PRU Feed the Future Ghana District Profile Series - February 2017 - Issue 1 DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT Pru is one of the districts in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo Region. It shares boundaries with seven (7) other districts, namely East 1. Cover Page Gonja to the north (Northern Region), Sene East and West to the east, Nkoranza and Atebubu-Amantin to the south and 2. USAID Project Data Kintampo-North and South to the west, all in the Brong Ahafo 3-4. Agricultural Data Region. The district covers an area of 3220.7kmsq. The total 5. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation population of the district is 144,105 out of which 73,399 are 6. USAID Presence males and 70,706 females with an average household size of 6.3 persons. The boxes below contain relevant economic 7. Demographic and Weather Data indicators such as per capita expenditure and poverty preva- 8. Discussion Questions lence for a better understanding of its development. Poverty Prevalence 9.5% Daily per capita expenditure 5.42 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger 44.8% Household Size 6.3 members Poverty Depth 3.2% Total Population of the Poor 13,690 449 USAID PROJECT DATA This section contains data and information related to USAID sponsored interventions in Pru Table 1: USAID Projects Info, Pru, 2014-2016 There were no direct beneficiaries in Pru in Beneficiaries Data 2014 2015 2016 2014 while only three (3) were registered Direct Beneficiaries 0 3 457 Male 0 3 291 in 2015. The number increased in 2016 but Female 0 - 166 the figure is insignificant when compared to Undefined Nucleus Farmers 0 0 n/a other districts. No nucleus farmer is oper- Male ating in the district and only nine demon- Female Undefined stration plots have been established to Demoplots 0 9 n/a Male support beneficiary training. See Infograph- Female ic 1 for the demonstration plot disaggre- Undefined 9 Investment and Impact gate. No agricultural loans were facilitated Ag. Rural loans* by USAID intervention as shown in Table 1. USAID Projects Present 3 Beneficiaries Score 0 0 0 Direct beneficiaries yields and gross mar- Presence Score 0.0 gins for the district are not available for the Yellow District Flag district. According to our calculation Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014-2015 method, there is no USAID presence, though there are a few beneficiaries and a few demo plots registered during Infographic 1: Demo Plots in Pru, 2014-2015 2014-2016 as well as 3 USAID projects, which claim to be present in the district. 37** 9* This has resulted in a USAID presence score** of 0 out of 4. In addition, the Demo Plots district is flagged YELLOW*** indicating that while there is no project presence or intervention, the impact indicator values have improved as compared to 2012. Find more details on USAID Presence vs. Impact (Maize) 9 scoring on page 7. Crop Genetics, Ploughing, Harrowing, Planting in Rows, Fertilization, Pest The presence calculation control includes the number of direct beneficiaries and Agricultural Source:: USAID Project Reporting, 2014, 2015 Rural Loans. * “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 450 AGRICULTURAL DATA This section contains agricultural data for Pru such as production by commodity, gross margins and yields. Agricultural production in Pru is dominated by yam and Figure 1: Share of Agricultural Production by Commodity, Pru 2010-2015 cassava, which together constitute 98.6% of the district’s Cassava 42.0% production for the period 2010-2015. Pru accounted for Yam only 5.4% of the regional agricultural production in 2015. 56.0% Yield data, presented in Figure 2, contain values of yields Groundnut 0.6% Maize of the commodities produced in 2015 in Pru. Yam and Sweet Potato 1.3% 0.1% cassava account for much higher yields than maize and Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2010- 2015, MOFA the other products. Figure 2: Yields of Agricultural Commodities produced in Pru, 2015, MT/ha 20.0 18.6 18.0 16.9 16.0 Table 2 below provides detailed information on specific 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 commodities in respect of the overall annual production 6.0 4.0 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.1 in Pru as well as the average yields for the years - Cassava Groundnut Maize Rice Sweet Potato Yam 2010-2015. Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2015, MOFA Table 2: Agricultural Production and Yields in Pru, 2010-2015, in MT and MT/ha Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Total Cassava 1 87,967 1 87,300 1 85,778 1 53,929 1 50,495 1 71,574 1 ,037,043 Groundnut 2 ,673 3 ,342 3 ,219 2 ,416 2 ,279 2 ,100 1 6,029 Maize 4 ,604 5 ,264 5,574 5 ,469 5 ,253 5 ,244 3 1,408 Rice 2 17 2 28 2 03 1 91 1 78 1 87 1 ,204 Sweet Potato 1 ,400 1 ,400 Yam 2 36,500.6 2 35,670.0 2 29,519.0 2 25,900.0 2 13,831.0 2 40,300.0 1,381,720.6 Yields in MT/Ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Cassava 1 8.6 1 9.2 1 9.2 1 5.9 1 5.8 1 3.3 Groundnut 1 .1 1 .4 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 Maize 1 .7 1.7 1 .7 1 .8 1 .7 1 .9 Rice 1 .7 1 .8 1 .7 1 .7 1 .7 1 .7 Sweet Potato 1 8.9 Yam 1 6.9 1 6.9 1 8.0 1 8.0 1 7.8 1 8.0 Source: MOFA Agriculture Production Reports 2010-2015 All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 451 AGRICULTURAL DATA This section contains information on domains of empower- ment of Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index for Pru What is the Women Empowerment Pru 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 3. en’s empowerment is a main focus of Feed the Future in order to achieve its objectives of inclusive agriculture Production Domain: A majority of women feel com- fortable with providing input related to production sector growth and improved nutritional status. The decisions as indicated by 78.4% of the women of the WEAI is comprised of two weighted sub-indexes: survey sample. Both men and women claim to have little Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) and Gender Parity control over the use of household income – 58.6% of Index (GPI). The 5DE examines the five domains of women vs 60.9% of the male respondents. This raises the empowerment: production, resources, income, leader- question, who has the control if neither the man nor the ship and time. The GPI compares the empowerment of woman of the household does? women to the empowerment of their male counterpart Resource Domain: A majority of the women have a in the household. This section presents the results from right to asset ownership and to purchase and move these empowerment indicators of the 5DE for Pru, part assets– 71.8% and 58.7% respectively. Only 19% of the of a bigger survey conducted by Kansas State University. women have the right to decide or have access to credit, compared to 22.6% of the male respondents. Nonethe- The Domains: what do they represent? less, access to credit is almost equally low for both The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals genders. to provide input and autonomously make decisions Leadership Domain: 81.9% and 82.9% of the women about agricultural production. The Resources domain interviewed have the right to group membership and reflects individuals’ control over and access to produc- public speaking respectively. tive resources. The Income domain monitors individuals’ ability to direct the financial resources derived from Time Domain: A majority of women and men in Pru agricultural production or other sources. The Leadership are satisfied with the workload in their everyday life– domain reflects individuals’ social capital and comfort 87.6% and 78.8% respectively. The values drop with speaking in public within their community. The Time respect to satisfaction with leisure time; 50.8% of domain reflects individuals’ workload and satisfaction women and 50.% of men are satisfied with the amount of leisure time at their disposal. with leisure time. Figure 3: Results on domains of empowerment of the WEAI Index, Pru, Adequacy & 2015, in percent 120 Differences 98.4 100 84.7 87.6 83.3 81.9 82.9 Highest differences between male and 78.4 78.8 80 71.8 74.1 60.9 64.8 female respondents are observed within t n 58.6 58.7 e 60 50.8 c 50 r leadership domain: public speaking. e P 40 Adequacy: Together, men and women 19 22.6 20 achieve adequacy in all indicators but 0 control over use of household income, right 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 to purchase and sell assets, access to credit Decision Household and Transfer Credit Workload Time Income Assets and satisfaction with workload. In addition Production and Income Resources Domain Leadership Domain Time Domain men achieve adequacy in input in produc- Domain tion decision and asset ownership, while Women Men women do not.