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

DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT Bolgatanga Municipal is one of the districts in Ghana’s . It is bordered to the north by the 1. Cover Page , south and east by the and Districts, and to the west by the Kassena-Nan- 2. USAID Project Data kana Municipality. It covers a total land area of 729 3-5. Agricultural Data square kilometers and has a total population of 141,717 out of which 74,082 are females and 67,635 6. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation males. The average household size in the Municipal is 5 7. USAID Presence persons. The boxes below contain relevant economic indicators such as per capita expenditure and poverty 8. Demographic and Weather Data prevalence for a better understanding of its develop- 9. Discussion Questions ment.

Poverty Prevalence 14.7 % Daily per capita expenditure 5.31 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger* 41.3% Household Size 5 members Poverty7 Depth 5.6 % Total Population of the Poor 20,832

1 USAID PROJECT DATA

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

Table 1: USAID Projects Info, Bolgatanga Municipal, 2014-2016 The number of direct USAID beneficiaries* increased steadily and constantly during 2014 - 2016. Beneficiaries Data 2014 2015 2016 As can be observed in Figure 1, half of the Direct Beneficiaries 1,041 1 ,762 2 ,871 beneficiaries in Bolgatanga Municipal are females. Male 494 8 87 1 ,591 Only 1 nucleus farmer is currently operating in the Female 382 8 75 1 ,280 Undefined 165 Municipal and fourteen(14) demonstration plots Nucleus Farmers 11 1 have been established to support beneficiary Male 11 1 training. See Infographic 1 for the demonstration Female plot disaggregate. Decent agricultural loans were Demoplots 1 1 3 facilitated by USAID intervention as shown in Table Male 1 4 1. Direct beneficiaries yields and gross margins for Female 2 the district are also available in Table 1. The Unknown 7 Production presence of USAID development work is average, Maize Gross Margin USD/ha 7 93.9 represented by a decent number of beneficiaries, in Maize Yield MT/ha 3 .36 comparison to other districts, small number of Rice Gross Margin USD/ha 5 63.8 demo plots and a decent value of agricultural loans Rice Yield MT/ha 6 .37 during 2014-2016. This resulted in a USAID Investment and Impact presence score** of 2.3 out of 4. Despite this, the Ag. Rural loans 2 97,090 8 00,054 district is flagged RED*** indicating that while the USAID Projects Present 4 Beneficiaries Score 2 .0 2 .0 2 .0 project presence or intervention is average the Presence Score 2014-2016 2.3 impact indicator values have worsened as compared Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014-2015 District Flag 2014-2016 Red to 2012. Find more details on USAID Presence vs. Impact scoring on page 7. Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014-2016

The presence calculation includes the number of direct Infographic 1: Demo Plots in Bolgatanga Municipal, 2014-2015 beneficiaries and Agricultural Rural loans. 37** 14*

Demo Plots

1(Soyabean) 2(Rice) 11(Maize)

Crop Rotaton, Crop Genetics, Obatanpa Crop Genetics. Plouging, Harrowing, Crop Genetics, Afayak, Harrowing, Hybrid Maize Variety, DT Maize, Early Nursery MGmt, Transplating, Planting in Rows, Inoculation, Maturing, Plouging, Harrowing, Planting in Fertilization, Pest control Fertilization, Pest control Rows, Fertilization, Pest control

Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014, 2015

* Please note that the number of demoplots is smaller than the sum of separate plots by crop because crop rotation has been exercised in the same demo ** “Direct Beneficiary, an individual who comes in direct contact with a set of interventions” FTF Handbook, 2016 *** and **** More detail on presence score range and districtflag range can be found in page 8. All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 2 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

Agricultural production in Bolgatanga Municipal involves Figure 1: Share of Agricultural Production by Commodity in Bolgatanga Municipal, 2010-2015

Cowpea Sweet Potato 3% the production of several commodities with each 13% Groundnut Soybean 19% 1% produce contributing respectable shares to the total agricultural production during the period between Sorghum 16% Maize 12% 2010-2015 as can be observed in Figure 1. However, the

Millet contribution of Bolgatanga Municipal to the regional Rice 10% 26% agricultural production in 2015 was small, accounting for

Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2011- 2015, MOFA only 7.5% of the total production.

Figure 2: Gross Margins of USG Beneficiareis, in USD/ha, in 2015 900.0 793.9 800.0 Figure 2 contains gross margins for two commodities 700.0 600.0 563.8 500.0 supported by USAID intervention in 2015. These could 400.0 300.0 200.0 not be compared with APS values for the Municipal for 100.0 - Maize Rice the same commodities. 2015 Source: Agriculture Project Reporting 2015, Agriculture Production Survey, 2013, Kansas State University

Yield data, presented in Figure 3, contain values of yields Figure 3: Yields of USG Beneficaries and district's general, in MT/ha, Bolgatanga Municipal, 2014-2015 7.00 of these three commodities in 2015, 2014 and 2013 from 6.37 6.00

5.00 two sources: USAID beneficiaries, and MOFA. The figure 4.00 3.36

3.00 2.56 2.66 captures better yields of the direct beneficiaries in 2015 2.41 2.00 1.63 1.60 1.73

1.00 compared to the district average yields captured by the 0.32 0.34 0.3 - Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice 2015 2014 2013 other source. USG Beneficiareis Others-MoFA

Source: Agriculture Project Reporting 2015, Agriculture Report 2014, MoFA, Agriculture Production Survey, 2013, Kansas State University

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 3 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains agricultural data for Bolgatanga Munici- pal including production by commodity (MT/ha), yields (MT/ha) and average land size.

Table 2: Agricultural Production and Yields by commodity, in MT and MT/ha, 2010-2015, Bolgatanga Municipal Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Total Cowpea 304 309 397 789 1,472 3,800 7,071 Groundnut 4,601 5,110 4,458 11,520 8,177 6,084 39,951 Maize 3,391 3,330 3,675 5,130 5,954 3,300 24,780 Millet 3,590 3,583 2,979 2,560 4,404 5,220 22,336 Rice 7,723 6,978 8,390 14,013 3,917 13,520 54,540 Sorghum 5,714 6,297 5,077 4,224 4,464 8,364 34,141 Soybean 98 105 114 350 423 657 1,747 Sweet Potato 3,832 4,459 6,762 4,750 8,559 28,362 Yields in MT/Ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Cowpea 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.30 0.46 1.00 Groundnut 0.71 0.80 0.72 1.20 0.79 0.67 Maize 1.63 1.60 1.73 1.90 2.29 2.20 Millet 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.97 0.90 Rice 2.56 2.41 2.66 2.70 0.68 2.60 Sorghum 1.17 1.30 1.19 1.10 1.01 1.23 Soybean 0.32 0.34 0.30 0.50 0.46 0.98 Sweet Potato 8.71 9.25 9.80 5.00 8.23 Source: Agriculture Report 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, MOFA

Table 2 above provides detailed information on specific commodities in respect of the overall production output in Bolgatanga Municipal, as well as the average yields for the period 2010-2015. The infographic below shows a summary of agricultural statistics including average land size per farm, yields, variable costs per hectare and commodity, as well as farm revenue. Please note that Agriculture Production Survey 2016 is underway and this dataset will be reviewed very soon.

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 4 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section focuses on the Women Empowerment in Agricul- ture Index results for Bolgatanga Municipal

What is the Women Empowerment Bolgatanga Municipal Results in Agriculture Index? Women play a prominent role in agriculture. Yet they The results of both male and female respondents on the face persistent economic and social constraints. four domains are displayed in Figure 4. Women’s empowerment is a main focus of Feed the Production Domain: women feel comfortable with Future in order to achieve its objectives of inclusive providing input related to production decisions as agriculture sector growth and improved nutritional indicated by 70.9% of the women of the survey sample. status. The WEAI is comprised of two weighted However, they have much less control over the use of sub-indexes: Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) and household income than men– 50% of women vs 70.6% Gender Parity Index (GPI). The 5DE examines the five of the male respondents. domains of empowerment: production, resources, Resource Domain: A majority of the women have a income, leadership and time. The GPI compares the right to asset ownership while a thinner majority have empowerment of women to the empowerment of their the right to purchase and move assets– 77.7% and 58.9% male counterpart in the household. This section respectively. These figures are lower than that of the presents the results from these empowerment male respondents. Only 12.5% of the women have the indicators of the 5DE for Bolgatanga Municipal, part of a right to decide or have access to credit, compared to bigger survey conducted by Kansas State University. 12.2% of the male respondents. Nonetheless, access to The Domains: what do they represent? credit is almost equally low for both genders. The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals Leadership Domain: 74.1% and 85.7% of the women to provide input and autonomously make decisions interviewed have the right to group membership and about agricultural production. The Resources domain public speaking respectively. reflects individuals’ control over and access to Time Domain: A good majority of women in productive resources. The Income domain monitors Bolgatanga Municipal are satisfied with the workload in individuals’ ability to direct the financial resources their everyday life; 77.8% of women as compared to derived from agricultural production or other sources. 82.9% of men. The values decrease with respect to The Leadership domain reflects individuals’ social capital satisfaction with leisure time; only 52.5% of women and and comfort speaking in public within their community. 61.5% of men are satisfied with the amount of leisure The Time domain reflects individuals’ workload and time at their disposal. satisfaction with leisure time.

Figure 4: Results of Domains of Empowerment of WEAI Index for Bolgatanga Municipal, 2015, in percent Differences

120

98.1 100 88.2 85.7 82.9 Highest differences between male and female respon- 76.9 77.7 77.8 80 70.9 74.1 70.6 69.6 67.4 dents are observed within production domain: the 58.9 61.5 60 50 52.5 control over use of household income . 40 Adequacy: Together, men and women achieve adequacy

20 12.5 12.2 in all indicators but input on production decision, the

0 right to purchase and sell assets, access to and decision Input in Control Over Asset Right to Access to and Group Public Satisfaction Satisfaction Production Use of Ownership Purchase Sell Decision on Membership Speaking with with Leisure on credit, group membership and satisfaction with Decision Household and Transfer Credit Workload Time Income Assets workload. In addition men achieve adequacy in asset Production and Income Resources Domain Leadership Doman Time Domain Domain ownership and satisfaction with workload , while Women Man women do not.

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

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

Infograph 3: Health and Nutrition Figures, Bolgatanga, 2015 Infograph 3 focuses on the health and nutrition of women and children in the district. Percentages and Children Stunting, 15.2%, 2749 absolute numbers are revealed in the respective circles

Only 44.9%, 16,885, for stunting, wasting, children and women underweight women reach Children minimum Underweight dietary 12.5%, 2261 diversity as well as Women Dietary Diversity: The WDDS is based on nine food groups. A woman’s score is based on the

sum of different food groups consumed in the 24 hours Women Dietary Wasting in Diversity Score, Children, 3.6 prior to the interview. Women Minimum Dietary , 6.3%, 1140

Women Diversity (MDD-W) represents the proportion of Underweight, 1.4%, 527 women consuming a minimum of five food groups out of

Sources: PBS 2015, Kansas State University, 2015 the possible ten food groups based on their dietary intake. The Dietary diversity score of women in

Bolgatanga Municipal is 3.6, which means that women

Figure 5: Household Dwelling Characteristics, in consume on average 3 to 4 types of food out of 10. percent, Bolgatanga Municipal, 2015 Almost half of women (44.9%) reach the minimum

Access to Electricity 69.9 dietary diversity of 5 food groups. .

Access to Solid Fuel 88.1

Figure 5 displays specifics of household dwelling, Persons Per Sleep Room 2.2 evaluated based on sources of water, energy, waste

Improved Sanitation 41.7 disposal, cooking fuel source, and the number of people

Access to Improved per sleep room as measured from the PBS Survey, 2015. Water Source 98.8

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Bolgatanga Municipal accounts for the highest level of Percent access to electricity among all the districts in the Upper Sources: PBS 2015, Kansas State University, 2015 East Region.

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 6 PRESENCE VS. IMPACT MATRIX

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

Presence vs. Impact reveals in more detail the presence of the Feed the Future Implementing Partners in the field, in combination with impact indicators measured by the Population Based Survey in 2012 and 2015: per capita expenditure & prevalence of poverty. This combination aims to show relevance of the presence of key indicators measuring progress/regress in the area. The following graphs are a print screen of the Presence vs. Impact Dashboard focusing on Bolgatanga Municipal.

Both key impact indicators, ‘prevalence of poverty’ and ‘per capita expenditure’, have worsened in the Municipality. See Figure 6 and 8. In 2015, poverty increased by 172.2 percentage points to 14.7% compared to 2012, increasing the population of the poor to 20,832 persons. In addition, the 2015 per capita expenditure decreased by 12.5 percent to 5.31 USD. This is accompanied by an average USAID presence score of 2.3 out of 4. Therefore, the district is flagged RED (good project presence and intervention combined with worsening impact indicators). Bolgatanga is a Municipality in which things seem not to be going on well as poverty has increased and expenditure has decreased. The decent USAID project intervention as well as the high education level of the district have not been able to help to change this course of development

That said, the GOG and other donors interventions have not been captured in the calculation. Maybe a research should be undertaken to understand the backward progress in the Municipality and inform the realignment of interventions that will help to contribute to the improvement of the situation. Figure 6: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012, 2015, Bolgatanga Municipal USAID District Presence Score 40.0% 200.0% s Poverty Change t 5.40% 14.70% i n 20.0% o p 160.0% e 0.0% t a g t n

BOLGATANGA MUNICIPAL n NO USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE e e c

-20.0% c r 2012- 2015 120.0% r e e P 172.2%

P

n -40.0% i i n

y t LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 80.0% e r -60.0% g e v a n o h

P -80.0% C 40.0% y t BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE -100.0% r e v o

-120.0% 0.0% P AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Poverty/ 2012 Poverty/2015 Poverty Change 2012-2015

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Figure 7: Population of Poor, Non-Poor Bolgatanga Municipal, 2015

160000

HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 140000 r s

e 120000 b m

u 100000 n

i n

n 80000 120,885 i o

USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag t

l a 60000 u p o

P 40000

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 20000 20,832 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS 0 BOLGATANGA MUNICIPAL Population Poor 2015 Population of NonPoor 2015 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS Figure 8: Per Capita Expenditure in 2012 and 2015, in USD/day; Per Capita BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Expenditure Change in percent, Bolgatanga Municipal t n

REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS 6.2 0% e y c a

6.07 USD r d -20% e P

D / 6 Per Capita Exp. n i

-40%

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND U S

Change e

g n

i 5.8 -12.5% -60% a n s

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS h e r

-80% C

u 5.6 t s i e d

-100% r n u e BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND t 5.4 i p 5.31 USD

-120% d x n E IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS e p a -140%

t 5.2 x i E

a p -160% a t C i

5

r -180%

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND a p e P C

4.8 -200% r

REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS e

BOLGATANGA MUNICIPAL P PC Exp. 2012 PC Exp. 2015 PC/Change

Source: Figure 9,10,11 Population based Survey, 2012,2015, Kansas State University, METSS, USAID Project Reporting 2014, 2015

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 7 DEMOGRAPHICS & WEATHER

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

Figure 9: Household Composition by GroupAge, Bolgatanga Municipal has a total land area of 729 square Bolgatanga Municipal 2015 kilometers with a total population of 141,727 out of Children 0 to 4 14.0% Adult Males which 74,082 are females and 67,635 males. The average 26.0% household size in the Municipal is 5 persons.

The District lies in the tropical continental climacteric

Children 5 to 17 zone. Average precipitation and temperature are similar 32.0% to the other districts in the Upper East Region. Figure 12

Adult Females shows the average maximal and minimal temperatures as 28.0% well as yearly average precipitation.

Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University Bolgatanga, like many other districts in the Upper East Region has a relatively young population as shown in

Figure 10: Religious Affiliation, in Bolgatanga Figure 9, with 46% of the population falling in the age Municipal, 2010 range: 0 to 17 years old.

Others No Religion In terms of religious affiliation, the majority of the 0.3% 2.7%

Traditionalists population are Christians (57.6%) followed by 22.3% Traditionalists, who account for 22.3% of the population

Catholic and Muslims (17.1%). For more details refer to figure 10. 35.2%

The district accounts for an adult illiteracy rate of 51.4%. Islam 17.1% This is the lowest rate captured in the Upper East

Protestants Other Christians 5.3% Region and in the entire Savannah Ecological Zone. Penecostal/Chari 3.3% smatic 13.8% 14.4% of adults went through primary school only while

Source: Bolgatanga District Analytical Report, GSS, 2014 32.9% made it further to secondary school. This is again the highest value for the region. Figure 11: Educational Attainment in Bolgatanga Municipal, 2015 Figure 12: Average Precipitation in mm and Average Temperatures in Bolgatanga, 2008-2015

800 40 Secondary Level Education, 32.90% 700 35

600 30 s u i c l e m 500 25 n C i

n n i o i e

t 400 20 r

No Educaton, a u t t i a p i 51.4% r c 300 15 e r m e e P 200 10 T

100 5

0 0 Primary Level 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Education, 14.4% Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature

Source: awhere Weather Platform, AWhere, 2016 Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 8 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

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

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

Why does Bolgatanga have the lowest adult Why does Bolgatanga have the lowest adult illiteracy rate and at the same time be illiteracy rate and at the same time be characterized by a red flag as the impact characterized by a red flag as the impact indicators have worsened despite intervention in indicators have worsened despite intervention in the field being decent ? What is the reason behind the field being decent ? What is the reason behind these developments? these developments?

QUESTION 3

What other agricultural or nutrition focused development partner or GoG interventions have previously been implemented, are ongoing, and/or are in the pipeline that may impact Bolgatanga’s development?

The Feed the Future Ghana District Profile Series is produced for the USAID Office of Economic Growth in Ghana by the Monitoring, Evaluation and Technical Support Services (METSS) Project. The METSS Project is implemented through:

The information provided is not official U.S. government information and does not represent the views or positions of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Government.

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 9