TRIP REPORT

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

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.
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

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 3

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

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 4

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.
Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 5
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

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 6

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 Table 2. Vulnerability to Food Insecurity by

Ghana Region in Ghana

REGION NUMBER % REGION NUMBER %

Upper West Rural 175,000 34% Upper East Rural 163,000 20%
Upper East Rural 126,000 15% Northern Rural 275,000 17%
Northern Rural 152,000 10% Upper West Rural 69,000 13%
Ashanti Rural 162,000 7% Brong Ahafo Rural 152,000 11%
Eastern Rural 58,000 4% Ashanti Rural 218,000 10%
Urban (Other) 297,000 4% Eastern Rural 116,000 8%
Brong Ahafo Rural 47,000 3% Urban (Other) 572,000 8%
Volta Rural 44,000 3% Volta Rural 88,000 7%
Central Rural 39,000 3% Western Rural 93,000 6%
Urban (Accra) 69,000 2% Central Rural 56,000 5%
Western Rural 12,000 1% Urban (Accra) 158,000 4%
Greater Accra Rural 7,000 1% Greater Accra Rural 14,000 3%
Total 1,200,000 5% Total 2,007,000 9%
Source: CFSVA (2008) Source: CFSVA (2008)

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 7

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.

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%
Source: CFSVA (2008)

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.

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 8

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

% IN
% OF MEAN MEDIAN
POOREST
LIVELIHOOD HOUSE- ANNUAL ANNUAL
WEALTH
HOLDS INCOME INCOME
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)

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.

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 9

Figure 2. Sources of Food by Wealth Figure 3. Sources of Food by Livelihood Group
Quintile

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 4. Average Monthly Expenditures on Food and Figure 5. Food Expenditures by Wealth Group
Non-Food Items in Ghana and Urban/Rural in Ghana

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

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 10

household consumption – with food purchases Figure 6. Monthly Cash Flow for Farming
as a major expense – throughout the year. They Households in Northern Ghana
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. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Source: Author’s calculations using GLSS-5 data

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

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 11

  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.

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 12

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.

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 14

  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

UPGRADING UPGRADING USAID AVERAGE

OPPORTUNITY MARKET COST BENEFIT OUTREACH GENDER LEVERAGE ADVANTAGE SCORE

Cowpeas        
Shea        
Poultry        
Small Ruminants        
Vegetables        
Sesame        
Fruit        
Cashews        
Honey        
Timber        
Gum Arabic        
Essential Oils        
 = high |  = medium |  = low

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 15

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

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

BASELINE + CREDIT BASELINE + SAVINGS & CREDIT

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

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

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 16

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

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  Amounts saved are small
ROSCAs  Loans generally not suitable for
 More flexibility than agriculture or large
ROSCAs for people who investments, due to small loan
want loans size and risk
 Members receive a  Savings tied up for the cycle
return on their
investment

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)

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

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 17

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)

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 18

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.

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 19

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/aug09/22e20cashew20market20study20part20220ghana20mar20
08.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

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 20

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/aug09/120shea20value20chain20study20synthesis2028j20holtzm
an29.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

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 21

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/aug09/420us20shea20butter20market20study2028c20stathacos2
9.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%2
0Cashew%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%20Ca
shew%20Production%20Part%20II%20-%20STCP%202001.pdf

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

Available: www.feedthefuture.gov/FTF_Guide.pdf

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 22

ANNEX C. INDIVIDUALS AND INSTITUTIONS CONSULTED

Abempingo Mothers Club Members

Kandiga

ACDI/VOCA Olaf Kula T: +233 21 520 231

Accra Program Manager, West Africa Regional M: +233 24 583 4026
Office okula@ghana-acdivoca.org

ADVANCE Project Emmanuel Dormon T: +233 21 542 026

Accra Deputy Chief of Party M: +233 54 433 4090
edormon@acdivocaghana.org

Michael Field M: +233 54 433 5460

Value Chain Advisor mfield@acdivocaghana.org

Colleen Duncan T: +233 21 931 647

Knowledge Management Specialist M: +233 54 523 5535
colleenduncan@ewb.ca

African Cashew Alliance Christian Dahm T: +233 30 277 4762

Accra Managing Director M: +233 24 411 9587
cdahm@watradehub.com

Afumtuah Mothers Club Members

Kandiga

Akurugu Daboo A Mothers Club Members

Kandiga

Akurugu Daboo B Mothers Club Members

Kandiga

Alliance for a Green Revolution in Amatevi Raoul Klutse T: +233 21 740 674
Africa Program Officer, Fertilizer Business M: +233 54 433 5090
Accra Development rklutse@agra-alliance.org

Abdou Konlambigue T: +233 21 740 660

Program Officer, Market Access Program M: +233 24 433 6641
mkonlambigue@agra-
alliance.org

Kehinde Makinde T: +233 21 740 660

Program Officer, Agro Dealer M: +233 24 433 9334
Development kmakinde@agra-alliance.org

Aboubacar Touré T: +233 21 768 597

Program Officer, Crop Improvement and M: +233 24 433 9335
Variety Adoption rklutse@agra-alliance.org

Anateem Widows Shea Butter Members

Processing Group
Tamale

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 23

Atosale Mothers Club Members
Kandiga

Bawio Village Community Members

Bawio
Irrigated Vegetable Producers

Dungu Tunteya Shea Butter Members

Processing Group
Tamale

Independent Expert Steev Lynn T: +1 802 254 8832

Brattleboro, VT West Africa Tree Crops Expert sloths@sover.net

Independent Expert Brook Adam M: +1 202 286 8750

Washington, DC West Africa Cashew Expert brookadam@gmail.com

International Development Bob Nanes M: +233 24 082 0149

Enterprises Country Director, Ghana bnanes@ideorg.org
Accra

International Development Samuel Tetteh-Kamassah M: +233 20 725 4449

Enterprises Program Manager stetteh-kamassah@ideghana.org
Bolgatanga

International Development Sue Drummond Haley M: +44 7912359420

Enterprises Vice President, Africa sdrummondhaley@ideorg.org
Edgewood, CO

International Development Yusif Babugu M: +233 20 183 8343

Enterprises Business Development Officer yusalisco@yahoo.com
Navrongo
Reuben Jagri Binpori M: +233 24 203 2642
Business Development Officer br.jagri@yahoo.com

International Institute of Tropical John Casey T: +233 302 508 777

Agriculture Program Manager, Sustainable Tree M: +233 54 357 5147
Accra Crops Program j.casey@cgiar.org

Richard Asare T: +233 21 763 675

Agroforestry Advisory, Sustainable Tree M: +233 24 365 3504
Crops Program qra@life.ku.dk

Millennium Challenge Corporation R. Duke Burruss T: +1 703 801 8063

Accra Market Analyst duke.burruss@verizon.net

Ministry of Agriculture ???

Tamale District Agriculture Director

Nature Conservation Research John Mason T: +233 21 231 765

Centre President & Founder M: +233 26 469 7485
Accra jjmason999@yahoo.com

Navio Village Community Members

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 24

Navio Irrigated Vegetable Producers

Northern Rural Growth G. A. Roy Ayariga M: +233 26 178 2000

Programme National Programme Coordinator rayariga@yahoo.co.uk
Tamale ayarigaroy@gmail.com

Savannah Agriculture Research S. K. Nutsugah T: +233 71 91205

Institute Director M: +233 243 265 430
Tamale sknutsugah@hotmail.com

I. D. K. Atokple M: +233 24 956 1096

Division Head, Scientific Support Group idkatokple@yahoo.com

TechnoServe Brent Habig M: +233 24 431 5474

Accra Regional Director, West & Southern bhabig@tns.org
Africa

Nicholas Railston-Brown T: +233 21 763 675

Country Director, Ghana M: +233 24 432 4101
nrailstonbrown@tns.org

Samuel Baba Adongo T: +233 21 763 675

Deputy Country Director, Ghana M: +233 24 465 4651
badongo@tnsgh.org

Lubasha Heredia T: +1 857 445 7206

Intern / MBA Candidate lheredia@mba2011.hbs.edu

TechnoServe Ruth Wallace M: +233 24 421 7623

Bolgatanga Project Manager ruthe70@yahoo.com

Samuel Adivila M: +233 20 852 5256

Business Development Advisor samedvilla@yahoo.com

Godwin Asaah Apo-ita M: +233 20 742 8096

Business Development Advisor godwinapoitaasaah@yahoo.com

Steven

USAID/Ghana Brian Dusza T: +233 21 741 132

Accra Director, M: +233 24 431 3530
Economic Growth Office bdusza@usaid.gov

John Mullenax T: +233 21 741 403

Deputy Director, M: +233 24 431 3543
Economic Growth Office jmullenax@usaid.gov

Pearl Coleman Ackah T: +233 21 741 674

Private Sector Specialist, M: +233 24 433 1241
Economic Growth Office packah@usaid.gov

Juliana Pwamang T: +233 21 741 719

Program Specialist, jpwamang@usaid.gov
Health, Population & Nutrition Office

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 25

USAID/West Africa Matthew Burton T: +233 21 741 656
Accra Private Enterprise Officer M: +233 24 432 5972
mburton@usaid.gov

West Africa Trade Hub Nathan Van Dusen nvandusen@carana.com

Accra Deputy Chief of Party

Roger Brou T: +233 21 773 393

Business and Finance Director M: +233 24 431 9478
rbrou@watradehub.com

West Africa Trade Hub Megan Tweed mtweed@watradehub.com

Dakar Specialty Foods Advisor

Trip Report: Assistance Options for Vulnerable Households in Ghana 26