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

DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT Jirapa is one of the districts in Ghana’s . It has a total land area of 1,188.6 square kilometers. Jirapa District is bordered to the south by the -Kaleo District, 1. Cover Page to the north by the -Karni district, to the West by 2. USAID Project Data District and to the east by the . The district has a total population of 96,176 out of which 3-5. Agricultural Data 45,249 are males and 50,926 females with an average 6. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation household size of 5.9 persons. The boxes below contain relevant economic indicators such as per capita expenditure 7. USAID Presence and poverty prevalence for a better understanding of its development. 8. Demographic and Weather Data 9. Discussion Questions

Poverty Prevalence 33.1 % Daily per capita expenditure 3.91 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger 32.8% Household Size 5.9 members Poverty Depth 10.6 % Total Population of the Poor 31,834

*Highest Poverty rate in Upper West Region

332 USAID PROJECT DATA

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

Table 1: USAID Projects Info, Jirapa, 2014-2016 Beneficiaries Data 2014 2015 2016 The number of direct USAID beneficiaries* Direct Beneficiaries 1122 1 ,700 1 ,925 steadily increased during the observed Male 145 4 16 6 30 period as Table 1 shows. Three nucleus Female 977 1 ,284 1 ,295 farmers are currently operating in the Undefined district and only 10 demonstration plots Nucleus Farmers 0 3 n/a have been established to support beneficia- Male 3 ry training. See Infographic 1 for the Female demonstration plot disaggregate. Small Undefined agricultural loans were facilitated by USAID Demoplots 3 7 n/a intervention as shown in Table 1. Direct Male 2 3 beneficiaries yields and gross margins for Female 1 the district are also provided in Table 1. Undefined 1 3 The presence of USAID development work Production is almost average, with an average number Maize Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 5 70.9 n/a of beneficiaries, small number of demo Maize Yield MT/ha n/a 3 .18 n/a plots and small loans during 2014-2016. Rice Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 5 26.6 n/a This resulted in a USAID presence Rice Yield MT/ha n/a 2 .05 n/a score*** of 1.7 out of 4. In addition, the Soybean Gross Margin USD/ha n/a 5 86.6 n/a district is flagged GREEN**** indicating Soybean Yield MT/ha n/a 1 .56 n/a that while the project presence or inter- Investment & Impact vention is average, the impact indicator Ag. Rural loans 30,000 8 3,729 values have improved as compared to 2012. 4 USAID Projects Present . Find more details on USAID Presence vs. Beneficiaries Score 2.0 2 .0 1 .0 Impact scoring on page 7. Presence Score 2014-2016 1.7 District Flag 2014-2016 Green The presence calculation Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014-2015 includes the number of direct Infographic 1: Demo Plots in East Mamprusi, 2014-2015 beneficiaries and Agricultural Rural Loans. 37** 11*

Demo Plots

6 (Soyabean) 5(Maize)

Crop Rotaton, Crop Genetics, 30Y87, Crop Rotation, Jenguma, Soybean DT Maize, Early maturing Variety, TSP, Crop Rotaton, Crop Genetics, Plouging, Harrowing, Planting in Rows, Plouging, No Till, Harrowing Planting Fertilization, Pest control in Rows, Inoculation, 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 ****Presence and Flag Ranges are explained in page 7 All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 333 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

Agricultural production in Jirapa involves several com- Figure 1: Share of Agricultural Production, by modities; yam, groundnut, cowpea, maize, sorghum and Commodity, in Jirapa, 2010-2015 Cowpea others, which were produced during 2010-2015 as 12.8% shown in Figure 1. Jirapa is not one of the main agricul- Yam tural producers in Upper West. It contributed only 5.3% 28.7% to the regional production during 2015. Sweet Potato 0.1% Figure 2 contains gross margins for three commodities Groundnut supported by USAID intervention in 2015 as well as the Soybean 29.7% 0.3% district average captured by APS 2013. In the case of Sorghum maize, it is obvious that the gross margin of beneficiaries 10.7% was much higher than the district average value in 2013. Rice Maize 0.9% Yield data, presented in Figure 3, contain values of yields Millet 11.7% of these three commodities in 2015, 2014 and 2013 from 5.0% three sources: USAID beneficiaries, MOFA and Agricul- Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2011- 2015, MOFA, ture Production Survey. Again the figure captures the Values during 2010-2012 represent Jirapa-Lambussie superiority in yields of the direct beneficiaries in 2015 Figure 2: Average Gross Margin* in Jirapa by Commodity, USG Beneficiareis and district's average, 2013-2015 compared to the other district averages captured by the USD/ha other sources. 700.0 586.6 600.0 570.9 526.6 500.0

400.0

300.0 236.4 200.0

100.0

- Maize Rice Soybean Maize* Rice* Soybean*

2015 2013

USG Beneficiaries District Average_APS Figure 3: Average Yields by Commodity in Jirapa, USG Source: Agriculture Project Reporting 2015, Agriculture Production Survey, 2013 Beneficaries and district's average, 2013-2015, MT/ha

3.50 3.18 3.00

2.50 2.05 1.84 2.00 1.70 1.79 1.56 1.07 1.50 1.04 1.02 1.00 0.63 0.65 0.58 0.52 0.54 0.50 0.31

- Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice Maize* Soybean* Rice* 2015 2014 2013

USG Beneficiaries Others-APS Others-MofA Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2011- 2015, MOFA, APS 2013, Usaid Project reporting 2015

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 334 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains agricultural data for Jirapa 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, 2012-2015, Jirapa Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Total Cowpea 7,113 6,905 6,999 7,310 11,960 20,696 60,983 Groundnut 18,945 18,538 16,250 17,512 27,716 42,990 141,951 Maize 7,594 7,004 7,915 10,404 7,420 15,708 56,045 Millet 3,299 3,302 2,899 3,313 5,502 5,724 24,039 Rice 767 743 666 714 1,095 338 4,323 Sorghum 5,801 6,683 6,021 6,245 9,613 16,492 50,855 Soybean 150 156 98 111 239 616 1,370 Sweet Potato 620 620 Yam 15,090 14,251 12,197 11,828 17,850 65,747 136,962 Yields in MT/Ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Cowpea 0.81 0.79 0.85 1.02 1.00 1.05 Groundnut 1.26 1.24 1.20 1.35 1.30 1.50 Maize 1.84 1.70 1.79 2.00 1.00 1.40 Millet 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.40 0.60 Rice 1.07 1.04 1.02 1.04 1.00 1.35 Sorghum 0.48 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.54 0.70 Soybean 0.63 0.65 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.81 Sweet Potato 12.92 Yam 17.34 16.38 14.40 14.25 14.00 13.90 Source: Agriculture Report 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, MOFA.Values for 2010-2013 referr to Jirapa-Lambussie

Table 2 above provides detailed information on specific commodities in respect of overall annual production in Jirapa as well as the average yields for the years 2012-2015. The infographic below shows a summary of agricultural statistics for Jirapa, as captured in the Agriculture Production Survey, 2013.

Infographic 2: Average Land size, Yields, Sales and other Farm indicators in Jirapa, 2013

$ - $ 236.4 0.69 0.52 14% 102.1 89.3

TOTAL $ - $ TOTAL 0.37 0.58 247.9 40.1 306.1 TOTAL 0.40 142.2 0.31 Average Land Size, ha Yield, MT/ha Sales, % Gross Margin*, USD/ha Variable Costs*, USD/farm Revenue in USD/farm

Source: Agriculture Production Survey, Kansas State University, 2013 *Gross margin, variable cost and farm revenue captured from the APS in infographic 2 have been converted to USD using 2012 exchange rates (1.88 GHC to $1 USD) to align with the ‘farmer recall’ survey methodology deployed. All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 335 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains information on domains of empower- ment of Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index for Jirapa

What is the Women Empowerment Jirapa 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. Wom- four domains are displayed in Figure 4. en’s empowerment is a main focus of Feed the Future in order to achieve its objectives of inclusive agriculture Production Domain: women feel comfortable with sector growth and improved nutritional status. The providing input related to production decisions as WEAI is comprised of two weighted sub-indexes: indicated by 79.8% of the women of the survey sample. Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) and Gender Parity However, they have less control over the use of house- Index (GPI). The 5DE examines the five domains of hold income than men– 55.4% of women vs 80.2% of the empowerment: production, resources, income, leader- male respondents. ship and time. The GPI compares the empowerment of Resource Domain: a majority of the women have a women to the empowerment of their male counterpart right to asset ownership and to purchase and move in the household. This section presents the results from assets- 77.5% and 78.3% respectively. These figures are these empowerment indicators of the 5DE for Jirapa, slightly lower than the figures of the male respondents. part of a bigger survey conducted by Kansas State Only 16.8% of the women have the right to decide or University. have access to credit, compared to 16.2% of the male respondents. Nonetheless, access to credit is equally low The Domains: what do they represent? for both genders. The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals Leadership Domain: 82.8% and 76.5% 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 produc- Time Domain: A thin majority of women and men in tive resources. The Income domain monitors individuals’ Jirapa are satisfied with the workload in their everyday ability to direct the financial resources derived from life– 56.8% and 66.7% respectively. The values remain agricultural production or other sources. The Leadership more or less the same with respect to satisfaction with domain reflects individuals’ social capital and comfort leisure time; 66.7% of women and 64.7% of men are speaking in public within their community. The Time satisfied with the amount of leisure time at their disposal. domain reflects individuals’ workload and satisfaction with leisure time. Adequacy & Figure 4: Results of Domains of Empowerment from WEAI 2015, in Differences percent, Jirapa, 2015 95.1 93.6 100 89.7 88 90 82.8 Highest differences between male and female 79.8 80.2 77.5 78.3 76.5 80 72.9 69.6 66.7 70 64.7 respondents observed with production domain: 56.8 60 55.4 50 the control over use of household income. 40 30 16.8 Adequacy: Together, men and women achieve 20 16.2 10 adequacy in all indicators but access to and 0 Input in Control Over Asset Right to Access to and Group Public Satisfaction Satisfaction decision on credit and satisfaction with workload Production Use of Ownership Purchase Sell Decision on Membership Speaking with with Leisure Decision Household and Transfer Credit Workload Time and leisure time. In addition men achieve adequa- Income Assets cy in input in production decision, control over Production and Income Resources Domain Leadership Domain Time Domain Domain use of household income, asset ownership, right Women Men to purchase and sell assets and public, while Source: PBS, 2015, Kansas State University, METSS women do not.

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 336 HEALTH, NUTRITION AND SANITATION

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

Infograph 3: Health and Nutrition Figures, Jirapa, 2015 Infograph 3 focuses on the health and nutrition of women and children in the district. Percentages and Children Stunting, 21.5%**, absolute numbers are revealed in the respective 2,904 circles for stunting, wasting, children and women Only 42.9%, Children 9,616, women Underweight underweight as well as Women Dietary Diversity reach minimum 16.4%**, dietary diversity 2,215 Score: 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 prior to the inter- Wasting in view. Women Minimum Dietary Diversity Children, Women Dietary 6.6%**, Diversity Score, 891 (MDD-W) represents the proportion of women 3.4** consuming a minimum of five food groups out of the Women possible ten food groups based on their dietary Underweight, 12.6%** 2,824 intake. The Dietary diversity score of women in Jirapa is 3.4, which means that women consume on Sources: * from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, average 3 to 4 types of food out of 10. Almost half ** from Ring & Spring Survey, 2015 of women (42.9%) reach the minimum dietary diversity of 5 food groups.

Figure 5 displays specifics of household dwelling, evaluated based on sources of water, energy, waste disposal, cooking fuel source, and the number of people per sleep room as measured from the PBS Survey, 2015.

Figure 5: Household dwelling Characteristics, Jirapa, 2015

Access to Electricity 92.2

Access to Solid Fuel 95.0

Persons Per Sleep Room 2.1

Improved Sanitation 10.6

Access to Improved Water Source 100.0

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Percent Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University, 2015

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 337 PRESENCE VS. IMPACT MATRIX

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

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 expendi- ture & 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 Jirapa. Both key impact indicators, ‘prevalence of poverty’ and ‘per capita expenditure’, have improved. See Figure 6 and 8.

In 2015, poverty decreased by 30.5 percentage points to 33.1% compared to 2012. In addition, the 2015 per capita expenditure increased by 85.3 percent to 3.91 USD. This is accompanied by an almost average USAID presence score of 1.7 out of 4. Therefore, the district is flagged GREEN (average or above presence and improving impact indicators).

Jirapa is a typical district in which clear signs of improvement are to be observed accompanied by decent intervention from USAID. That said, GOG or other donors interventions were not captured in the calculation. Further thought should go into methods that would give a further push to the existing development pace in Jirapa while keeping the district flag green.

Figure 6: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012,2015, USAID District Presence Score Jirapa s t

47.60% i n 60.0% 0.0% o p

40.0% 33.10% e a g t

NO USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE n e t 20.0% c n r e e c P r 0.0%

e JIRAPA i n P

-20.0% e LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE n Poverty Change i g y

t 2012-2015 a n

r -40.0% h e -30.5% v C

o

-60.0% y t P

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE r e

-80.0% v o -100.0% P AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE -120.0% -40.0% Poverty/ 2012 Poverty/2015 Poverty Change 2012-2015 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Figure 7: Population of Poor, Non-Poor Jirapa, 2015 HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 120000 r s

e 100000 b m u n

80000 i n

n

i o 64,342 t 60000

USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag l a u p o

P 40000

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 20000 31,834 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS 0 JIRAPA ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Population Poor 2015 Population of NonPoor 2015 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, Jirapa Per Capita Exp. t

REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS Change n e y c a 85.3% r d 4.5 100% e P

D / 80%

3.91USD n 4 i ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 60% U S e

g

n 40% i 3.5

a n

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS s 20% h e r 3 0% C

u t s i -20% e d 2.5 r n -40% u

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 2.11USD t e i p

-60% d

x 2 n E IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS -80% e p a t

-100% x

i 1.5 E

a p -120% a t

1 i C

-140%

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND r a p e 0.5 -160% P C -180% r

REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS -200% e

0 P JIRAPA 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 338 DEMOGRAPHICS & WEATHER

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

Figure 9: Household composition by groupage, Jirapa, 2015 Jirapa has a total population of 96,176 out of which Children 0 to 4 Adult Males 16.9% 45,249 are males and 50,926 females with an average 22.0% household size of 5.9 persons. The total surface area of the district is 1,188.6 square kilometers.

Adult Females Children 5 to 17 25.4% 35.6% The District lies in the tropical continental climacteric zone. Average precipitation and temperature are similar to the other districts in the Upper West Region. Figure 12 shows the average maximal and minimal tempera-

Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University tures as well as yearly average precipitation.

Jirapa, like many other districts in the Upper West Region has a relatively young population as shown in Figure 10: Religious Affiliation, Jirapa, 2010 Figure 9, with more than 50% of the population falling in No Religion the age range: 0 to 17 years old. Traditionalist 4.8% 18.8% Others In terms of religious affiliation, the majority of the popu- 0.1% lation are Christians (65.9%) followed by Traditionalists, Islam 10.4% who represent 18.8% of the population and Muslims Other Christians (10.4%). For more details refer to figure 10. 0.2% Catholic Pentecostal/ 62.2% Charismatic 2.3% The district accounts for a low adult literacy rate with 75% of them having received no education. Only 7.8% Protestant 1.2% went through primary school while 17.10% made it further to secondary school.

Source: Jirapa Analytical Report, GSS, 2014

Figure 12: Average Accumulated Precipitation in mm and Average Temperature in Celcius, in Jirapa, 2008-2015

Figure 11: Education Attainment in Jirapa, 2015 700 36 601.9 600 569.1 34 526.9 Secondary Level 496.0 504.6 32 s

472.0 465.3 u 500 460.3 i c

Education, m l e

m 30

C n 400 17.10% i n

i

28 o e i t r a

300 u t t i

26 a p r i e c p e 200

Primary Level r 24 m P e Education, 7.8% 100 22 T

0 20 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 No Educaton, Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature 75.0% Source: awhere Weather Platform, AWhere, 2016

Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State university

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 339 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

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

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

Why does Jirapa has the highest poverty rate in What other agricultural or nutrition focused Upper West ? development partner or GoG interventions have previously been implemented, are ongoing, and/or are in the pipeline that may impact Jirapa development?

QUESTION 3

Given Jirapa’s agricultural production, health and sanitation figures, as well as results from the pres- ence vs impact matrix, where should USAID development work focus on in the next two years? What future development assistance would be helpful for Jirapa?

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 340