServe (2010), and IDE (2010)


Cowpea production

Essential oil production (e.g., vetiver, lemongrass, citronella)

Fruit production and/or processing

Gum Arabic collection

Honey production

Oilseeds production and/or processing

Poultry production (for meat and/or eggs)

Shea nut collection and/or processing

Small ruminant production

Timber production and/or processing

Vegetable production

The following criteria should guide the selection of off-season income opportunities for households vulnerable to food insecurity in northern Ghana:

MARKET: the potential for competitiveness

UPGRADING COST: the potential for low barriers/costs to upgrading for target households

UPGRADING BENEFIT: the potential for reasonable returns to upgrading for target households during periods of low cash flow

OUTREACH: the potential to involve large numbers of target households in northern regions

GENDER: the potential for gender equity

LEVERAGE: the existence of useful leadership or leverage points for (systemic and cost-effective) intervention

USAID ADVANTAGE: the potential comparative advantage/added value for USAID investment

Table 5. Selection Matrix for Income Diversification Opportunities

OPPORTUNITY MARKET UPGRADING

COST UPGRADING

BENEFIT OUTREACH GENDER LEVERAGE USAID

ADVANTAGE AVERAGE

SCORE

Cowpeas

Shea

Poultry

Small Ruminants

Vegetables

Sesame

Fruit

Cashews

Honey

Timber

Gum Arabic

Essential Oils

= high | = medium | = low


Table 5 presents a matrix with qualitative scoring (high, medium, and low) for each opportunity against the selection criteria outlined above. This exercise is intended to be indicative of higher-potential opportunities for USAID to consider rather than a rigorous, definitive analysis.

The results show fairly high potential for cowpeas, shea nuts, poultry, small ruminants and vegetables. They demonstrate high potential for the majority of criteria, which counterbalance any low scores. These opportunities should be given serious consideration.

Gum Arabic and essential oils rank at the bottom and should be discarded as investment opportunities to achieve USAID’s food security objectives.

The remaining opportunities (sesame, fruit, cashews, honey, and timber) demonstrate medium potential. They exhibit uncertain conditions around competitiveness (sesame and honey), the long time horizons for expected returns (fruit, cashews, and timber), or limited added value for USAID compared to other donor investments (cashews). Nevertheless, these opportunities should not be discarded completely pending more reliable information, new priorities embracing longer-term asset creation (such as tree crops), or opportunities for USAID to add value to other donor activities.

Effects of Savings-Led Financial Services

Figure 8 starts with the same baseline of net monthly cash flow as used in Figure 7 and then examines the effect of various informal financial services. While the actual effects of household finance are more obvious at the level of daily or weekly cash flow, assumptions have been adjusted to demonstrate the concept on an annual timeframe. The result, explained in greater detail below, is to redistribute cash availability more evenly throughout the year and to reduce the effects of irregular income streams.

Access to savings assumes a constant monthly savings rate of 10 percent of household income, which pays a conservative monthly interest rate of 10 percent. The household is assumed to drawdown an escalating portion of the accumulated savings starting in January until full withdrawal of the balance in August. The effect is to slightly reduce the windfall after the main harvest and raise net cash flow during the lean period – raising positive cash flow from 4 months in the baseline to 6 months with savings. Storing value in a relatively liquid asset (like poultry or small ruminants) has a similar effect, although cash flow still remains lumpy. This scenario assumes that households purchase these kinds of assets after the harvest when cash is readily available and then sells them incrementally during leaner times when cash is scarce.

Access to credit assumes a monthly lending rate of 10 percent of household consumption during the lean period when income is low and unpredictable. Credit is charged an interest rate of 10 percent to match the interest on savings, as is typical in informal financing arrangements. The household is assumed to repay half the outstanding balance every other month and refinance the unpaid portion until harvest time when the full balance is repaid. While the effect is less obvious than with savings, net cash flow does appear smoother and

Figure 8. Impact of Access to Finance on Monthly Cash Flow for Households in Northern Ghana

BASELINE + SAVINGS BASELINE + LIQUID ASSET



BASELINE + CREDIT BASELINE + SAVINGS & CREDIT



Source: Author’s calculations based on data from GLSS-5 (2008)


with fewer oscillations than the baseline. Combining both savings and credit (using all the same assumptions for both) yields the most dramatic effect, with positive cash flow 7 months of the year.

Opportunities for Savings-Led Financial Services

Ghana’s financial sector is highly fragmented, with 5 to 6 percent of households holding accounts with commercial banks and 16 percent accessing services from any financial intermediary.6 While the microfinance sector continues to mature and expand its outreach in urban and peri-urban areas, access to finance remains restricted in many rural areas. The rural finance market is dominated by three categories of institutions:

Formal institutions such as rural banks and savings and loan companies

Semiformal institutions (“non-bank financial institutions”) such as NGOs and cooperatives

Informal institutions such as susu collectors

Rural banks have sizeable outreach in rural Ghana and, as regulated financial institutions, have the ability to take deposits. They are member-owned institutions and offer a diversity of products. However, their usual practice of compulsory deposits (clients must deposit 20 percent of a loan’s value as collateral) probably limits their reach among poorer households.

NGOs and cooperatives (e.g., credit unions) are registered with but not licensed by the central bank, so they are not legally permitted to accept deposits. Financial NGOs have led a number of innovations in Ghana’s financial sector but tend to stay committed to their social mandates of serving the poor. These institutions

6 M. Bendig, L. Giesbert, and S. Steiner (2009)

Table 6. Typology of Informal Microfinance Structures

TYPE & EXAMPLES FEATURES ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

ROTATING SAVINGS AND CREDIT ASSOCIATION (ROSCA) Traditional susu in

Ghana

Unregistered Time-bound Members deposit fixed

amount each period Each period, one

member receives all funds

Rotates until everyone has received funds

No external funding

Works well in remote rural communities

Well-known in many countries

Simple, easy to manage system

No written records Enable people to obtain

usefully large sums

Amounts saved are generally small

Inflexible: can’t deposit or withdraw funds as needed, so generally not available for emergencies

No lending Savings tied up until member’s

turn to collect

ACCUMULATING SAVINGS AND CREDIT ASSOCIATION (ASCA) VSLA (CARE) SILC (CRS) Saving for Change

(Oxfam) PLAN Save the Children

Unregistered Time-bound Usually a fixed amt.

deposited each period Funds lent to members

with interest No external funding

Same advantages as for ROSCAs

More flexibility than ROSCAs for people who want loans

Members receive a return on their investment

Amounts saved are small Loans generally not suitable for

agriculture or large investments, due to small loan size and risk

Savings tied up for the cycle

SELF-HELP GROUP (SHG) WORTH Vicoba (Village

Community Bank)

Similar to ASCA but intends to be permanent

External funds: SHGs borrow from banks and on-lend to members

Sometimes federated

More flexible than ASCA Savings sometimes

leverage external funding (banks, MFIs), enabling larger loans

Savings cannot be withdrawn unless member leaves SHG

May be difficult to achieve bank linkage without support from government

Source: Adapted from A. Ritchie (2007)


tend to offer a range of services to meet the unique and complex needs of poor households. Ghana’s credit unions have been characterized by poor financial performance and weak management. Although this situation has improved in the last 20 years, problems persist.

Informal financial structures, such as susu collectors, have traditionally been very important in Ghana. Susu involves individuals saving outside the banking system to amass usefully large sums to invest in various ventures from family obligations to business endeavors. In 2003, there were over 4,000 collectors nationwide, collecting the equivalent of an average of $15 a month from approximately 200,000 clients.7 Recently, a variety of other financial intermediaries have piloted linkages with susu collectors to expand. This is seen as an important precondition and foundation for greater outreach to rural and poorer clients.

Opportunities for USAID investment in savings-led financial services centers on informal, so-called “community-managed microfinance”, structures and their linkages into the more formal financial sector. While susu is a traditional arrangement understood by most Ghanaians, it’s focus on amassing lump-sums serves only some of the cash flow management requirements of vulnerable households. Table 6 outlines a more complete range of similar structures, as well as their respective advantages and disadvantages. While susu fits into the ROSCA category, ASCAs and SHGs may offer the opportunity for smaller and more irregular transactions (both savings and loans) that may better meet the needs of target households.

Coherence with GoG and USAID Initiatives

Interventions to improve cash flow and strengthen purchasing power at the household level support GoG and USAID priorities for food security. Programme 2 of Ghana’s METASIP prioritizes both increased income growth as well as reduced income variability among target households. Including a focus on smoothing income is a notable refinement of the broad strategies articulated in the earlier FASDEP II. Household purchasing power is directly related to the food access aspect of the USG food security framework, and interventions in this area further contribute to FtF objectives to address food security among vulnerable households – the so-called “ultra poor.”

Existing USAID investments, particularly under the ADVANCE project, promote greater commercialization of staple crops and advance integration of smallholder farmers into competitive value chains. These interventions aim to expand smallholder income but, nevertheless, also reinforce the current situation where smallholder incomes are concentrated around the main harvest and cash flow is constrained during other periods of the year. Income diversification and savings-led financial services can complement these interventions to ensure that target households are less vulnerable to food insecurity.

USAID’s research and experience repeatedly show that food security is a complex issue, and silver bullet solutions rarely exist. A balanced portfolio of strategic investments, supported by actionable evidence and stakeholder buy-in, is critical to addressing the multifaceted problems facing food-insecure populations in a dynamic market environment. USAID can find the focus it requires for efficient management, effective implementation, and accountable results through well-articulated objectives and a strategic focus on target populations.

7 M. Bendig, L. Giesbert, and S. Steiner (2009)


ANNEX A. TERMS OF REFERENCE

BACKGROUND

As a Feed the Future focus country, USAID/Ghana is realigning and ramping up its agriculture and food security programming. While in the midst of operationalizing its annual implementation plan, the mission is also participating in a new multi-year strategy development process with assistance from McKinsey & Co. Although original plans called for a new tree crops value chain program to provide alternative and supplementary income to chronically vulnerable households, it is not yet clear whether interest in this programmatic option will continue in the multi-year strategy. Accordingly, the mission intends to cautiously proceed with pre-design work for this program so that it can rapidly proceed with procurement if its new strategy continues support for this focus. USAID/Ghana plans to engage Jason Wolfe from USAID/EGAT for technical assistance to support the country team in undertaking necessary analytical and pre-design work for this program.

OBJECTIVE

Support USAID/Ghana’s Food Security team to undertake analytical and pre-design work for a potential tree crops project.

SCOPE OF WORK

1. Articulate Ghana’s Implementation Plan for Feed the Future (complemented by the multi-year FtF planning currently underway) into programmatic objectives and intervention approaches for a potential tree crops value chain program, with particular emphasis on chronically vulnerable populations

2. Summarize and synthesize the relevant studies, strategies, and other analytics completed in recent years

3. Integrate lessons learned from relevant projects undertaken by USAID in the region

4. Consult with key informants and other stakeholders to vet and/or update prior analytics and lessons learned

5. Recommend intervention strategies and other elements of a potential tree crops value chain program based on USAID/Ghana’s FtF objectives, prior analytics, and stakeholder consultations

6. Describe target areas and populations

7. Draft outline and key elements of a tree crops value chain SOW (which the mission can act on and move forward with should they choose to support such a program)

8. Outline procurement options and issues affecting the mission’s decision on procurement instrument

TIMELINE

July 5-16, 2010 and led by Jason Wolfe.8

DELIVERABLES

Comprehensive report addressing the issues mentioned above

8 Original timeline postponed by one week to July 12-24, 2010.


ANNEX B. WORKS CONSULTED

Adam, Brook and Nicolas Boillereau. Cashew Marketing & Consumption in West Africa: Current Status and Opportunities. WATH Technical Report #22. USAID West Africa Trade Hub, Sep 2007.

Available: www.africancashewalliance.com/images/market%20study/22%20Cashew%20Retail%20Market%20Study%20Dec%2007.pdf

Adam, Brook and Nicolas Boillereau. Cashew Marketing & Consumption in West Africa: Ghana Country Summary. WATH Technical Report #22e. USAID West Africa Trade Hub, Sep 2007.

Available: www.watradehub.com/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/aug09/22e20cashew20market20study20part20220ghana20mar2008.pdf

Adato, Michelle and John Hoddinott. Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: A “Magic Bullet” for Reducing Poverty? 2020 FOCUS BRIEF on the World’s Poor and Hungry People. IFPRI, Oct 2007.

Available: www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/beijingbrief_adato.pdf

Addaquay, John. The Shea Butter Value Chain: Refining in West Africa. WATH Technical Report #3. USAID West Africa Trade Hub, Oct 2004.

Available: www.watradehub.com/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/aug09/320refining20in20west20africa2028j20addaquay29.pdf

African Cashew Alliance. Cashew, Public Private Partnerships, and Food Security. Apr 2009.

African Cashew Initiative. A Value Chain Analysis of the Cashew Sector in Ghana. African Cashew Alliance, Feb 2010.

Awusabo-Asare, K., S. K. Annim, A. M. Abane, and D. Asare-Minta. Who is reaching whom? Depth of outreach of rural microfinance institutions in Ghana. International NGO Journal 4:4, Apr 2009.

Available: www.microfinancegateway.org/gm/document-1.9.36537/15.pdf

Bendig, Mirko, Lena Giesbert, and Susan Steiner. Savings, Credit and Insurance: Household Demand for Formal Financial Services in Rural Ghana. GIGA Working Paper 94. German Institute for Global and Area Studies, Jan 2009.

Available: www.microfinancegateway.org/gm/document-1.9.30293/55867.pdf

Biederlack, Lisa and Jonathan Rivers. Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis: Ghana. World Food Programme, May 2009.

Available: documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp201820.pdf

Boahen, Philip. Brief Overview of Ghana Cashew Industry. Cashew Development Project. N.D.

Available: www.ghanacashewproducts.com/documents/Presentations/cashew_industry_overview.pdf

Breisinger, Clemens, Xinshen Diao, James Thurlow, and Ramatu al-Hassan. Agriculture for Development in Ghana: New Opportunities and Challenges. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00784/ International Food Policy Research Institute, Aug 2008.

Available: www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00784.pdf

Bromley, Daniel. Trade Export Promotion and Poverty Reduction: Assessing the Multipliers. WATH Technical Report #29. USAID West Africa Trade Hub, Aug 2009.

Available: www.watradehub.com/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/jan10/29-trade-export-promotion-and-poverty-assessing-connection-paper-west-africa-trade-hub-tech-report-2.pdf


Brott, Russell, Patrick Hanemann, Matt Harrigan, Mark Huisenga, and Louise Williams. AgCLIR Ghana: Commercial Legal and Institutional Reform Diagnostic of Ghana’s Agriculture Sector. USAID BizCLIR Project, Nov 2008.

Available: pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADP483.pdf

Cashew Development Project. Status of Ghana Cashew Industry. N.D.

Available: www.ghanacashewproducts.com/documents/Articles/Status%20of%20Cashew%20Industry.pdf

Chamberlin, Jordan, Xinshen Diao, Shashi Kolavalli, and Clemens Breisinger. Smallholder Agriculture in Ghana. GSSP-IFPRI Discussion Brief #3. 2007.

Available: pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADL411.pdf

Collins, Daryl, Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford, and Orlanda Ruthven. “Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day.” Princeton University Press, 2009.

More information: http://www.portfoliosofthepoor.com

Fiszbein, Ariel, Norbert Schady, et al. Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Poverty. World Bank, 2009.

Available: siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCCT/Resources/5757608-1234228266004/PRR-CCT_web_noembargo.pdf

Ghana Statistical Service. Ghana Living Standards Survey: Report of the Fifth Round (GLSS 5). Government of Ghana, Sep 2008.

Available: www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/glss5_report.pdf

Holtzman, John. The Shea Butter Value Chain: Study Synthesis and Recommendations for WATH. WATH Technical Report #1. USAID West Africa Trade Hub, Nov 2004.

Available: www.watradehub.com/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/aug09/120shea20value20chain20study20synthesis2028j20holtzman29.pdf

Karp Rodriguez, Anna. Market Survey of Plant-Based Fragrances in Ghana. NRI, Nov 2003.

Available: www.research4development.info/PDF/Outputs/Forestry/ZF0194_-_market_survey_Ghana_-_Nov_03.pdf

Lovett, Peter. Opening Bottlenecks in the Africa Shea Butter Industry (Third Draft). EnterpriseWorks, Jul 2004.

Lovett, Peter. Shea Today. Presentation for the Shea 2009 conference in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. USAID West Africa Trade Hub, Mar 2009.

Available: www.globalshea.org/presentations/SheaToday-PLovett.pdf

McKinsey & Co. Delivering the Breadbasket Strategy. Discussion Document. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, May 2010.

McKinsey & Co. Food Security Initiative: Ghana. Draft Discussion Document. USAID, Jul 2010.

McKinsey & Co. The Northern Region Breadbasket Strategy. Discussion Document for Roundtables at the World Bank. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, May 2010.

Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP II). Government of Ghana, Aug 2008.

Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Medium-Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (METASIP) 2009-2015. Government of Ghana, Aug 2009.

Ritchie, Anne. “Community-based Financial Organizations: A Solution to Access in Rural Areas?” Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 34. The World Bank, 2007.

Available: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB /2007/02/22/000310607_20070222111148/Rendered/PDF/387170Based0finance01PUBLIC1.pdf


Rutherford, Stuart. “The Poor and Their Money: An Essay about Financial Services for Poor People.” Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Institute for Development Policy and Management, Jan 1999.

Available: http://www.uncdf.org/mfdl/readings/PoorMoney.pdf

Sadat Adam, Mohammed-Anwar. The Policy of Land Access in Ghana and Its Impact on Women in the Shea Industry. Presentation for the Global Shea 2010 conference in Bamako, Mali. USAID West Africa Trade Hub, Mar 2010.

Spadoni, Randall. AFE-Mali Evaluation: Shea Kernel and Shea Butter Value Chain in Mali. SAIS, May 2006.

Stathacos, Charles. The Shea Butter Value Chain: U.S. Market Study. WATH Technical Report #4. USAID West Africa Trade Hub, Nov 2004.

Available: www.watradehub.com/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/aug09/420us20shea20butter20market20study2028c20stathacos29.pdf

TechnoServe. Increasing Food Security in Ghana’s Rural Savannah. Jul 2010.

TechnoServe. The Shea Opportunity in Ghana: Industry Strategic Plan. May 2010.

Topper, Clive, Peter Caligari, Mahmoud Camara, Souret Diaora, Akadie Djaha, Felix Coulibaly, AK Asante, Adomako Boamah, Akin Ayodele, and Patrick Adebola. West Africa Regional Cashew Survey: Volume 1. Sustainable Tree Crops Program, May 2001.

Available: www.africancashewalliance.com/images/ACA%20Library%20docs/West%20Africa%20Regional%20%20Survey%20on%20Cashew%20Production%20Part%20I%20-%20STCP%202001.pdf

Topper, Clive, Peter Caligari, Mahmoud Camara, Souret Diaora, Akadie Djaha, Felix Coulibaly, AK Asante, Adomako Boamah, Akin Ayodele, and Patrick Adebola. West Africa Regional Cashew Survey: Volume 2. Sustainable Tree Crops Program, May 2001.

Available: www.africancashewalliance.com/images/ACA%20Library%20docs/West%20Africa%20Regional%20Survey%20on%20Cashew%20Production%20Part%20II%20-%20STCP%202001.pdf

United States Government. Feed the Future Guide. May 2010.

Available: www.feedthefuture.gov/FTF_Guide.pdf


ANNEX C. INDIVIDUALS AND INSTITUTIONS CONSULTED

Abempingo Mothers Club Kandiga

Members

ACDI/VOCA Accra

Olaf Kula Program Manager, West Africa Regional Office

T: +233 21 520 231 M: +233 24 583 4026 [email protected]

Emmanuel Dormon Deputy Chief of Party


Michael Field Value Chain Advisor

M: +233 54 433 5460 [email protected]

ADVANCE Project Accra

Colleen Duncan Knowledge Management Specialist


African Cashew Alliance Accra

Christian Dahm Managing Director


Afumtuah Mothers Club Kandiga

Members

Akurugu Daboo A Mothers Club Kandiga

Members

Akurugu Daboo B Mothers Club Kandiga

Members

Amatevi Raoul Klutse Program Officer, Fertilizer Business Development


Abdou Konlambigue Program Officer, Market Access Program


Kehinde Makinde Program Officer, Agro Dealer Development


Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa Accra

Aboubacar Touré Program Officer, Crop Improvement and Variety Adoption


Anateem Widows Shea Butter Processing Group Tamale

Members


Atosale Mothers Club Kandiga

Members

Community Members Bawio Village Bawio

Irrigated Vegetable Producers

Dungu Tunteya Shea Butter Processing Group Tamale

Members

Independent Expert Brattleboro, VT

Steev Lynn West Africa Tree Crops Expert

T: +1 802 254 8832 [email protected]

Independent Expert Washington, DC

Brook Adam West Africa Cashew Expert


International Development Enterprises Accra

Bob Nanes Country Director, Ghana


International Development Enterprises Bolgatanga

Samuel Tetteh-Kamassah Program Manager


International Development Enterprises Edgewood, CO

Sue Drummond Haley Vice President, Africa

M: +44 7912359420 [email protected]

Yusif Babugu Business Development Officer


International Development Enterprises Navrongo

Reuben Jagri Binpori Business Development Officer


John Casey Program Manager, Sustainable Tree Crops Program


International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Accra

Richard Asare Agroforestry Advisory, Sustainable Tree Crops Program


Millennium Challenge Corporation Accra

R. Duke Burruss Market Analyst


Ministry of Agriculture Tamale

??? District Agriculture Director

Nature Conservation Research Centre Accra

John Mason President & Founder


Navio Village Community Members


Navio Irrigated Vegetable Producers

Northern Rural Growth Programme Tamale

G. A. Roy Ayariga National Programme Coordinator

M: +233 26 178 2000 [email protected] [email protected]

S. K. Nutsugah Director

T: +233 71 91205 M: +233 243 265 430 [email protected]

Savannah Agriculture Research Institute Tamale

I. D. K. Atokple Division Head, Scientific Support Group


Brent Habig Regional Director, West & Southern Africa


Nicholas Railston-Brown Country Director, Ghana


Samuel Baba Adongo Deputy Country Director, Ghana


TechnoServe Accra

Lubasha Heredia Intern / MBA Candidate


Ruth Wallace Project Manager


Samuel Adivila Business Development Advisor


Godwin Asaah Apo-ita Business Development Advisor


TechnoServe Bolgatanga

Steven

Brian Dusza Director, Economic Growth Office


John Mullenax Deputy Director, Economic Growth Office


Pearl Coleman Ackah Private Sector Specialist, Economic Growth Office


USAID/Ghana Accra

Juliana Pwamang Program Specialist, Health, Population & Nutrition Office



USAID/West Africa Accra

Matthew Burton Private Enterprise Officer


Nathan Van Dusen Deputy Chief of Party

[email protected] West Africa Trade Hub Accra

Roger Brou Business and Finance Director


West Africa Trade Hub Dakar

Megan Tweed Specialty Foods Advisor

[email protected]

assistance options for vulnerable households in ghana

Documents