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

DISTRICT PROFILE CONTENT Wa Municipal is one of the districts in Ghana’s . It has a total land area of 579.86 square kilometers. The Wa Municipality shares administrative boundaries with 1. Cover Page District to the north, to the east and 2. USAID Project Data to the west and the south Wa- West District. The district has a total population of 116,642 out of which 57,656 are 3-5. Agricultural Data males and 58,986 females with an average household size of 6. Health, Nutrition and Sanitation 5.3 persons. The boxes below contain relevant economic indicators such as per capita expenditure and poverty preva- 7. USAID Presence lence for a better understanding of its development. 8. Demographic and Weather Data 9. Discussion Questions

Poverty Prevalence 14.8 % Daily per capita expenditure 4.81 USD Households with moderate or severe hunger 31.5% Household Size 5.3 members Poverty Depth 4.4% Total Population of the Poor 17,263

*Lowest Poverty rate in Upper West Region

400 USAID PROJECT DATA

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

Table 1: USAID Projects Info, Wa Municipal, 2014-2016 Beneficiaries Data 2014 2015 2016 The number of direct USAID beneficiaries* Direct Beneficiaries 459 5 78 1,536 increased almost four-fold from 2014 as Male 322 4 43 878 Table 1 shows, reaching a decent level only Female 130 1 35 658 in 2016. Four nucleus farmers are currently Undefined 7 operating in the district and only six Nucleus Farmers 4 4 n/a demonstration plots have been established Male 4 4 to support beneficiary training. See Info- Female graphic 1 for the demonstration plot disag- Undefined gregate. Small agricultural loans were facili- Demoplots 2 4 tated by USAID intervention as shown in Male 2 1 Table 1. Direct beneficiaries yields and Female gross margins for the district are also avail- Undefined 3 able in Table 1. The presence of USAID Production development work is below average, with a Maize Gross Margin USD/ha 875.9 below average number of beneficiaries, Maize Yield MT/ha 3.79 small number of demo plots and small Rice Gross Margin USD/ha 930.4 loans during 2014-2016. This resulted in a Rice Yield MT/ha 3.91 USAID presence score*** of 1 out of 4. In Soybean Gross Margin USD/ha 472.8 addition, the district is flagged BLUE**** Soybean Yield MT/ha 1.49 indicating that while the project presence Investment and Impact or intervention is low, the impact indicator Ag. Rural loans 93,882 3 57,124 values contradict each other. Find more USAID Projects Present 3 details on USAID Presence vs. Impact scor- Beneficiaries Score 1.0 1.0 1 .0 ing on page 7. Presence Score 2014-2016 1.0 District Flag 2014-2016 blue

Source: USAID Project Reporting, 2014-2015 The presence calculation Infographic 1: Demo Plots in Wa Municipal, 2014-2015 includes the number of direct beneficiaries and Agricultural Rural Loans. 37** 6*

Demo Plots

2 (Soyabean) 1(Rice) 4 (Maize)

Crop Rotaton, Crop Genetics. Premium Crop Genetics. Jasmine 85, Pan 12/13, Jenguma, Crop Rotation, Pest 64/15, 30F32, ST Maize, DT Maize, Hybrid Plouging, Harrowing, Transplanting, Control, Fertilization, Harrowing, Variety, Plouging, Harrowing, Planting in Nursery Mgmt, Fertilization, Pest Inoculation, Planting in Rows Rows, Fertilization, Pest control control, Urea Deep Placement

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 and contradicting values are explained in page 7 All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 401 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

Agricultural production in Wa Municipal is mainly con- cerned with the production of yam, which accounted for Figure 1: Share of Agricultural Production, by 69.8 percent of the total agricultural production during Commodity, in Wa Municipal, 2010-2015 Cowpea 2010-2015 . Wa Municipal is one of the main agricultural 3.1% Groundnut 10.3% producers in the Upper West Region and accounted for Maize only 17.9% of the regional production during 2015. 5.5% Millet 3.9% Rice Figure 2 contains gross margins for three commodities 0.4% Sorghum supported by USAID intervention in 2015 as well as the 3.5% district average captured by APS 2013. It is obvious that Soybean 2.7% the gross margin of beneficiaries is much higher than the Yam 69.8% Sweet district average value recorded in 2013. Potato 1.0% Yield data, presented in Figure 3, contain values of yields of these three commodities in 2015, 2014 and 2013 from Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2010- 2015, MOFA three sources: USAID beneficiaries, MOFA and Agricul- ture Production Survey. Again, the figure captures the Figure 2: Average Gross Margin* in Wa Municipal by superiority in yields of the direct beneficiaries in 2015 Commodity, USG Beneficiaries and district's average, compared to the other district averages captured by the 2013-2015, USD/ha 1,000.0 930.4 other sources. 875.9

800.0

600.0 472.8 400.0

203.6 200.0

- Maize Rice Soybean Maize Rice Soybean -41.3 -200.0 2015 2013

USG Beneficiaries District Average_APS

Source: Agriculture Project Reporting 2015, Agriculture Production Survey, 2013, Kansas State University Figure 3: Average Yields by Commodity in Wa Municipal, USG Beneficaries and district's average, 2013-2015, MT/ha 4.50 3.91 4.00 3.79 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.61 1.54 1.49 1.42 1.50 1.27 1.4 1.30 1.36 1.26 1.3 1.00 0.76 0.55 0.43 0.50 - Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice Maize Soybean Rice 2015 2014 2013 Source: Agriculture Production Reports 2011- 2015, MOFA, APS 2013, USG Beneficiaries Others-APS Others-MofA USAID Project reporting 2015

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 402 AGRICULTURAL DATA

This section contains agricultural data for Wa Municipal 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, Wa Municipal Commodity 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Total Cowpea 5 ,807 5 ,637 5 ,921 5 ,870 5 ,585 4 ,296 3 3,116 Groundnut 1 9,337 1 8,922 1 6,519 1 7,399 1 8,384 2 0,622 111,183 Maize 1 0,069 9 ,287 1 2,735 9 ,097 9 ,475 8 ,554 59,217 Millet 6 ,746 6 ,752 6 ,462 6 ,630 6 ,887 8 ,316 4 1,793 Rice 7 89 7 64 6 19 6 19 6 01 6 16 4 ,008 Sorghum 5 ,551 6 ,394 5 ,824 5 ,641 5 ,497 9 ,528 3 8,435 Soybean 4,082 4 ,238 4 ,038 4 ,538 5 ,676 6 ,440 2 9,012 Sweet Potato 1 1,070 1 1,070 Yam 1 47,808 1 39,590 1 30,638 1 19,146 110,465 1 09,177 756,824 Yields in MT/Ha 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Cowpea 1 .07 1 .04 1 .23 1 .29 1 .30 1.20 Groundnut 1 .10 1 .08 1 .03 1 .11 1 .20 1 .40 Maize 1 .54 1 .42 1 .61 1 .14 1 .25 1 .30 Millet 0 .98 0 .98 0 .97 1 .00 1 .04 1 .20 Rice 1 .40 1.36 1 .30 1 .29 1 .30 1 .40 Sorghum 0 .79 0 .92 0 .86 0 .88 0 .90 1 .20 Soybean 1 .27 1 .30 1 .26 1 .22 1 .20 1 .40 Sweet Potato 1 8.00 Yam 2 6.21 2 4.75 2 3.80 23.64 2 3.80 2 3.89 Source: Agriculture Report 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, MOFA.Values for 2010-2013 referr to Jirapa-

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

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

$ - $ -41.3 0.49 0.55 4% 87.9 172.0

$ - $ 0.41 0.76 34% 203.6 15.9 168.5

TOTAL $ - $ TOTAL 0.20 15.3 170.5 0.43 n/a 4.6 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 403 AGRICULTURAL DATA

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

What is the Women Empowerment Wa 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 providing input related to production decisions as sector growth and improved nutritional status. The indicated by 85.1% of the women of the survey sample. WEAI is comprised of two weighted sub-indexes: However, they have less control over the use of house- Domains Empowerment Index (5DE) and Gender Parity hold income than men– 42.1% of women vs 73.2% of the Index (GPI). The 5DE examines the five domains of male respondents. empowerment: production, resources, income, leader- Resource Domain: a thin majority of the women have ship and time. The GPI compares the empowerment of a right to asset ownership and to purchase and move women to the empowerment of their male counterpart assets– 67% and 64.1% respectively. These figures are lower than the figures for the male respondents. Only in the household. This section presents the results from 13.6% of the women have the right to decide or have these empowerment indicators of the 5DE for Wa access to credit, compared to 15.8% of the male respon- Municipal, part of a bigger survey conducted by Kansas dents. Nonetheless, access to credit is equally low for State University. both genders. Leadership Domain: 88.9% and 73% of the women The Domains: what do they represent? interviewed have the right to group membership and The Production domain assesses the ability of individuals public speaking respectively. Time Domain: A high majority of women and men in to provide input and autonomously make decisions Wa Municipal are satisfied with the workload in their about agricultural production. The Resources domain everyday life– 88.6% and 88.2% respectively. The values reflects individuals’ control over and access to produc- remain more or less the same with respect to satisfac- tive resources. The Income domain monitors individuals’ tion with leisure time; 86.5% of women and 95.6% of ability to direct the financial resources derived from men are satisfied with the amount of leisure time at their agricultural production or other sources. The Leadership disposal. domain reflects individuals’ social capital and comfort speaking in public within their community. The Time domain reflects individuals’ workload and satisfaction with leisure time.

Figure 4: Wa Municipal: Results on Domains of Empowerment of WEAI 2015, by gender, in % Adequacy & 120 98.7 99.3 96.6 Differences 100 92.9 89.9 84.8 85.2 84.5 80 73.3 70.9 63.9 60.1 Highest differences between male and female 60 52.9 39.7 39 39.2 respondents observed with production 40 23.326.7 domain: the control over use of household 20 income and resources domain: asset ownership. 0 Input in Control Over Asset Right to Access to and Group Public Satisfaction Satisfaction Adequacy: Together, men and women achieve Production Use of Ownership Purchase Sell Decission on Membership Speaking with with Leisure Decission Household and Transfer Credit Workload Time Income Assets adequacy in all indicators but control over use Production and Income Resources Domain Leadership Domain Time Domain of household income, access to and decision on Domain Women Man credit . In addition men achieve adequacy in asset ownership, right to purchase and sell Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University assets and public speaking, while women do not.

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 404 HEALTH, NUTRITION AND SANITATION

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

Infograph 3: Health and Nutrition Figures, Wa Municipal, 2015 Infograph 3 focuses on the health and nutrition of women and children in the district. Percentages and Children Stunting, absolute numbers are revealed in the respective 15.9%**, 2,280 circles for stunting, wasting, children and women

Only 60.1%,1 Children underweight as well as Women Dietary Diversity 9,221, women Underweight reach minimum 11.4%**, Score: The WDDS is based on nine food groups. A dietary diversity 1,635 woman’s score is based on the sum of different food groups consumed in the 24 hours prior to the inter- view. Women Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD-W) represents the proportion of women Wasting in Women Dietary Children, consuming a minimum of five food groups out of the Diversity Score, 16.7%**, 4.1** 2,394 possible ten food groups based on their dietary Women intake. The Dietary diversity score of women in Wa Underweight, 11.4%**, Municipal is 4.1, which means that women consume 3,646 on average 4 to 5 types of food out of 10. This is the Source: PBS, 2015, Kansas State University, METSS highest score in the Upper West Region. More than half of the women (60.1%) reach the minimum dietary diversity of 5 food groups. This value is also the highest in the Upper West Region.

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, Wa Municpal

Access to Electricity 87.2

Access to Solid Fuel 93.5

Persons Per Sleep Room 1.5

Improved Sanitation 16.5

Access to Improved Water Source 100.0

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

All data and information including full citations can be accessed at www.ghanalinks.org 405 PRESENCE VS. IMPACT MATRIX

This section provides an analysis of USAID presence vis-a-vis impact indicators in Wa 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 Dash- board focusing on Wa Municipal. Both key impact indicators, ‘prevalence of poverty’ and ‘per capita expenditure’, have decreased. See Figure 6 and 8.

In 2015, poverty decreased by 11.4 percentage points compared to 2012. In addition, the 2015 per capita expendi- ture decreased by 38.6 percent to 4.81 USD. This means that impact indicator values contradict each other (usual- ly when poverty decreases, per capita increases and vice versa). This is accompanied by a low USAID presence score of 1 out of 4. Therefore, the district is flagged BLUE (low presence and contradicting impact indicators). More investigation and research needs to be done to understand why the impact indicators give contradicting signals. That said, the 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 Wa Municipal and turn the district flag green.

Figure 6: Poverty in % and Poverty Change in percentage points, 2012,2015, USAID District Presence Score Wa Municipal Poverty Change 40.0% 0.0% s 16.70% t 2012-2015 i n

14.80% o

20.0% -11.4% p

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

WA MUNICIPAL c e r P

-20.0% e

P

LOW USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE n

i i n y

t -40.0% r e e g v a n o -60.0% h BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE P C

y

-80.0% t r e v

-100.0% o AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE P -120.0% -40.0% Poverty/ 2012 Poverty/2015 Poverty Change 2012-2015 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE

Figure 7: Population of Poor, Non-Poor Wa Municipal, 2015 HIGH USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE 140000

120000 r s e b

m 100000 u n

i n 80000 USAID District Presence Vs. Impact Flag n i o t 99,379 l a

u 60000 p o P BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND 40000

CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS 20000 17,263 0 ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND WA MUNICIPAL CONTRADICTING IMPACT INDICATORS Population Poor 2015 Population of NonPoor 2015

BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND Figure 8: Per Capita Expenditure in 2012 and 2015, in USD/day; Per Capita REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS Expenditure Change in percent, Wa Municipal

9 0% t

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND n e

y 7.83 USD -20% c a 8 r d e P

IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS

D / -40% n S

7 i

U e Per Capita Exp.

-60% g n i 6 Change a n BELOW AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND s e -80% h r

-38.6% 4.81 USD C

u 5 s t i e d IMPROVING IMPACT INDICATORS -100% r n u t

e 4 i p

-120% d x n E 3 e a p

ABOVE AVERAGE USAID DISTRICT PRESENCE AND t -140% x i E a p

2 a

-160% t C i REGRESSING IMPACT INDICATORS r e 1 a p P -180% C

r e

0 -200% P WA MUNICIPAL 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 406 DEMOGRAPHICS & WEATHER

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

Figure 9: Household composition by groupage, Wa Municipal, 2015 Wa Municipal has a total population of 116,642 out of Children 0 to 4 Adult Males 13% which 57,656 are males and 58,986 females with an 21% average household size of 5.3 persons. The total surface area of the district is 579.86 square kilometers.

Adult Females 28% The District lies in the tropical continental climacteric Children 5 to 17 zone. Average precipitation and temperature are similar 38% to the other districts in the Upper West Region. Figure Source: PBS 2015, Kansas State University 12 shows the average maximal and minimal tempera- tures as well as yearly average precipitation.

Wa Municipal, like many other districts in the Upper Figure 10: Religious Affiliation, Wa Municipal, 2010 West Region, has a relatively young population as shown Traditionalist No Religion 4.1% 0.6% in Figure 9, with more than 50% of the population falling Catholic in the age range: 0 to 17 years old. Others 19.0% 0.4% Protestant In terms of religious affiliation, the majority of the popu- 3.5% lation are Muslims (65.9%) followed by Christians, who Pentecostal/ Charismatic account for 29% of the population . For more details 5.0% refer to Figure 10. Other Christians Islam 1.5% 65.9% The district accounts for a low adult literacy rate with 75.7% of them having received no education. 6.6% went through primary school only while 17.70% made it Source: Wa Municipal Analytical Report, GSS, 2014 further to secondary school.

Figure 11: Education Attainment in Wa Municipal, Figure 12: Average Accumulated Precipitation in mm and Average 2015 Temperature in Celcius, in Wa Municipal, 2008-2015 700 36 614.5 580.4 588.4 Secondary Level 600 34 502.1 498.5 Education, 489.0 32 s u

500 i c m 427.9 l e

m 30

17.70% C n 400 i n

i

28 o e i t r a 300 u t t i

26 a p r i e c p Primary Level e 200

r 24 m P e

Education, 6.6% T 100 22

0 20 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 No Educaton, Accumulated Percipitation, in mm Average Max. Temperature Average Min. Temperature 75.7% 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 407 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

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

QUESTION I QUESTION 2

Why has poverty increased in Wa Municipal while Given Wa Municipal’s agricultural production, per capita expenditure has decreased? health and sanitation figures, as well as results from the presence vs impact matrix, where should USAID development work focus on in the next two years? What future development assis- tance would be helpful for Wa Municipal?

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 Wa Municipal 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 408