PRU Feed the Future 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), and West to the east, and -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 35,670.0 229,519.0 225,900.0 213,831.0 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. Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 452 HEALTH, NUTRITION AND SANITATION

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

Infograph 2 focuses on the health and nutrition of women and children in the district. Percentages and absolute numbers are Infograph 3: Health and Nutrition Figures, Pru, 2015 revealed in the respective circles for stunting, wasting, children

Children and women underweight as well as Women Dietary Diversity Stunting, 37.5%**, Score: The WDDS is based on nine food groups. A woman’s Only 39.2%**, 8,224 13,226 of women reach Children score is based on the sum of different food groups consumed minimum Underweight dietary 18.1%**, diversity 3,969 in the 24 hours prior to the interview. Women Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD-W) represents the proportion of women consuming a minimum of five food groups out of the

Women Dietary Wasting in Diversity Score, Children, possible ten food groups based on their dietary intake. The 3.3** 6.9%**, 1,513 Dietary diversity score of women in Pru is 3.3, which means that women consume on average 3 to 4 types of food out of Women 10. Less than half of women (39.2%) reach the minimum Underweight, 9%**, 3,037 23m, dietary diversity of 5 food groups.

Sources: * from PBS 2015, Kansas State University, ** from Ring & Spring Survey, 2015 Figure 4 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 mea- sured from the PBS Survey, 2015.

Figure 4: Household dwelling Characteristics, Pru, 2015

Access to Electricity 40.6 %

Access to Solid Fuel 96.6 %

Persons Per Sleep Room 3.1 %

Improved Sanitation 41.5 %

Access to Improved Water Source 63.1 %

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 453 PRESENCE VS. IMPACT MATRIX

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

Presence vs. Impact reveals in more detail the presence of the Feed the Future Implementing Partners in the field, in combi- nation with impact indicators measured by the Population Based Survey in 2012 and 2015: per capita expenditure & preva- lence 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 Pru. One of the impact indicators ‘per capita expenditure’, has stagnated with an oscillation below +-5% from 2012 while the other indicator “preva- lence of poverty” has improved. See Figure 5 and 7. In 2015, poverty decreased by 29.6 percentage points. But the 2015 per capita expenditure decreased by 3.9 percent to 5.42 USD.

The drop in per capita expenditure, however, is insignificant and is considered as stagnation. Therefore, the decrease in poverty indicate economic progress of the area. This is accompanied by a USAID presence score of 0 out of 4. Therefore, the district is flagged light Yellow ( low presence and improving impact indicators represented mostly by only one indicator while the other has stagnated, hence light yellow). Pru is an area that has seen some improvement during the observed period even though this is not backed strongly by both indicators . On the other hand, there is no proper intervention in the district even though it is part of the Savannah Ecological Zone. Thus, intervention in the district will certainly contribute to the betterment of the district and help change the district flag from Yellow to Green.

USAID District Presence Score Figure 5: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012,2015, Pru

40.0% 0.0% s t

13.50% i n 20.0% 9.50% o p

NO USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE e a g t 0.0% t n n

e PRU e c c r

-20.0% r e e P

LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Poverty Change P

n i -40.0% 2012- 2015 i n

y t e r

-29.6% g e -60.0% v a n o h

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE P C

-80.0% y t r e

-100.0% v o

AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE P -120.0% -40.0% Poverty/ 2012 Poverty/2015 Poverty Change 2012-2015 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE Figure 6: Population of Poor, Non - Poor Pru, 2015 HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 160000

140000 r s e 120000 b m u

n 100000

i n

n 80000 130,415 i o USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag t l a

u 60000 p o P 40000

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 20000 13,690 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS 0 PRU ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Population Poor 2015 Population of NonPoor 2015 CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Figure 7: Per Capita Expenditures in 2012 and 2015, in USD/day; Per Capita REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS Expenditures Change in percent, Pru t n e

5.7 0% c y r a e d 5.64USD Per Capita Exp. -20% P ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 5.65 n D / i Change -40% e U S g

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS 5.6 -3.9% n i

-60% a n

h s e

5.55 C r -80% s u t e BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND i r

d 5.5 -100% u n t i e d

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS p -120% n

x 5.45

5.42USD e E -140% p a x t i 5.4 E a

a p -160%

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND t i C

5.35 a p r -180% e REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS C

P 5.3 -200% r e

PRU 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 454 DEMOGRAPHICS & WEATHER

This section contains facts and figures related to Pru demo- graphics, religious affiliation, literacy and weather indicators

Figure 8: Household Composition in Pru by groupage, Pru has a total population of 144,105 out of which 73,399 are 2015 Children 0 to 4 males and 70,706 are females with an average household size Adult Males 14% 22% of 6.3 persons.

The District lies in the tropical continental climacteric zone. Average precipitation and temperature are similar to the other districts in the Brong Ahafo Region. Figure 11 shows the

Adult Females Children 5 to 17 average maximal and minimal temperatures as well as yearly 26% 38% average precipitation. The large precipitation value in 2010 Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University was due to heavy rainfall and floods in the area during that year.

Figure 9: Religious Affiliation, Pru, 2010 Pru accounts for a relatively young population with 53% of the Other 0.3% No Religion population falling in the age range: 0 to 17 years old. For more Traditionalist 11.2% 12.6% details refer to Figure 8. Catholic 13.5% In terms of religious affiliation, the majority of the population Islam 21.7% are Christians (54.2%) followed by Muslims, who account for Protestant 14.4% 21.7% of the population and Traditionalists (12.6%). For more

Other Christians details refer to Figure 9. 6.6% Pentecostal/ Charismatic 19.7% The district accounts for a high adult illiteracy rate with 63.1% Source: Pru Analytical Report, GSS, 2014 of adults having received no education. 15.3% went through only primary school while 21.7% made it further to secondary school. These values are better than that of any of the districts in the Northern Region. Figure 10: Education Attainment in Pru, 2015

Secondary Level Education, 21.70% Figure 11:Average Yearly Precipitation in mm and Average Max. and Min Temperatures in Celsius, 2008-2015 9000 8,344.8 40 8000 35 s u i s m 7000 l

30 e m

C

n 6000 i

25 n i n

e o 5000 i r t

20 u a t t i

4000 a p r Primary Level i

15 e c p

e 3000

Education, 15.3% r m P 10 2000 e T 1000 716.7 622.3 597.4 555.3 536.9 438.2 583.6 5 No Educaton, 63.1% 0 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature Source: awhere Weather Platform, AWhere, 2016

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 455 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

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

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

Why is flag light Yellow? What needs What other agricultural or nutrition focused to be done to improve the impact indicators and development partner or GoG interventions have turn the flag from Yellow to Green? previously been implemented, are ongoing, and/or are in the pipeline that may impact Pru development?

QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4

Given Pru’s agricultural production, health and Why hava per capita per capita expenditures sanitation figures, as well as results from the pres- stagnated in Pru? Why is there so little being ence vs impact matrix, where should USAID done in this district with the calculated presence development work focus in the next two years? score being valued at 0? What future development assistance would be helpful for this district?

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 456