GHANA : LIVELIHOOD ZONES ANALYSIS

Improved livelihoods for smallholder farmers

LIVELIHOOD ZONES ANALYSIS A tool for planning agricultural water management investments

Ghana

Prepared by Prof. Saa Dittoh in consultation with FAO, 2010

About this report The AgWater Solutions Project aimed at designing agricultural water management (AWM) strategies for smallholder farmers in sub Saharan Africa and in India. The project was managed by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and operated jointly with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI) and International Development Enterprise (IDE). It was implemented in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania, Zambia and in the States of Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal in India.

Several studies have highlighted the potential of AWM for poverty alleviation. In practice, however, adoption rates of AWM solutions remain low, and where adoption has taken place locally, programmes aimed at disseminating these solutions often remain a challenge. The overall goal of the project was to stimulate and support successful pro-poor, gender-equitable AWM investments, policies and implementation strategies through concrete, evidence-based knowledge and decision-making tools.

The project has examined AWM interventions at the farm, community, watershed, and national levels.

It has analyzed opportunities and constraints of a number of small-scale AWM interventions in several pilot research sites across the different project countries, and assessed their potential in different agro-climatic, socio-economic and political contexts.

This report was prepared as part of the efforts to assess the potential for AWM solutions at national level. The livelihood zones analysis divides the country in a series of areas where rural people share relatively homogeneous living conditions on the basis of a combination of biophysical and socio-economic determinants. It describes the main sources of livelihood of rural populations (by category of people), their natural resources base, potential and key constraints to development. It analyses the relation between people and water and helps understanding to what extent and how water can be a factor for development.

Contents ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................... III 1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.

METHODOLOGY OF ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................ 1 2.1 LIVELIHOOD ZONES MAPPING ............................................................................................................. 2 2.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 2 2.3 IDENTIFICATION OF AWM INVESTMENT POTENTIALS .............................................................................. 2

3.

RESULTS OF LIVELIHOOD MAPPING EXERCISE AND DESCRIPTION OF LIVELIHOOD ZONES ............. 2 3.1 RESULTS OF LIVELIHOOD MAPPING EXERCISE ......................................................................................... 2 3.2 DESCRIPTION AND ARABLE CROP PROFILING OF LIVELIHOOD ZONES............................................................ 3 Population and land area .................................................................................................................... 3 Characteristics of Livelihood Zones and Major Food Crops Produced in the Zones ............................ 7 3.3 TREE CROPS IN LIVELIHOOD ZONES ..................................................................................................... 17 3.4 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IN LIVELIHOOD ZONES .................................................................................... 18 3.5 FISH PRODUCTION IN LIVELIHOOD ZONES ............................................................................................ 21

4.

AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT (AWM) INVESTMENT POTENTIALS ................................ 22 4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS ..................................................... 22 4.2 AWM INVESTMENT POTENTIALS IN LIVELIHOOD ZONES......................................................................... 23 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 26 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................. 27 ANNEX 1 – DISTRICTS AND PARTS OF DISTRICTS THAT CONSTITUTE LIVELIHOOD ZONES...................... 27 ANNEX 2 – GHANA LIVELIHOODS MAP (ATTACHED) .................................................................................. 29 ANNEX 3 – GHANA LIVELIHOODS MAP SUPERIMPOSED ON DISTRICTS’ MAP (ATTACHED)....................... 30 ANNEX 4 – LIVELIHOOD MAPPING WORKSHOP REPORT....................................................................... 31 1. Activities leading to livelihoods mapping................................................................................... 31 2. The livelihood mapping exercise ................................................................................................ 31 3. Working groups discussions on ‘Promising AWM Solutions in the Different Livelihood Zones’. 34 ANNEX 5 – LIVELIHOOD ZONES ATTRIBUTES TABLE – NENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ....................................... 46 ANNEX 6 – LIVELIHOOD ZONES ATTRIBUTES TABLE – NOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 1 ......................... 47 ANNEX 7 – LIVELIHOOD ZONES ATTRIBUTES TABLE – NOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 2 ......................... 49 ANNEX 8 – LIVELIHOOD ZONES ATTRIBUTES TABLE – N ATER‐RELATED CHARACTERISTICS............................ 51

List of Figures 1.

Estimated 2010 Population Distribution by Livelihood Zone 2.

3.

4.

Land Area by Livelihood Zone Land Area by Livelihood Zone (%) Population Density by Livelihood Zone

5.

6.

7.

Estimated 2010 Rural Population Distribution by Livelihood Zone Estimated Percentage Rural Population by Livelihood Zone – 2010 Production of Major Crops in North‐West Livelihood Zone 1 ‐ 2008 and 2009

8.

9.

10.

Production of Major Crops in North‐East Livelihood Zone 2 ‐ 2008 and 2009 Production of Major Crops in North‐Central Livelihood Zone 3 ‐ 2008 and 2009 Production of Major Crops in North Eastern Corridor and Upper Volta Livelihood Zone 4

11.

12.

– 2008 and 2009 Production of Major Crops in Northern Eastern Corridor (Zone 4 without Nkwanta District) Production of Major Crops in Volta Lake Livelihood Zone 5 – 2008 and 2009

13.

14.

15.

Production of Major Crops in Upper Middle‐Belt Livelihood Zone 6 – 2008 and 2009 Production of Major 14 Crops in the Middle Volta Livelihood Zone 7 ‐ 2008 and 2009 Production of Major Crops in Central Middle‐Belt, Livelihood Zone 8 –

16.

17.

2008 and 2009 Production of Crops in Lower Middle‐Belt Livelihood Zone 9 – 2008 and 2009 Production of Major Crops in Inland Greater Accra Livelihood Zone 10 ‐ 2008 and 2009

18.

Production of Major Crops in the Greater Accra Section of Zone 10 (to show the importance of vegetable crops in the subzone)

19.

20.

21.

Production of Major Crops in the Lower Volta Section of Zone 10 Production of Major Crops in the High Forest Livelihood Zone 11 ‐ 2008 and 2009 Production of Major Crops in Coastal Belt Livelihood Zone (Zone 12) ‐ 2008 and 2009

22.

23.

Cocoa Production by Livelihood Zone ‐ 2008 and 2009 Palm Nuts (Oil Palm) Production in Livelihoods Zones ‐ 2008 and 2009

24.

25.

26.

Shea Nuts Production by Livelihood Zone ‐ 2008 and 2009 Estimated Cattle Population by Livelihood Zone ‐ 2008 and 2009 Estimated Sheep and Goats Population by Livelihood Zone

27.

28.

29.

Pig Population by Livelihood Zone ‐ 2008 and 2009 Estimated Commercial Chicken Production by Livelihood Zone Estimated Local Chicken Population by Livelihood Zone

30.

31.

Estimated Guinea Fowl Population by Livelihood Zone ‐ 2008 and 2009 Inland and Marine Fish Production by Livelihood Zone

List of Tables Table 1 – Estimated population in 2010 Table 2: Categorization of AWM Investment Potential Systems Table 3 – Overall assessment of suitability of AWM investments in the various livelihood zones

ii

Abbreviations and acronyms AMG

African market garden

AWM

Agricultural Water Management

BMGF

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GIDA

Ghana Irrigation Development Authority

GLS

Ghana Living Standards Survey

GSS

Ghana Statistical Service

IFPRI

International Food Policy Research Institute

IWMI

International Water Management Institute

KNUST

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology

MOFA

Ministry of Food and Agriculture

NGO

Non‐governmental organization

PPMED

Projects Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Department

SEI

Stockholm Environment Institute

SRID

Statistics, Research and Information Department

UDS

University for Development Studies

UG

University of Ghana

iii

1.

INTRODUCTION

The goal of the AWM Solutions Project is “to help unlock the potential of smallholder farming by focusing on agricultural water management (AWM)”. This will be done by ‘stimulating pro‐poor, gender‐equitable AWM investments, policy and implementation strategies through concrete, evidence‐based knowledge and decision‐ making tools’. To obtain concrete, evidence‐based knowledge for the purpose of stimulating development, there is a need to focus on the potentials of varied groups of people in varied locations, the opportunities open to them and the constraints they face, hence the need to undertake livelihood mapping analysis. A good understanding of people’s existing varied livelihood sources is key to developing appropriate programmes that meet their expectations. It is appropriate to begin with what one has and what one can do to be able to successfully move to where one wants to go.

The term ‘livelihood’ refers to resources required by a person, household or a group of people to sustain life.

People derive their livelihood s from various sources. In Ghana the main sources include the exploitation of natural resources, particularly agricultural production. Indeed it may be claimed that in Ghana the only source of livelihood for the rural poor, which includes a large majority of women, is agricultural production. Livelihood mapping and analysis in this present document has focused on agricultural production in the various locations. The terms of reference limit the current analysis to livelihood mapping (or zoning) and livelihood profiling of the zones. It does not include a livelihood baseline assessment.

Ghana’s irrigation policy clearly stresses the importance of irrigation to ensure food security and poverty reduction. It states that: “the major way of using water to reduce poverty is through the development of irrigation” (GIDA, 2010). It also identifies small‐, medium‐ and large‐scale irrigation projects as well as public and private systems as being important and necessary. There is thus required to clearly identify the type of water management system most suitable for a particular location in the country and the time. The AWM Solutions Project states that smallholder agricultural water management is a promising option to improve the food security of local people and its focus has been on micro‐agricultural water management (AWM), that is, low cost technologies to capture, store and use water. Livelihoods mapping makes it possible to identify the type of water management technologies that fit which type of livelihood zones and areas with high AWM investment potentials.

As indicated by Santini (2010), well‐targeted interventions for water have significant potential to contribute to rapid improvements in the livelihoods of the rural people in Ghana.

The objective of a livelihood mapping or zoning is to delineate coherent areas where people share broadly similar livelihood patterns – methods of food and other agricultural production, methods of securing other incomes, market systems, food consumption or preference habits, poverty levels, etc. In doing so, the delineated areas typically fall into biophysical (agro‐climatic) and socio‐economic (poverty/wealth) zones. Livelihood zoning thus creates an economic‐geographical map that shows the varied contexts in which livelihoods are pursued. Usually livelihood zones do not exactly aligne with administrative or political boundaries. Often, however, livelihood zone maps are superimposed upon administrative maps so that the populations within the zones can be easily identified.

2.

METHODOLOGY OF ASSIGNMENT The main tasks undertaken were: a) Mapping of livelihood zones (during a workshop involving local experts). b) Collection, compilation and analysis of data sets for the purpose of describing and profiling each of the livelihood zones. c) Identifying and discussing AWM investment potentials in the different livelihood zones based on input by workshop participants and analysis of data compiled.

1

2.1

Livelihood zones mapping

The livelihood mapping process was undertaken during a three‐day workshop to which experts from different subject areas were invited (see list of contributors to the livelihood mapping in Annex 5). The exercise began 15 July 2010 with a welcome address by Dr Ben Nyamadi, Deputy Director, the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), who is the National Focal Point for the AWM Solutions Project. After presentations of the AWM Solutions Project, gender and livelihood mapping methodology

by Jean Phillipe Venot of IWMI, Accra; Barbara van Koppen of IWMI, South Africa and Guido Santini of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, respectively, participants were divided into five working groups and provided with various maps of Ghana.

The maps used showed distribution of population and rural poverty, cropping patterns, livestock distribution, access to markets, land cover as well as climate and topography. The five working groups were tasked to divide the regions assigned to them into livelihood zones based on the methodology outlined. On 16 July 2010 the same workshop participants were tasked to identify the best AWM solutions for particular livelihood zones. Five working groups were again formed to analyse and assess the identified AWM solutions in the different livelihood zones with regards to relevance, physical suitability, livelihood impacts, gender benefits, environmental impact and constraints (see Annex 5 for a full workshop report).

2.2

Data collection and analysis

Data sets and other information on Ghanaian agriculture and other livelihood sources at district, regional and national levels were collected from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, specifically from the Statistics, Research and Information Department (SRID), Projects Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Department (PPMED) and the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA); Ghana Statistical Services (GSS); the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning; libraries at three universities: the University of Ghana (UG), the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) and the University for Development Studies (UDS) in Tamale; the World Food Programme, Accra; the FAO, Accra; several NGOs, particularly in the northern sector of the country, and the internet. The data were analysed for each of 12 identified livelihood zones. Data for tree‐crops production, livestock numbers, marine and inland fish production were given as national aggregates. Several estimates were made of relative production in the various livelihood zones based on information obtained from secondary sources and discussions were held with several Directors of Agriculture at the district, regional and national levels.

2.3

Identification of AWM investment potentials

As stated above, the identification of AWM investment potentials and possibilities started during the workshop on th 16 July 2010. Each of five workshop groups analysed the AWM solutions’ relevance and potential impact in the various livelihoods zones. The identification and analysis of AWM investment potentials and possibilities were continued during and after the collection of data and information. The workshop report (Annex 5) contains information on the workshop participants’ contributions to this aspect of the assignment.

3.

3.1

RESULTS OF LIVELIHOOD MAPPING EXERCISE AND DESCRIPTION OF LIVELIHOOD ZONES Results of livelihood mapping exercise

Workshop participants identified 12 livelihood zones; however, it should be noted that subzones can be identified within the delineated livelihood zones. There are, for example, a number of zones that are clearly different in terms of population densities and poverty. There are also zones containing pockets of mining (legal and illegal) and other non‐agricultural activities such as crafts. These have been noted, but they do not affect the factors used to delineate the zones.

2

Map 1 (Annex 2) shows the identified and delineated livelihood zones. The zones did not exactly correspond to administrative zones. Also, there did not seem to be one biophysical or socio‐economic factor that dominated the criteria used to delineate the zones. Several combinations of criteria were identified in all zones and agro‐climatic and agricultural production factors were significant. The names given to each of the zones describe the geographical location as well as the dominant crops cultivated in the zone relative to other zones.

Zone 1: North‐West Millet/Sorghum‐Legumes‐Cattle Livelihood Zone Zone 2: North‐East Millet/Sorghum/Rice‐Legumes‐Small Ruminants/Guinea Fowl Livelihood Zone Zone 3: North‐Central Maize/Rice‐Mango‐Groundnut‐Small Ruminants Livelihood Zone Zone 4: North‐East Corridor and Upper Volta Yam/Cassava‐Groundnut‐ Cattle Livelihood Zone Zone 5: Volta Lake Inland Fishing Livelihood Zone Zone 6: Upper‐Middle Belt Maize‐Yam/Cassava Livelihood Zone Zone 7: Middle Volta Cocoa/Coffee‐Cassava‐Small Ruminants Livelihood Zone Zone 8: Central‐Middle Belt Commercial Maize‐Cassava‐Small Ruminants Livelihood Zone Zone 9: Lower‐Middle Belt Cocoa/Oil Palm/Citrus‐Commercial Poultry‐Mining Livelihood Zone Zone 10: Inland Greater Accra and Lower Volta Commercial Rice‐Cattle Livelihood Zone Zone 11: High Forest Timber‐Cocoa/Oil palm/Rubber‐Mining Livelihood Zone Zone 12: Coastal Belt Marine Fishing‐Vegetables‐Salt Livelihood Zone

Map 2 (Annex 3) indicates the livelihood zones superimposed on a Ghana Districts’ Map. The Livelihood Zones Map can also be superimposed on population, gender, poverty maps, etc.

3.2

Description and arable crop profiling of livelihood zones

Population and land area Population is unevenly distributed in the livelihood zones (Figure 1). Population estimates by the Ghana Statistical Services (GSS), are projections from the 2000 population census, and indicate that in all regions of Ghana, the number of women exceed that of men. According to the Ghana Living Standards Survey 5 (GLS 5), women form 51.5 percent of the population (GSS, 2008). However, on average 70.5 percent of households are headed by men.

Male‐headed households amount to 85.1 percent of the rural savannah areas (corresponding to Livelihood Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). Table 1 gives the estimated (projected) population figures for 2010.

Table 1 – Estimated population in 2010 Region

Male population

Female population

Total

Upper West Region

315,694

321,463

637,157

Upper East Region

496,426

505,500

1,001,926

Northern Region

1,119,614

1,140,057

2,259,671

Brong‐Ahafo Region

1,118,438

1,138,866

2,257,304

930,658

947,658

1,878,316

Ashanti Region

2,397,652

2,441.448

4,839,100

Eastern Region

1,138,386

1,159,179

2,297,565

Volta Region

3

Western Region Central Region Greater Accra Region

1,267,483

1,290,630

2,558,113

923,614

940,490

1,864,104

2,159,407

2,198,856

4,358,263

Source: Ghana Statistical Services, 2010 The population figures given above were redistributed according to Livelihood Zones, which are presented in Figure 1.

POPULATION

Figure 1 – EsVmated 2010 PopulaVon DistribuVon by Livelihood Zone 7000000 6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone Zone Zone 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

As indicated in Figure 1, the Livelihood Zones having the highest population are the Lower Middle Belt (Zone 9), where cocoa, oil palm and mining have attracted much labour over the years. The population is also high in the Coastal Belt (Zone 12) where there are several urban centres such as Accra/Tema, Cape Coast, Sekondi/Takoradi and several smaller cities and towns. The lowest population is found in the Upper‐Middle Belt (Zone 6) and the Volta Lake Zone (Zone 5). These are sparsely populated areas partly because of the poor infrastructure in the case of the former and the lake in the case of the latter.

The land area for the Livelihood Zones also varies quite widely (Figure 2). The Lower Middle Belt Zone (Zone 9) again has the largest area (19%) followed by the North‐West Zone (Zone 1) (13%). The Livelihood Zone with the least land area is Middle Volta (Zone 7) (2%) followed by the Upper Middle Belt Zone (Zone 6) (see Figure 3).

2

For population density, the Coastal Belt (Zone 12) leads with almost 500 people/km . The lowes population density 2 is in the North‐West Zone (Zone 1) with about 25 people/km (see Figure 4).

4

Figure 2: Land Area by Livelihood Zone 45000 SQUARE KILOMETERS

40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

Zone 11: Figure 3: Land Area by Livelihood Zone (%) High Forest Zone 12: Coastal Belt 8% 5% Zone 10: Inland GA & Lower Volta 5%

Zone 9:Lower Middle Belt 19%

Zone 8:Central Middle Belt Zone 7:Middle 9% Volta 2%

Zone1: North West 13%

Zone 2:North East 9% Zone 3:North Central 5% Zone 4:NE Corridor &Upper Volta 11% Zone 6: Upper Middle Belt Zone 5:Volta Lake 3% 11%

5

NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER SQ. KM.

Figure 4: PopulaVon Density by Livelihood Zone 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

The poor in Ghana are the rural population; even though urban poverty is increasing (Armar‐Klemesu et al., 2004).

Figure 5 shows the estimated 2010 rural population distribution. The absolute number of rural population is highest in the Lower‐Middle Belt (Zone 9). The percentages for population by Livelihood Zone, however, is lead by the North‐East Zone, followed by the North‐West Zone, and then the Upper Middle Belt Zone (Zone 6). Indeed those zones are poorest. The zone having the lowest rural population is the very urbanized Coastal Belt Zone (Zone 12), followed by the Lower‐Middle Belt Zone (Zone 9), which is also a highly urbanized area. The cities of Kumasi, Sunyani, Konongo, Nkawkaw, Mpreaso and others are in this zone. According to the Ghana Rural Poverty Map, Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the upper portions of Zone 8 have a poverty index of between 81 and 100. Thus poverty seems to be correlated with rural areas.

Figure 5: EsVmated 2010 Rural PopulaVon DistribuVon by Livelihood Zone 3000000

POPULATION

2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

6

PERCENTAGE RURAL POPULATION

Figure 6: EsVmated Percentage Rural PopulaVon by Livelihood Zone ‐ 2010 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

Characteristics of Livelihood Zones and Major Food Crops Produced in the Zones a) Zone 1: North‐West Millet/Sorghum‐Legumes‐Cattle Livelihood Zone – is characterized by the production of cereals, mainly millet, sorghum and maize, legumes (groundnuts and cowpea), yam and livestock, mainly cattle. It covers all of the Upper West Region and the Sawla‐Tuna‐Kalba District of the Northern Region.

Figure 7 indicates production of the major crops grown in the zone for 2008 and 2009. Even though the figure seems to indicate high production of yam, it is not so if compared to other livelihood zones. This is because roots and tubers are bulkier than other crops and thus they weigh more when compared to cereals and legumes.

Groundnuts and, to some degree, sorghum, can be regarded as the main cash crops in the zone even though cotton is grown. In the past years cotton was a major cash crop but production has declined considerably. Figure 7 indicates that for all crops 2009 production was higher than that of 2008, probably because of the overall better climatic conditions in 2009.

7

METRIC TONNES

Figure 7: ProducVon of Major Crops in North‐West Livelihood Zone 1 – 2008 and 2009 500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0

2008 2009

MAJOR CROPS (*Only NR districts' producVon)

The North‐West Zone is characterized by a one‐season rainfall regime and the rainfall can be very erratic. The Black Volta and Sissili rivers and their tributaries drain the zone. There are several small/medium irrigation/livestock watering dams in the zone. Mainly tomatoes are cultivated in the dry season in the irrigation dam sites. Other prominent livelihood activities undertaken in this zone include ‘pito’ (local beer) brewing and charcoal production. b) Zone 2: North‐East Millet/Sorghum/Rice‐Legumes‐Small Ruminants/Guinea Fowl Livelihood Zone – covers approximately the Upper‐East Region and the West Mamprusi, East Mamprusi and the Bunkpurugu‐Yunyoo Districts of the Northern Region. It is also a cereal‐legume‐livestock zone. The dominant livestock in the zone are small ruminants and guinea fowl. It is a relatively thickly populated area compared to Zone 1 (the North‐West Zone). Another major characteristic that makes Zone 2 different to Zone 1 is the cultivation of rice. Sweet potatoes are also produced in relatively large quantities in the North‐East Zone (Zone 2). Figure 8 indicates that the production of several crops: sorghum, groundnut, cowpea and sweet potatoes declined between 2008 and 2009.

The North‐West and North‐East Livelihood Zones are characterized by one‐season rainfall with erratic distribution.

These zones are drained by the White Volta and Red Volta and their tributaries. The Zone has several small and medium dams, which also contains the two largest irrigation dams in the country.

Other livelihood activities include production of crafts and gold mining (legal and illegal).

8

METRIC TONNES

Figure 8: ProducVon of Major Crops in North‐East Livelihood Zone 2 – 2008 and 2009 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0

2008 2009

MAJOR CROPS (*UER production not included. **Three NR District's production not included)

c) Zone 3: North Central Maize/Rice‐Groundnut‐Small Ruminants Livelihood Zone – is a maize/rice‐ groundnut‐livestock zone in which the city of Tamale seems to be an important consumption and market centre.

Mango production is becoming important; however it is yet to make the desired impact. The North‐Central Zone consists of the rural parts of the Tamale Metropolitan area, the Savelugu/Nanton District and the Tolon‐Kumbungu District of the Northern Region. Figure 9 shows the quantities of crops cultivated in the Zone in 2008 and 2009.

Production of all crops increased between 2008 and 2009. The North‐Central Livelihood Zone also produces considerable numbers of sheep and goats as well as local chicken (see Figure 26 below).

This Zone is drained by the White Volta and its tributaries and there are several small‐ and medium‐scale irrigation systems.

9

METRIC TONNES

Figure 9: ProducVon of Major Crops in North‐Central Livelihood Zone 3 – 2008 and 2009 200000 180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0

2008 2009

MAJOR CROPS

d) Zone 4: North‐Eastern Corridor and Upper Volta Yam/Cassava‐Livestock Livelihood Zone – is a yam‐ cassava‐livestock zone, which covers what is commonly called the ‘Eastern Corridor’ of the Northern Region as well as the ‘Upper Volta’ area of the Volta Region. Cereal crops are less important here even though maize and soybean production is gradually becoming important; they are cultivated mainly as cash crops. Some cotton is produced but, as in other zones, cotton production has declined drastically.

Figure 10 indicates high levels of cassava production but almost all of it comes from the Nkwanta District of the Volta Region. The North‐East Corridor (without Nkwanta District) does not produce much cassava; compare Figures 10 and 11 because farmers concentrate on yam production. The yam business is quite sophisticated in the zone as farmers are linked directly to markets in cities such as Accra and Kumasi. The Zone is also a major livestock rearing area, cattle, sheep and goats are reared by almost every household.

METRIC TONNES

Figure 10: ProducVon of Major Crops in North Eastern Corridor and Upper Volta Livelihood Zone 4 – 2008 and 2009 800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0

2008 2009

MAJOR CROPS (Only Nkwanta District producVon)

10

METRIC TONNES

Figure 11: ProducVon of Major Crops in Northern Eastern Corridor (Zone 4 without Nkwanta District) 500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0

2008 2009

MAJOR CROPS

e) Zone 5: Volta Lake Inland Fishing Livelihood Zone – is formed by parts of several districts in the Northern, Brong‐Ahafo, Volta and Eastern Regions (see Annex 1 for details of districts). This is the ‘inland fishing zone’ around the Volta lake, fishing is carried out around the lake. Maize, yam, cassava and livestock production are also important livelihood activities. Irrigated agriculture in the form of ‘draw down’ agriculture is practiced. Vegetable and other production takes place when the water from the lake recedes during the dry season.

METRIC TONNES

Figure 12: ProducVon of Major Crops in Volta Lake Livelihood Zone 5 – 2008 and 2009 1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0

2008 2009

MAJOR CROPS (*Only NR districts' producVon; **Not produced in NR districts)

11

f) Zone 6: Upper Middle‐Belt Maize‐Yam/Cassava‐Sheanut Livelihood Zone – covers the southwestern corner of the Northern Region (Bole‐Bamboi District) and the northern part of Brong‐Ahafo Region (Kintampo North District). It is a tubers (yam/cassava)‐maize‐cashew‐livestock zone where commercialization is not prominent, also it is an important sheanut‐producing zone. The zone is part of the ‘transition zone’ of Ghana having both savannah and forest areas. Figure 13 gives the quantities of major crops produced in the Zone for the 2008 and 2009 seasons.

METRIC TONNES

Figure 13: ProducVon of Major Crops in Upper Middle‐Belt Livelihood Zone 6 – 2008 and 2009 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0

2008 2009

MAJOR CROPS (*Only Kintampo North producVon)

g) Zone 7: Middle Volta Cocoa/Coffee‐Cassava‐Small Ruminants Livelihood Zone – is part of the ‘Middle Volta’ area of the Volta Region. The area is mountainous and many parts are forested. Tree crops (cocoa/coffee), cassava and small ruminants are the main livelihood characteristics of the Zone. As indicated in Figure 14, maize and rice as well as cocoyam and plantains are cultivated. Sheep and goats are also reared in relatively large numbers.

12

Figure 14: ProducVon of Major Crops in the Middle Volta Livelihood Zone 7 – 2008 and 2009

METRIC TONNES

250000 200000 150000 2008

100000

2009 50000 0 MAIZE

RICE

CASSAVA

YAM

COCOYAM PLANTAIN

MAJOR CROPS

h) Zone 8: Central Middle Belt Commercial Maize‐Cassava‐Small Ruminants Livelihood Zone – mainly covers the middle belt area of Brong‐Ahafo Region and northern Ashanti Region. The Zone is the northernmost area that is characterized by a bimodal rainfall regime. Thus two crops of cereals may be cultivated in a year without irrigation. Maize is a particularly important crop in this zone, it is cultivated twice a year by many farmers, mainly for the market. This zone is is a breadbasket of the country. Cassava production and small ruminant rearing are also significant; as indicated in Figure 15, cocoyam and plantain production is also fairly important.

METRIC TONNES

Figure 15: ProducVon of Major Crops in Central Middle‐Belt, Livelihood Zone 8 – 2008 and 2009 1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0

2008 2009

MAIN CROPS (*Only Ejura/Sekyidumasi District producVon

13

i) Zone 9: Lower Middle Belt Cocoa/Oil Palm/Citrus‐Commercial Poultry‐Mining Livelihood Zone – is characterized by a tree crops, cocoa, oil palm and citrus and commercial poultry production. Thus most production is for commercial purposes. It is a highly populated, relatively prosperous area and thus offers significant markets for both agricultural and industrial products. It covers the southwestern Brong‐Ahafo Region, most parts of Ashanti Region, the northern fringes of the Western and Central Regions and parts of the Eastern Region (see Annex 1 for details of districts and parts of districts forming the Zone). It is also a mining area and many people’s livelihoods depend on both formal and informal mining activities. Cassava, yam, cocoyam and plantain are also produced both for home consumption and for sale. Pigs are reared and snail production is a prominent livelihood. Figure 16 indicates that significant quantities of all the crops grown in the Zone are produced annually. Indeed the major problem in this Zone is preservation of the foodstuffs produced.

METRIC TONNES

Figure 16: ProducVon of Crops in Lower Middle‐Belt Livelihood Zone 9 – 2008 and 2009 4000000 3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0

2008 2009

MAJOR CROPS

j) Zone 10: Inland Greater Accra and Lower Volta Commercial Rice‐Vegetables‐Livestock Livelihood Zone – is formed by the southern parts of Eastern Region, the ‘Inland Greater Accra’ and parts of ‘Lower Volta’ of the Volta Region. It is a commercial (irrigated) rice‐vegetables‐livestock zone. The Zone takes advantage of the proximity of Accra/Tema to produce vegetables and livestock products for the market. Vegetables are produced mainly in the Greater Accra section of the Zone, as indicated by a comparison of Figures 17 and 18. The main vegetables cultivated are tomatoes, pepper and okra. As for all the Zones of southern Ghana, cassava is a prominent crop; some bananas for export are also grown.

14

METRIC TONNES

Figure 17: ProducVon of Major Crops in Inland Greater Accra Livelihood Zone 10 – 2008 and 2009 2000000 1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0

2008 2009

MAJOR CROPS (*Only ER districts' producVon; **Only GAR districts' producVon)

Figure 18: ProducVon of Major Crops in the Greater Accra SecVon of Zone 10 (to show the importance of vegetable crops in the sub‐zone)

METRIC TONNES

30000 25000 20000 15000 10000

2008

5000

2009

0

MAJOR CROPS

15

Figure 19: ProducVon of Major Crops in the Lower Volta SecVon of Zone 10 80000

METRIC TONNES

70000 60000 50000 40000

2008

30000

2009

20000 10000 0 MAIZE

RICE

CASSAVA

YAM

COCOYAM PLANTAIN

MAJOR CROPS

k) Zone 11: High Forest Timber‐Cocoa/Oil Palm/Rubber‐Mining Livelihood Zone – is the most forested part of the country and is characterized by timber and tree crops (mainly cocoa, oil palm, rubber and coconut). There are also considerable mining activities and it is emerging as the crude‐oil producing area. The zone covers most of Western and Central Regions. Maize, cassava, cocoyam and plantain are the main food crops grown.

METRIC TONNES

Figure 20: ProducVon of Major Crops in the High Forest Livelihood Zone 11 – 2008 and 2009 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0

2008 2009

MAJOR CROPS

l) Zone 12: Coastal Belt Livelihood Zone – is the coastal zone stretching from the Cote D’Ivoire border to the Togo border. The zone is is characterized by sea fishing and vegetable and salt production. Maize and cassava are the main staple food crops produced in the Zone. Groundwater irrigation of shallots (onions) is prominent in the Keta area.

16

METRIC TONNES

Figure 21: ProducVon of Major Crops in Coastal Belt Livelihood Zone 12 – 2008 and 2009 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0

2008 2009

MAJOR CROPS (*Only GAR

3.3

Tree crops in livelihood zones

Cocoa is produced mainly in Zones 9, 10, 11 as well as Zone 7 as indicated by Figure 22. The highest production is in Zones 9 ad 11, which is part of the reason these zones are relatively more prosperous than others.

Oil palm, another major industrial and cash crop is also grown in Zones 9, 10 and 11 as well as Zones 7 and 8 as indicated in Figure 23. Rubber and coconut are also produced in particular in Zone 11.

Sheanuts, an important non‐traditional export, is produced mainly in the savannah areas as indicated in Figure 24.

It is a semi‐wild tree crop, its nut production is gathered by mostly women.

Figure 22: Cocoa ProducVon by Livelihood Zone – 2008 and 2009

METRIC TONNES

250000 200000 150000 100000

2008

50000

2009

0 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

17

METRIC TONNES

Figure 23: Palm Nuts (Oil Palm) ProducVon in Livelihoods Zones – 2008 and 2009 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0

2008 2009 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

METRIC TONNES

Figure 24: Shea Nuts ProducVon by Livelihood Zone – 2008 and 2009 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

2008 2009

Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

3.4

Livestock production in livelihood zones

The production of livestock in the Livelihood Zones has been mentioned in appropriate places. Figures 25 to 30 give estimated production levels of the various livestock in the Livelihood Zones. Note that Ghana’s livestock statistics may be described as ‘intelligent guestimates’. Nobody is sure of the livestock population, there is need for a livestock census.

18

CATTLE POPULATION

Figure 25: EsVmated Calle PopulaVon by Livelihood Zone – 2008 and 2009 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0

2008 2009 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

SHEEP AND GOATS POPULATION

Figure 26: EsVmated Sheep and Goats PopulaVon by Livelihood Zone 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000

2008

400000

2009

200000 0 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

19

Figure 27: Pig PopulaVon by Livelihood Zone – 2008 and 2009

NUMBERS OF PIGS

120000 100000 80000 60000 2008

40000

2009

20000 0 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

COMMERCIAL CHICKEN POPULATION

Figure 28: EsVmated Commercial Chicken ProducVon by Livelihood Zone 12000000 10000000 8000000 6000000 2008

4000000

2009

2000000 0 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

20

Figure 29: EsVmated Local Chicken PopulaVon by Livelihood Zone

LOCAL CHICKEN POPULATION

8000000 7000000 6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000

2008

2000000

2009

1000000 0 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

Figure 30: EsVmated Guinea Fowl PopulaVon by Livelihood Zone ‐ 2008 and 2009

GUINEA FOWL POPULATION

2500000 2000000 1500000 2008

1000000

2009 500000 0 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LIVELIHOOD ZONES

3.5

Fish production in livelihood zones

Inland and marine fishing is undertaken mainly in Zone 5 (Volta Lake Livelihood Zone) and Zone 12 (Coastal Belt Livelihood Zone) respectively, as indicated in Figure 31. Fish farming is yet to be a major livelihood activity in any part of Ghana.

21

Figure 31: Inland and Marine Fish ProducVon by Livelihood Zone 350000 METRIC TONNES

300000 250000 200000 150000

2008

100000

2009

50000 0 Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5* 6 7 8 9 10 11 12** LIVELIHOOD ZONES (*Only inland fisheries; **Only marine fisheries)

4.

AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT (AWM) INVESTMENT POTENTIALS

4.1

Identification of agricultural water management solutions

AWM solutions presented to participants at the July Workshop had been identified by on‐going research.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Shallow groundwater, Tube well (Borehole) Private pump from rivers and streams Communal pump Large commercial pump from rivers Out‐growers Private small dams/dugouts Public private partnership (to include public surface reservoir systems) Communal small dams/dugouts

Each of these AWM solutions will best suit particular livelihood zones. The above‐identified AWM solutions can be categorized into groundwater (shallow and tube wells), pumps (motor and hand/pedal), outgrowers, and surface water. Working groups were formed to analyse and assess the identified AWM solutions in the different livelihood zones with regards to relevance, physical suitability, livelihood impacts, gender benefits, level of their ‘upscalibility’, environmental impact and constraints.

The general conclusions were that most of the AWM solutions are relevant, suitable and desirable in Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12. Agricultural water management is not so critical in Zones 5, 9 and 11. In the case of Zone 5 (the Volta Lake Zone) fishing and activities related to fishing are the main livelihood activities and there is not much need for AWM solutions. In the case of Zones 9 and 11, there is adequate rainfall in terms of quantity and distribution and the main water management requirement for agricultural production may be for drainage systems.

22

4.2

AWM investment potentials in livelihood zones

There are generally two aspects of AWM investment potentials that should be considered: groundwater and surface water systems, which are categorized in Table 2.

Table 2: Categorization of AWM Investment Potential Systems

Types of crops, livestock, etc. suitable for systems

Groundwater

Motor pumps

Manual pumps

Vegetables+, Pineapple, mangoes, poultry Vegetables

Bucket‐Fetch

Surface water (rivers/ streams, dams, dugouts)

*Degree to which outgrower system can be incorporated (High, medium, low) High

Extent to which AWM can improve livelihoods (High, medium, low)** High

Main constraints of agricultural water management system

Medium

Medium

Vegetables

Medium

Low

Gravity flow

Rice, maize, vegetables, all livestock, fish ponds

High

Medium

Motor pumps

Rice, maize, vegetables, pineapple, mango, poultry, small ruminants Vegetables

High

High

Cost of pump and tedium in pumping especially for women Inconvenience in having to dig wells every year, tedium in fetching and small area covered Broken and very poorly constructed canals, seepage from water reservoir, multiple uses leading to water depletion Cost and maintenance of pumps, cost of fuel

Medium

Medium

Manual pumps

Cost and maintenance of pumps, cost of fuel

Cost of pump and tedium in pumping especially for women Bucket‐Fetch Vegetables Medium Low Tedium in fetching and small area covered *Since good water management systems are generally capital intensive, arrangements should be made to ensure there are markets for produce and that there are outgrower systems. *Also see Livelihoods attribute table (Annex). + Vegetables include leafy vegetables, onions, tomatoes, peppers, and carrots.

Source: July 2010 Workshop and Field Investigation, 2010

There have been significant investments in surface water for agriculture by the public sector and non‐ governmental organizations in several parts of the country over the years. Most investments in groundwater for agricultural purposes have been by private individuals.

It may be inferred from Table 2 that motor‐pump irrigation, either from groundwater or surface water, has the greatest potential for affecting the livelihoods of farming households. Greater variety of livelihood activities can be undertaken using motor pumps. Also the use of motor pumps gets water to larger areas and thus the period of returns on the investment will likely be shorter. A much greater potential for the use of the motor pump is for the installation of overhead tanks for drip irrigation, more important for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 and in particular Zones 1

23

and 2, where water tables are considerably low. There is need for conservation of water, especially groundwater in these zones and drip irrigation technology, especially the African Market Garden (AMG) versions, will be useful (see Dittoh et al., 2010; Akuriba et al., 2010, Woltering et al., 2009). The most significant constraint to the use of motor pumps, with or without drip irrigation, is that their use is generally more capital intensive than for other systems. Indeed, the investment costs for drip irrigation are considerably higher and there is a need to find irrigation models that will ensure efficiency and effectiveness (Dittoh et al., 2010).

The manual pump (pedal or hand) systems are better than the bucket fetch system since more water can be lifted at a time. Its major constraint, however, is the human effort required to lift the water.

Investments in AWM should aim to replace the bucket fetch system with equipment and tools that farmers can afford, or provide appropriate means for acquiring them and systems that are effective, efficient and sustainable.

The various systems need to be studied in more detail in different livelihood zones and business plans worked out.

In Table 3, an attempt has been made to assess the suitability of the various AWM solutions for different livelihood zones. It is clear from the table that Zones 1, 2, 4 and 12 have the greatest potential for various types of irrigation interventions.

24

Table 3 – Overall assessment of suitability of AWM investments in the various livelihood zones AWM Solutions Ground‐ Motor pumps water (private or irrigation communal)

Manual pumps

Surface water irrigation (rivers/ streams, dams, dugouts)

Bucket‐Fetch Gravity flow Motor pumps (private or communal)

Manual pumps

Bucket‐Fetch

Zone 1

***

Zone 3

*

Zone 4

***

Zone 5

*

Zone 6

**

Zone 7

**

Zone 8

*

Zone 9

*

Zone 10

*

Zone 11

*

Zone 12

***

***

Zone 2

***

***

*

***

**

**

*

*

*

*

***

*** ***

***

**** ***

***

* ***

***

*** ***

***

*

* *

*

** **

**

** **

**

* ***

***

* *

*

* **

**

* *

*

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

*

*

**

**

**

**

**

*

*

*

**

*

*

*

*** ***

***

***

***

*** Very suitable ** Suitable *Not suitable

25

References Akuriba, M.A., Dittoh, S., Issaka, B., Bhattarai, M. 2010. ‘Women farmers’ perspectives on microirrigation rd th technologies in the West African Sahel’ Paper presented at the 3 Annual AAAE/49 Annual AEASA Conference, Cape Town, South Africa.

Dittoh, S., Akuriba, M.A., Issaka, M, Bhattarai, M. 2010. ‘Sustainable micro‐irrigation systems for poverty alleviation rd th in the Sahel: a case for ‘micro’ public‐private partnerships?’ 3 Annual AAAE/49 Annual AEASA Conference, Cape Town, South Africa.

Ghana Statistical Services. 2008. Ghana Living Standards (GLS) 5.

GIDA. 2010. National Irrigation Policy, Strategies and Regulatory Measures. MOFA and FAO. Santini, G. 2010. ‘Livelihood Analysis and mapping expert consultation in Ghana: Scaling up AWM Solutions at Country level’. Presentation at Workshop on Mapping Livelihoods and Gender for Agricultural Water Management (AWM) Solutions in Ghana 15‐16 July 2010.

Woltering, L., Ndjeunga, J. and Pasternak, D. 2009. The Economics of African Market Garden and Watering Can Irrigation Methods in Niger. ICRISAT Working Paper Series.

26

Annexes Annex 1 – DISTRICTS AND PARTS OF DISTRICTS THAT CONSTITUTE LIVELIHOOD ZONES Livelihood Zone (LZ) 1: North‐West Millet/Sorghum‐Legumes‐Cattle. All Upper West Region districts; Northern Region districts: Sawla‐Tuna‐Kalba and about one‐third of West Gonja.

LZ 2: North‐East Millet/Sorghum/Rice‐Legumes‐Small Ruminants/Guinea Fowl. All Upper East Region districts.

Northern Region (NR) districts: Bunkpurugu‐Yunyoo, East Mamprusi and West Mamprusi.

LZ 3: North‐Central Maize/Rice‐Groundnut‐Small Ruminants Livelihood Zone. NR districts: One‐third of West Gonja, Tolon‐Kumbungu and Savelugu‐Nanton Districts and Tamale Metropolis (All Northern Region districts) LZ 4: North East Corridor and Upper Volta Yam/Cassava‐Groundnut‐Livestock Livelihood. NR districts: Karaga, Gushiegu, Yendi, Chereponi, Saboba, Zabzugu‐Tatale, Half of Nanumba North, Nanumba South and Kpandai Districts, Volta Region (VR) district: Nkwanta .

LZ 5: Volta Lake Inland Fishing Livelihood Zone, NR districts: Half of Central Gonja, East Gonja and half of Nanumba North; Brong‐Ahafo Region (BAR) districts: Half of Pru and Sene District; VR districts: Krachi, Krachi East, half of Jasikan, half of Kpando and South Dayi ; Eastern Region (ER) districts: Half of Asuogyaman and Afram Plains.

LZ 6: Upper Middle Belt Maize‐Yam/Cassava Livelihood Zone; N R districts: Bole, one‐third West Gonja and half Central Gonja ; BAR districts: One‐third of Tain and Kintampo North.

LZ 7: Middle Volta Cocoa/Coffee‐Cassava‐Small Ruminants Livelihood Zone: VR districts: Kadjebi, half of Jasikan, half of Kpando, Hohoe and half of Ho Municipal.

LZ 8: Central Middle Belt Commercial Maize‐Cassava‐Small Ruminants Livelihood Zone: BAR districts: Two‐thirds of Tain, Jaman North, Wenchi, Kintampo South, Techiman Municipal, Nkoranza, half of Pru, Atebubu/Amantin; Ashanti Region (AR) districts: half of Offinso (Offinso North), Ejura/Sekyidumasi, Sekyere East, Sekyere West.

LZ 9: Lower Middle Belt Cocoa/Oil Palm/Citrus‐Commercial Poultry‐Mining Livelihood Zone: BAR districts: Jaman South, Berekum, Sunyani Municipal, Tano North, Tano South, Dormaa, Asutifi, Asunafo North and Asunafo South; AR districts: Ahafo‐Ano North, Ahafo‐Ano South, half of Offinso (Offinso South), Afigya‐Sekyere, Atwima‐Mponua, Atwima, Bosumtwe/Atwima/Kwanhuma, Kwabre, Kumasi Metroplitan, Amasie West, Amansie Central, Amansie East, Obuasi Municipal, Adansi North, Adansi South, Ejisu Juaben, Asante Akim North and Asante Akim South.

Eastern Region (ER) districts: Kwahu South, Kwahu West, Birim North, Kwabibirim, Atiwa and Fanteakwa; Western Region (WR) districts: One‐third of Sefwi‐Wiawso; Bibiani/Anhwiaso/Bekwai and half of Wassa Amenfi East; Central Region (CR) districts: Upper Denkyira and Assin North.

LZ 10: Inland Greater Accra and Lower Volta Commercial Rice‐Cattle Livelihood Zone: ER districts: Birim South, West Akim, East Akim, Suhum/Kroboa/Coaltar, New Juaben Municipal, Yilo Krobo, Manya Krobo, Akapim North, Akwapim South and half of Asuogyaman; Greater Accra Region (GAR) districts: Half of Ga West, Ga East, one‐third of Tema Municipal and half of Dangbe West Districts. VR districts: Half of Ho Municipal, Adaklu‐Anyigbe, half of North Tongu and half of Akatsi Districts LZ 11: High Forest Timber‐Cocoa/Oil palm/Rubber‐Mining Livelihood Zone: WR districts: Bia, Juabeso, Two‐thirds of Sefwi‐Wiawso, Aowin/Suaman, Wassa Amenfi West, Half of Wassa Amenfi East, Wassa West, Mpoho‐Wassa East, Half of Jomoro and Half of Nzema East. CR districts: Twifo/Hemang/Lower Denkyira, Assin South, Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa, Ajumako/Enyan/Esiam, Agona, Half of Komenda/Edina/Eguafo/Abriem, Half of Abura‐ Asebu‐Kwamankese and half of Awutu/Effutu/Senya Districts.

LZ 12: Coastal Belt Marine Fishing‐Vegetables‐Salt Livelihood Zone: WR districts: Half of Jomoro, half of Nzema East and Ahanta West and Shama‐Ahanta East Metropolitan; CR districts: Half of Komenda/Edina/Eguafo/Abriem, Cape Coast Municipal, Half of Abura‐Asebu‐Kwamankese, Mfantseman, Gomoa and half of Awutu/Effutu/Senya. GAR districts: Half of Ga West, Accra Metropolitan, two‐thirds of Tema Municipal, Dangbe East and half of Dangbe

27

West. VR Districts: Half of North Tongu, South Tongu, half of Akatsi, Keta and Ketu Districts.

28

Annex 2 – GHANA LIVELIHOODS MAP (attached)

29

Annex 3 – GHANA LIVELIHOODS MAP SUPERIMPOSED ON DISTRICTS’ MAP (attached)

30

ANNEX 4 – LIVELIHOOD MAPPING WORKSHOP REPORT

1.

Activities leading to livelihoods mapping th

Activities of the 15 July 2010 started with a welcome address by Dr Ben Nyamadi, a Deputy Director of the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), who is the National Focal Point of the AWM Solutions Project. His presentation centered on the role of GIDA in agricultural water development and management in Ghana. He stated that the Ghana Irrigation Policy prepared by GIDA had been passed by Cabinet the previous Friday and the approved document uploaded onto the MOFA website. The policy clearly states the importance of small‐, medium‐ and large‐scale irrigation projects. He stressed the importance of irrigation in ensuring food security and poverty reduction in Ghana and the importance that the Government of Ghana attaches to the AWM Solutions Project.

After the welcome address participants introduced themselves stating their institutional affiliations and how their interest areas are aligned to the objectives of the workshop and the AWM project as a whole. The introductions indicated the many varied interests in water management. It also indicated that all the varied interests have significant relevance to the AWM Solutions Project.

After the introductions, Jean Phillipe Venot of IWMI, Accra presented a summary of the AWM Solutions Project to participants. He said the project is about half way through and some AWM solutions have been identified. The project aims to identify innovative solutions to unlock the productive potential of smallholders, including women, through investments in water and its management. He said smallholder agricultural water management is a promising option to improve food security of local people and the focus of the AWM Solutions Project has been on micro‐agricultural water management (AWM), that is, low‐cost technologies to capture, store and use water. He also said part of the reason why we are not realizing the potential that exists for smallholder agriculture water management to improve livelihoods, is our failure to focus on women in the process. He said AWM is any kind of technical, practical and/or invention to capture store and drain water.

He also mentioned that this AWM Solutions Project has been funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and it is being implemented by the IWMI, FAO, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and CH2MHILL Inc in five African countries including Ghana and two Indian States.

He noted that several local institutions in Ghana notably GIDA, the University for Development Studies (UDS) and the Water Resources Institute of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research have been actively involved in the project.

Barbara van Koppen of IWMI, South Africa, presented a brief summary of the gender mapping results of the previous day after JP Venot’s presentation. She expressed her happiness at the enthusiasm of participants in the gender‐mapping exercise and the general consensus arrived at during the exercise. The participants were clearly well‐informed about gender issues and gender analysis and how this pertains to the various parts of the country.

2.

The livelihood mapping exercise

The next activity for the day was a presentation of the livelihood mapping methodology by Guido Santini of FAO, Rome. He explained the importance of mapping and stated that well‐targeted interventions in water have significant potential to contribute to rapid improvements in livelihoods of the rural people in Ghana. He talked of the various factors that should be considered in defining a livelihood zone. The main factors to be considered include agro‐climatic conditions, cropping patterns, livestock distribution patterns, population, poverty levels, malnutrition levels and to access to markets. He noted that there is need for local experts of varied disciplines and knowledge from all parts of the country to brainstorm and agree on the boundaries of livelihood zones in the country.

31

After the presentation, participants were divided into five working groups as given in Table 1. Each group was provided with various types of maps of Ghana. The maps included distribution of population and rural poverty, cropping patterns, livestock distribution, access to markets, land cover as well as climate and topography.

Annex Table 1 – Working Groups Group Regions covered 1 Upper West and Upper East Regions 2 3

4 5

Names of group members Onyobie Abu Ojingo, Aaron Aduna, Eric Adu‐Dankwa, Asher Nkegbe, Cyril Quist, Hon. Samson Abu and Stephen Mwinkaara Northern Region Mary Magdalene Salifu, Kwaku Adu‐Boateng, Naaminong Karbo, Bernard N. Baatuuwie, felix Darimaani and Samuel Ansah Manu.

Brong Ahafo, Ashanti and Eastern Simon Mariwah, Lesley Hope, Benjamin Gyampoh, Faustina Regions Essandoh, Asare Mintah, Victor Owusu, Paulina Addy and Patrick Appiah Central and Western Region Charlotte Mensah, M.K. Nkrumah, Paschal Atengdem, Anna Antwi and Gideon Oweridu Greater Accra and Volta Regions Ben Nyamadi, Victoria Tsekpo, Sylvanus Adzornu, Francis Dzah, Charlotte Wrigley‐Asante and Prue (Abena) Loney

The five working groups were tasked to divide the regions assigned to them into livelihood zones based on the methodology outlined by Guido Santini. After the group working sessions the results were presented in a plenary session. Difficulties encountered by the different groups were discussed during the plenary session. Also adjacent zones identified by the different groups were compared and contrasted to either merge or keep separate.

The five groups used different specific factors to arrive at their delineated livelihood zones. Relevant factors for delineating livelihood zones will obviously be different for different areas.

2.1 Results of the mapping exercise Group 1 (Upper West and Upper East Regions): The group noted that the main livelihood sources for all parts of the two regions are food crops and livestock. There are, however, a number of ‘secondary’ livelihood sources that can be used to distinguish between areas. These are irrigation practices, crafts, charcoal production and small‐ scale mining. The degree of importance of these secondary livelihood sources will depend on how detailed the livelihood map is that will finally be produced. Using these ‘secondary’ livelihood sources, the Upper West and Upper East Regions were divided into five zones (see LZ attributes table integrated file for picture of Map drawn).

Irrigation, crafts and small ‐cale mining are concentrated in the Upper East Region, while charcoal production is concentrated in the Upper West Region. It was also noted that there is greater importance of livestock as a source of livelihood in the Upper West Region as compared to the Upper East Region.

In the case of Group 2 (Northern Region), the major factors in putting areas into livelihood zones was whether an area is ‘yam growing’ or ‘non‐yam growing’ as well as fishing and migration. It should be noted that reference to a ‘non‐yam growing’ area does not imply that no yam is grown in the area. It only means yam production is not regarded as a major livelihood source. The group also noted the importance of the emerging mango‐producing economy around Tamale (Tamale Metropolitan, parts of Savelugu/Nanton District and parts of Tolon‐Kumbungu District). The group agreed that the northern parts of the region, West Mamprusi, East Mamprusi and Bunkpurugu‐ Yunyoo Districts are ‘non‐yam growing’ areas and that that zone was more similar to the Upper East Region than other parts of Northern Region. Livestock as a source of livelihood in the western part of the region was also considered to be significantly different than for other parts of the region. They, thus, ended up with five livelihood zones as indicated in their map (see LZ attributes table integrated file for picture of map).

For Group 3 (Brong Ahafo, Ashanti and Eastern Regions), the main distinguishing livelihood factors considered were food crops (as cash crops), as in northern parts of Brong Ahafo and Ashanti Regions; tree crops (as cash crops) with food crops (mainly for subsistence), as in the southern parts of Brong Ahafo and Ashanti Regions and most parts of the Eastern Region; and fishing around the Volta lake. Thus, Group 3 identified three livelihood zones (see LZ attributes table integrated file for picture of map). The importance of mining as a major livelihood source was also highlighted but for specific locations.

32

In the case of Group 4 (Central and Western Region), four livelihood zones were delineated. The northern portion of the two regions is much forested and timber and tree crops, particularly cocoa, are the major livelihood sources.

The main livelihood source in the middle part of the regions is tree crops, such as citrus, with food crops, such as cassava, while the main livelihood sources in the coastal stretch are fishing, coconut production and salt production. Mining in the Western Region was also noted as an important livelihood activity for many people.

Group 5 (Greater Accra and Volta Region) noted that the land area from north to south can be conveniently divided into four livelihood zones. The upper part (Upper Volta) is characterized by yam production and is very like the yam‐growing areas of the Northern Region. The ‘Middle Volta’ part is characterized by fishing, some cocoa and coffee production as well as maize and cassava production, while the ‘Inland Accra and Lower Volta’ part is characterized by livestock and irrigated rice production. Vegetables such as shallots, tomatoes, etc. that are cultivated mainly for the market, are the main livelihood sources in the coastal zone. (See LZ attributes table integrated file for picture of map).

After a break, another plenary session was convened to prepare a final livelihood map for Ghana. All the maps prepared by the five groups were used to arrive at the final map. Reasons for every livelihood zone delineated were given and discussed by the participants and consensuses arrived at. The final map consists of 12 zones (see Final Livelihoods Map attached).

Zone 1 is characterized by the production of cereals, legumes, some yam and livestock, mainly cattle. It covers all of the Upper West Region and the Sawla‐Tuna‐Kalba District of the Northern Region.

Zone 2 approximately consists of the Upper East Region and the West Mamprusi, East Mamprusi and the Bunkpurugu‐Yunyoo Districts of the Northern Region. It is also a cereal‐legume‐livestock zone but the dominant livestock in the zone are small ruminants and guinea fowl. It is a relatively thickly populated area.

Zone 3 is a maize‐rice‐mango‐livestock zone in which the city of Tamale seems to be an important consumption and market centre. It consists of the rural parts of the Tamale Metropolitan area, parts of the Savelugu/Nanton District and parts of the Tolon‐Kumbungu District of the Northern Region. Suggestions that the zone could be added to any of the adjacent ones were fiercely resisted. Several participants insisted that the livelihood pattern of the people in the zone is significantly different from that of the adjacent zones.

Zone 4 is a yam‐cassava‐livestock zone that covers what is commonly called the ‘Eastern Corridor’ of the Northern Region as well as what Group 5 called the ‘Upper Volta’ area of the Volta Region.

Zone 5 is the ‘fishing zone’, around the Volta Lake. Maize and livestock production are also very important livelihood activities in the zone.

Zone 6 covers the southwestern corner of the Northern Region (Bole‐Bamboi District) and the northern part of Brong Ahafo Region. It is a tubers (yam/cassava)‐maize‐cashew‐livestock zone where commercialization is not prominent. It is also an important sheanut‐producing zone.

Zone 7 is part of the ‘Middle Volta’ area of the Volta Region. Tree crops (cocoa/coffee), cassava and small ruminants are the main livelihood characteristics of the zone.

Zone 8 is greatly characterized by commercial maize production. Cassava and small ruminant production is also significant. It covers mainly the middle belt area of Brong‐Ahafo Region and northern Ashanti Region.

Zone 9 is a tree‐crop (cocoa/oil palm/citrus)‐Commercial poultry zone. It covers southwestern Brong‐Ahafo Region, most parts of Ashanti Region, the northern fringes of the Western and Central Regions and parts of the Eastern Region.

Zone 10 consists of the southern parts of Eastern Region, the ‘Inland Greater Accra’ and parts of ‘Lower Volta’ of the Volta Region. It is a commercial (irrigated) rice‐livestock zone.

Zone 11 is the most forested part of the country and is characterized by timber and tree crops (mainly cocoa, oil palm and rubber). There are also considerable mining activities in the area. It is also the emerging crude oil producing area. The zone covers most of Western and Central Regions.

33

Zone 12 is the coastal zone stretching from the Cote D’Ivoire border to the Togo border and is characterized by sea fishing and vegetable production as well as salt production.

3.

Working groups discussions on ‘Promising AWM Solutions in the Different Livelihood

Zones’ th

On 16 July 2010, the day started with a presentation on identified AWM solutions in Ghana by Jean Phillipe Venot and an open discussion on how AWM can contribute to poverty reduction. There was general agreement that water is critical to poverty reduction as it is required in all aspects of livelihoods.

Several AWM solutions had been identified through the research and previous workshops and discussions. They include the following: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Shallow groundwater, Tube well (Borehole) Private pump from rivers and streams Communal pump Large commercial pump from rivers Out‐growers Private small dams/dugouts Public private partnership (to include public surface reservoir systems) Communal small dams/dugouts

Each of these AWM solutions will best suit particular livelihood zones. It was thus necessary that participants identified AWM solutions that are best for particular livelihood zones. The above‐identified AWM solutions can be categorized into groundwater (shallow and tube wells), pumps (motor and hand/pedal), outgrowers, and surface water. Working groups were formed to analyze and assess the identified AWM solutions in the different livelihood zones with regards relevance, physical suitability, livelihood impacts, gender benefits, level of upscalibility, environmental impact and constraints.

Five groups were formed and the 12 livelihood zones delineated were assigned to the groups as given in Table 2.

Annex Table 2 – Livelihood zones assigned to Working Groups Group Livelihood Zones Assigned Working Group 1 1, 2 and 3 Working Group 2 4, 5 and 7 Working Group 3 6 and 8 Working Group 4 9 and 10 Working Group 5 11 and 12 Working Group 1 could tackle only Livelihood Zone 1. They spent so much time analyzing the Zone 1 situation that they could not get time to work on the other zones. Table 3 shows the results arrived at by the group. Zone seems to be very suitable for groundwater and outgrowers development.

Annex Table 3 – Assessments of AWM solutions in Livelihood Zone 1

Groundwater use Motor pumps High: 1.Availability of water bodies Relevance in the zone 2.There are some attempts by the local (high, medium, low residents to provide themselves with relevance) these facilities. But there is a need for

more studies to be conducted to know the Medium volume of water available

Physical suitability High: Availability of water bodies and farm (high, medium, low) lands Medium

Outgrowers

High High

34

Main purposes (crops (specify), livestock, fish ponds, etc) Livelihood impact (income growth, etc.)

Beneficiaries (traditional farmers, market‐ oriented, pastoralists, etc.)

Possible social exclusion issues Gender (male or female benefit more?) level of upscalabity in the zone Possible constraints for adoption

Environmental impact

Crops (leafy, vegetables, Onions, Tomato, Carrots, water melons)

Income growth, nutrition, Job creation and food security

Rice, Maize, Crops (leafy, vegetables, Onions, Tomato, Carrots, water melons) Income growth, nutrition, Job creation and food security

Possible exclusion of landless users

Tradition farmers and Intermediaries Possible conflicts with neighboring countries, exclusion of landless owners

Both

Both

High

Low 1. Availability of equipment, 2.

Affordability, 3. Cost of operations, 4. Profitability, 5.

Expertise / capacities to maintain the facilities; 6.

Technical skills in land preparation and irrigation 1. Depletion of underground water, 2. Pollution of the water bodies, 3. Erosion and land degradation, 4. Issues of siltation, 5. Deforestation, 6.

Floods

Traditional farmers, and intermediaries

Socio‐cultural, Markets, Roads and other relevant infrastructure

1. Depletion of underground water, 2.

Pollution of the water bodies, 3. Erosion and land degradation, 4. Issues of siltation, 5. Deforestation, 6. Floods

Income growth, nutrition, Job creation and food security Mainly market oriented farmers Based on subjectivity, landless farmers are likely to be excluded

Male dominated High

Land, Reputation of lead farmer and out‐ growers, Profitability, Pricing of the Commodities

Working Group 2 analysed the AWM solutions’ relevance and potential impact in Livelihoods Zones 4, 5 and 7.

Tables 4A to 4C are the results arrived at. The relevance of the AWM solutions in the Zones are generally low.

Rainfall is relatively high and its distribution relatively good.

Annex Table 4A: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Groundwater use) in Livelihood Zones 4, 5 and 7 GROUNDWATER USE in Zones 4, 5 and 7 Zone 4 (Eastern corridor & Livelihood zone Upper Volta) Zone 5 (Volta basin) Zone 7 (Middle Volta) Relevance in the zone Medium: for animals watering, (high, medium, low other dry season cropping and relevance) activities Low Low Physical suitability Meduim: Some areas are not (high, medium, low) suitable and others are not High Medium: Some areas are hilly Main purposes (crops (specify), livestock, fish ponds, etc) Livestock, domestic Domestic

Livelihood impact Local processing of shea butter, (income growth, etc.) Pito brewing, Improve health Improve health

35

Beneficiaries (traditional farmers, market‐ oriented, pastoralists, etc.)

Possible social exclusion issues Gender (male or female benefit more?) level of upscalabity in the zone Possible constraints for adoption Environmental impact

Local processors, construction industry, Farmers (crop), pastoralists Witches camps, Leprosarium Female: Relief women of the burden of water search for processing and domestic purposes Medium: Some areas are not suitable and others are not Cultural barriers (Believe), Citing of borehole can be a problem, Priority and interest of community.

Health problems‐ Mosquito breeding.

Domestic users

None

Women

Low

Annex Table 4B: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Motor pumps) in Livelihood Zones 4, 5 and 7 MOTOR PUMPS in Zones 4, 5 and 7 zone 4 (Eastern Livelihood zone corridor &upper Volta) Zone 5 (Volta basin) Zone 7 (Middle Volta) Relevance in the zone (high, medium, low: Lack of High: Presence of perennial Low: Because of bimodal low relevance) Perennial rivers water bodies rainfall Physical suitability (high, medium, low) N/A N/A N/A Main purposes (crops (specify), livestock, fish ponds, etc)

Irrigation

Livelihood impact (income growth, etc.)

Income growth

Beneficiaries (traditional farmers, market‐ oriented, pastoralists, etc.)

market oriented farmers

Possible social exclusion issues

Gender (male or female benefit more?)

level of upscalabity in the zone

Possible constraints for adoption

Environmental impact

Annex Table 4C: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Outgrowers, Small Dams and River Diversions) in Livelihood Zones 4, 5 and 7 Zone 4 (Eastern corridor Livelihood zone &upper Volta) Zone 5 (Volta basin) Zone 7 (Middle Volta) OUTGROWERS for Zones 4, 5 and 7 Relevance in the zone Low/medium‐ Market women (high, medium, low sponsor some farmer and later relevance) buy the farm produce Low Low SMALL DAMS for Zones 4, 5 and 7

Relevance in the zone Medium: Livestock watering and Low Low

36

(high, medium, low relevance) Physical suitability (high, medium, low)

processing

Medium:

Low: May decrease land area for farming

Low: May decrease land area for farming

OTHER AWM SOLUTION (RIVER DIVERSION) for Zone 4 Zone 4 (Eastern corridor Livelihood zone &upper Volta)

Relevance in the zone (high, medium, low relevance) High: Diversion from culverts

Physical suitability (high, medium, low) High

Working Group 3 assessed the AWM solutions’ relevance and potential impact in Livelihoods Zones 6 and 8. Tables 5A to 5D (below) are the conclusions the group arrived at. Both zones seem to have a good potential for groundwater development and pump irrigation.

Annex Table 5A – Assessments of AWM Solutions (Groundwater) in Livelihood Zones 6 and 8 GROUNDWATER USE in Zones 6 and 8 Livelihood zone Zone 6 Zone 8 Comments Relevance in the zone Higher in Zone 6 because of the (high, medium, low uni‐modal rainfall relevance) High Medium Physical suitability Need feasibility studies to (high, medium, low) High high confirm quantities of water etc Main purposes (crops Vegetables; livestock, Vegetables, poultry, fish ponds

(specify), livestock, commercial poultry fish ponds, etc) Diversification of crops; income Diversification of crops; income Zone 6 has more potential for Livelihood impact growth; food security growth; food security diversification into vegetables (income growth, etc.) which need irrigation Beneficiaries Livestock keepers; traditional Market‐oriented; traditional High density of cattle in Zone 6 (traditional farmers, farmers farmers ‐ move towards watering market‐ oriented, points pastoralists, etc.)

Smallholder farmers may lose

Citing of water points should Possible social out to larger scale livestock be considered through exclusion issues owners (marginalized) participatory processes with stakeholders Female may benefit more in Male benefit from production; Integrated farm family solution Gender (male or vegetable use; men benefit female benefit through female benefit more?) more for men marketing of products High: more room for expansion; High: farmers already Zone 6 upscaling sustainable level of upscalabity in fertile grounds; virgin lands etc commercially oriented dependent on more injection of external funding and the zone services Land ownership; conflicts on use Land ownership; conflicts on use Need feasibility studies to Possible constraints of resource; inadequate of resource; inadequate confirm quality of water etc for adoption knowledge, skills attitudes knowledge, skills attitudes

37

required for adoption; cost in construction and use Environmental impact

Over‐grazing; soil compaction; depletion of ground water

required for adoption; costs in construction, use and maintenance Over‐grazing; soil compaction; depletion of ground water

Annex Table 5B: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Motor pumps) in Livelihood Zones 6 and 8 Motor Pumps in Zones 6 and 8 Livelihood zone Zone 6 Zone 8 Comments Relevance in the zone Zone 8 more easily adopted (high, medium, low since farmers here are already relevance) Medium high using some Physical suitability (high, medium, low) High high

Main purposes (crops vegetables; livestock, vegetables, poultry, fish ponds (specify), livestock, commercial poultry less suitable for livestock fish ponds, etc) production; and poultry Livelihood impact diversification of crops; income diversification of crops; income (income growth, etc.) growth; food security growth; food security

Beneficiaries livestock keepers; traditional market‐oriented; traditional (traditional farmers, farmers farmers market‐ oriented, pastoralists, etc.)

smallholder farmers may lose

Possible social out to larger scale livestock exclusion issues owners (marginalized)

female may benefit more in male benefit from production; female may benefit less in Gender (male or vegetable use; men benefit female benefit through ownership, but through female benefit more?) more for men marketing of products marketing of produce level of upscalabity in high: more room for expansion; high: farmers already the zone fertile grounds; virgin lands etc commercially oriented

land ownership; conflicts on use land ownership; conflicts on use of resource; inadequate of resource; inadequate Possible constraints knowledge, skills attitudes knowledge, skills attitudes for adoption required for adoption; cost in required for adoption; costs in construction and use construction, use and need VAB changes to adopt in maintenance Zone 6 noise pollution; migration of Environmental impact birds, wild animals; possible not much not much fuel spillage into water bodies

Annex Table 5C: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Outgrowers) in Livelihood Zones 6 and 8 OUTGROWERS in Zones 6 and 8 Livelihood zone Zone 6 Zone 8 Comments Relevance in the zone (high, medium, should be viewed in a different low relevance) Low High typology Physical suitability (high, medium, low)

Main purposes (crops (specify), livestock, fish ponds, etc)

38

Annex Table 5D: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Small Dams) in Livelihood Zones 6 and 8 SMALL DAMS in Zones 6 and 8 Livelihood zone Zone 6 Relevance in the zone (high, medium, low relevance) High Medium

Zone 8

Physical suitability (high, medium, low)

High

Medium

Main purposes (crops (specify), livestock, fish ponds, etc)

Livestock, vegetables, fish

Livestock, vegetables, fish

Livelihood impact (income growth, etc.)

Working Group 4 assessed the AWM Solutions in Livelihood Zones 9 and 10. There seems to be significant potential for pump irrigation in these zones (see Tables 6A to 6D below).

Annex Table 6A: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Groundwater) in Livelihood Zones 9 and 10 GROUNDWATER USE in Zones 9 and 10 Livelihood zone Zone 9 Zone 10 Notes Relevance in the zone (high, medium, some areas only where it is low relevance) Medium Medium relevant Physical suitability (high, medium, groundwater is available in this low) High Low area in 9 not in 10 Main purposes (crops (specify), Vegetables , fish livestock, fish ponds, etc) ponds, livestock Vegetables

on 9 land is not for crops so Livelihood impact (income growth, AWM can increase production, etc.)

High Medium on 10 because of the scarce gw Beneficiaries (traditional farmers, market‐oriented, market‐ oriented, pastoralists, etc.) market‐oriented pastoralists

Possible social exclusion issues No No

men are involved in the Gender (male or female benefit more?) production and women in marketing Both Both level of upscalabity in the zone High Low

Possible constraints for adoption land tenure could be a problem, investment costs for tubewells, land preparation Possible constraints for adoption

Impact on groundwater table, use of fertilizer could affect health

39

Annex Table 6B: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Motor pumps) in Livelihood Zones 9 and 10 MOTOR PUMPS in Zones 9 and 10 Livelihood zone Zone 9 Zone 10 Notes Relevance in the zone (high, medium, low relevance) High High

Water is available in 9, in 10 Physical suitability (high, medium, low) High Medium part is dry Main purposes (crops (specify), livestock, fish ponds, etc) Vegetables Vegetables

For veg growers, periurban, not Livelihood impact (income growth, etc.)

High High for tree crops Beneficiaries (traditional farmers, market‐ Periurban, market‐ Periurban, market‐ oriented, pastoralists, etc.) oriented oriented

Motor pumps costs, very poor Possible social exclusion issues cannot afford Poor people Poor people Gender (male or female benefit more?)

Both Both

level of upscalabity in the zone High Medium

Possible constraints for adoption Costs of the pumps, fuel

Environmental impact use of fertilization

Table 6C: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Outgrowers) in Livelihood Zones 9 and 10 OUTGROWERS in Zones 9 and 10 Livelihood zone Zone 9 Zone 10 Notes Relevance in the zone (high, High (for tomato) High (for rice) In areas like Akomadan, medium, low relevance) Physical suitability (high, medium, High High

low) Main purposes (crops (specify), Vegetables Vegetables, rice Tomatoes, pepper livestock, fish ponds, etc) Assured of ready market though prices Livelihood impact (income growth, Medium Medium paid for produce may be low etc.)

Beneficiaries (traditional farmers, market‐ oriented, pastoralists, etc.)

Market oriented

Market oriented

Possible social exclusion issues

None

None

Anyone willing to grow can be part of the scheme

Gender (male or female benefit more?)

Male

Male

Women role in the marketing is cut out in the case of outgrower schemes

High

High

level of upscalabity in the zone Possible constraints for adoption

Environmental impact

Disappointments; conflicts

Increase fertilizer application

Farmers may produce and not sell to original intended buyers because another investor offers higher price; farmers produce and buyers fail to turn up As a result of intensive and large scale cultivation

40

Annex Table 6D: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Small Dams) in Livelihood Zones 9 and 10 SMALL DAMS in Zones 9 and 10 Livelihood zone Zone 9 Zone 10 Relevance in the zone (high, medium, low relevance) Medium High Physical suitability (high, medium, low) Main purposes (crops (specify), livestock, fish ponds, etc) Livelihood impact (income growth, etc.)

Beneficiaries (traditional farmers, market‐ oriented, pastoralists, etc.)

Possible social exclusion issues

High

Notes

Zone 9 has a number of rivers/streams that can be used;

Vegetables

Medium Vegetables, fishery and livestock

High

High

Will ensure dry season cultivation

Market‐oriented

Community‐based ones have no social exclusion but with private dams, only rich people may afford

Market‐oriented and pastoralists

Gender (male or female benefit more?)

Both Both

level of upscalabity in the zone High investment cost High investment cost

Possible constraints for adoption Cost of construction Cost of construction

Environmental impact Increased incidence of water‐borne diseases

Working Group 5 assessed the AWM Solutions in Livelihood Zones 11 and 12. (See Tables 7A to 7D below).

41

Annex Table 7A: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Groundwater) in Livelihood Zones 11 and 12 GROUNDWATER in Zones 11 and 12 Livelihood zone Zone 11 Zone 12 Relevance in the zone (high, medium, low high ‐ drinking & domestic use, relevance) low ‐ agriculture High high ‐ lots of ground water Physical suitability (high, medium, low) potentially available due to high medium ‐ issues of salt infiltration rainfall into water Main purposes (crops (specify), livestock, fish ponds, household/domestic use, use for etc) processing of crops household/domestic use water quality is high , little health Livelihood impact (income growth, etc.) risk less travel time to collect water Beneficiaries (traditional farmers, market‐ oriented, access should be available to all access should be available to all in pastoralists, etc.) in the community the community those that are wealthier can Possible social exclusion issues afford the infrastructure for those that are wealthier can afford creation the infrastructure for creation females ‐ benefit because they females ‐ benefit because they don't Gender (male or female benefit more?) don't have spend time have spend time searching/collecting water searching/collecting water level of upscalabity in the zone High High ensure location of ground water ensure location of ground water access is suitable for the whole access is suitable for the whole community. If the taste isn't as community. If the taste isn't as good good as what they are use to, as what they are use to, they may Possible constraints for adoption they may not use the new water. not use the new water. Mining sites Mining sites may also effect the may also effect the taste ‐ so taste ‐ so location of borehole is location of borehole is highly highly important. important. lowering water table not so much lowering of water table ‐ can lead to Environmental impact of an issue due to high rainfall salt related issues

42

Annex Table 7B: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Motor pump) in Livelihood Zones 11 and 12 MOTOR PUMP in Zones 11 and 12 Livelihood zone Zone 11 Zone 12 Relevance in the zone (high, medium, low medium ‐ fewer rivers and streams relevance) to access water from High Physical suitability (high, medium, low) High High crops ‐ vegetables (especially Main purposes (crops (specify), livestock, fish ponds, crops ‐ vegetables, pepper, shallots, okra, tomatoes), etc) processing/distilling of alcohol watermelon increased productivity leading to Livelihood impact (income growth, etc.) increased income or increased increased crop productivity leading food to eat to increased income Beneficiaries (traditional farmers, market‐ oriented, pastoralists, etc.) farmers, families of farmers Farmers Possible social exclusion issues

males will dominate access to the males will dominate access to the pumps ‐ but collection of water is pumps ‐ but collection of water is collected by both male and collected by both male and female.

Gender (male or female benefit more?) female. Female participants think Female participants think males males benefit more, because benefit more, because they pocket they pocket the money from the the money from the extra income extra income gained! gained! level of upscalabity in the zone High Medium financial, education/training on financial, education/training on use Possible constraints for adoption use of pumps, maintenance of pumps, maintenance issues, issues, quality of pumps quality of pumps Environmental impact noise, spillage of oil noise, spillage of oil

Annex Table 7C: Assessments of AWM Solutions (outgrowers) in Livelihood Zones 11 and 12 OUTGROWERS in Zones 11 and 12 Livelihood zone Zone 11 Zone 12 Relevance in the zone (high, medium, low relevance) High High Physical suitability (high, medium, low) High High Main purposes (crops (specify), livestock, fish ponds, crops ‐tree crops (oil palm, etc) rubber, citrus) crops ‐ citrus, pineapple increased income to farmers, but increased income to farmers, but Livelihood impact (income growth, etc.) only if the market price is right only if the market price is right traditional farmers, market‐ Beneficiaries (traditional farmers, market‐ oriented, oriented, companies financing traditional farmers, market‐oriented, pastoralists, etc.) the scheme companies financing the scheme ownership of land ‐ only possible ownership of land ‐ only possible if Possible social exclusion issues if you own land, or company lets you own land, or company lets you you farm on the land farm on the land men ‐ due to being the main men ‐ due to being the main owners Gender (male or female benefit more?) owners of the land of the land level of upscalabity in the zone low‐medium low‐medium farmers are not too keen on this farmers are not too keen on this scheme due to the profit margin. scheme due to the profit margin.

Possible constraints for adoption They would need to be convinced They would need to be convinced of of the benefit to them the benefit to them

43

Environmental impact

Annex Table 7D: Assessments of AWM Solutions (Small dams) in Livelihood Zones 11 and 12 SMALL DAMS in Zones 11 and 12 Livelihood zone Zone 11 Zone 12 med ‐ because there is so much rain and water is available from Relevance in the zone (high, medium, low rivers. But there is irrigation in High relevance) the eastern region of this area coming from dams Physical suitability (high, medium, low) High High Main purposes (crops (specify), livestock, fish ponds, etc) crops, livestock, fish ponds domestic, crops, livestock income growth through increased Livelihood impact (income growth, etc.)

productivity Beneficiaries (traditional farmers, market‐ oriented, pastoralists, etc.)

Farmers Farmers Possible social exclusion issues financial constraints financial constraints Gender (male or female benefit more?)

level of upscalabity in the zone Low Low Possible constraints for adoption finding the space

managing dam for multiple usages ‐ pollution by livestock, managing dam for multiple usages ‐ taking land away from farming pollution by livestock, taking land Environmental impact purposes, change ecosystem away from farming purposes, change ecology, safety concerns with ecosystem ecology, safety concerns improper construction with improper construction

44

45

Annex 5 – LIVELIHOOD ZONES ATTRIBUTES TABLE – General characteristics

Livelihood Zone

Sub‐division criteria

Main climate

Main livelihood sources

North-West Millet/Sorghum-Legumes-Cattle Zone (Zone 1)

Population density (and land availability); Nearness to rivers such as the Black Volta

Unimodal rainfall; generally high temperatures (but very cold night temperatures during harmattan); relatively low humidity

North-East Millet/Sorghum/Rice-LegumesSmall Ruminants/Guinea Fowl Zone (Zone 2)

Population density (and land availability), Nearness to rivers such as the White Volta, Gold mining, Crafts

Unimodal rainfall; generally high temperatures (but very cold night temperatures during harmattan); relatively low humidity

Arable crop farming; livestock (mainly sheep, goats and guinea fowls) rearing; dry season gardening; mining; crafts

North-Central Maize/Rice-Mango-GroundnutSmall Ruminants Zone (Zone 3)

Urbanization (and thus peri‐urban agriculture); Tree crop (mango);

Unimodal rainfall; generally high temperatures (but very cold night temperatures during harmattan); relatively low humidity

Arable crop farming; livestock rearing; emerging commercial mango production; trading in agricultural and non‐agricultural products

North East Corridor and Upper Volta Yam/Cassava-Groundnut- Cattle Zone (Zone 4)

Commercial yam production; extensive livestock

Unimodal rainfall; generally high temperatures; low to medium humidity

Arable crop farming; Livestock (mainly cattle)

Volta Lake Inland Fishing Zone (Zone 5)

Fishing and fish marketing

Unimodal rainfall; generally high temperatures; low to medium humidity

Arable crop farming; fishing

Upper Middle Belt Maize-Yam/Cassava Zone (Zone 6)

Savanna and forest areas;

Unimodal rainfall; generally high temperatures; medium humidity

Savanna arable crops; forest arable crops

Arable crop farming; Livestock (mainly cattle and pigs) rearing; "Pito" (local beer) brewing; charcoal production

46

Middle Volta Cocoa/Coffee-Cassava-Small Ruminants Zone (Zone 7)

Mountainous; savanna and forest areas

Bi‐modal rainfall regime, medium humidity

Tree crops; arable crops; small ruminants

Central Middle Belt Commercial MaizeCassava-Small Ruminants Livelihood Zone (Zone 8)

Commercial maize; Commercial yam/cassava

Bi‐modal rainfall regime, medium humidity

Arable crops (commercial production); small ruminants

Lower Middle Belt Cocoa/Oil Palm/CitrusCommercial Poultry-Mining Zone (Zone 9)

Tree crops; Commercial poultry; Mining; Trading

Bi‐modal rainfall regime

Tree crops; arable crops; commercial poultry; legal and illegal mining; trading in agricultural and non‐agricultural products

Inland Greater Accra and Lower Volta Commercial Rice-Cattle Zone (Zone 10)

Commercial irrigated rice; Commercial livestock

Bi‐modal rainfall regime, high humidity

Commercial rice; commercial vegetables; livestock

High Forest Timber-Cocoa/Oil Palm/RubberMining Zone (Zone 11)

Timber; Tree crops; Mining

Bi‐modal high rainfall, high humidity

Timber; tree crops; mining

Coastal Belt Marine Fishing-Vegetables-Salt Zone (Zone 12)

Sea fishing; vegetable cultivation; groundwater irrigation

Bi‐modal rainfall regime, medium humidity

Sea fishing; arable crops; vegetables

Annex 6 – LIVELIHOOD ZONES ATTRIBUTES TABLE – Socioeconomic characteristics 1

Main crops

Livestock Farmers typology

Livelihood Zone Food crops rainfed

irrigated

Cash crops rainfed

irrigated

Livestock Cattle

Small Ruminants

Poultry

Piggery

a

b

c

d

47

1

2

4

Rice, maize, yam and cassava Yam, cassava, maize, soyabeans, sorghum, millet

5

Maize, yam, cassava

3

6

7

8

Millet, sorghum, maize, cowpea, groundnut, yam Millet, sorghum, rice, maize, groundnut, sweet potato, yam (limited)

Maize, yam, cassava Maize, rice, cassava, cocoyam and plantain Maize, yam, cassava, cocoyam, plantain

Sorghum, cotton, groundnut, shea

Tomatoes

Rice

Shea, cotton, soyabeans

Tomatoes, onions, peppers, rice

Cattle

Cattle

Sheep and goats

Local chicken, guinea fowl

Sheep and goats

Guinea fowls, local chickens

Sheep and goats

Local chickens, guinea fowl

Millet, maize, cowpea, yam

Sorghum, cotton

Pigs

Millet, sorgum, rice, groundnuts

Irrigated production of vegetables and rice

Maize, rice mango

Pigs

Sorghum, millet

Yam, maize

Pigs

Shea, cotton, groundnut

Shea, cotton, soyabeans, shea

Cattle

Sheep and goats

Local chicken, guinea fowl

Vegetables

Maize, yam, cassava

Fishing

Shea, cashew

Commer‐ cial poultry

Shea, cashew, poultry

Cocoa, coffee, oil palm

Sheep and goats

Commer‐ cial poultry

Pigs

Cassava

Cocoa, sheep and goats

Maize, yam, cassava, oil palm

Sheep and goats

Commer‐ cial poultry

Plantain, cocoyam

Maize, yam, cassava, sheep and goats

Maize,

Mango

Cattle

Pigs

48

9

Cassava, yam, cocoyam, plantain

10

Cassava, plantain, bananas, cocoyam

11

Cassava, maize, plantain, cocoyam

12

Maize, cassava

Cocoa, oil palm, citrus Tomatoes, pepper, okro, garden eggs, onions, cocoa, oil palm

Cocoa, oil palm, rubber, coconut

Sheep and goats

Commer‐ cial poultry

Cattle

Commer‐ cial poultry

Pineapple, tomatoes, pepper, garden eggs, okro, onions, shallots

Commer‐ cial poultry

Pigs

Cassava, maize, cocoyam, plantain

Cocoa, oil palm, citrus, poultry, pigs

Cassava, maize

Cocoyam, plantain

Irrigated rice and vegetables, bananas (mainly for export) Cocoa, oil palm, rubber, coconut, cassava, maize

Maize, rice, cassava, cocoyam

Pineapple, tomato, pepper, onions, shallots

Annex 7 – LIVELIHOOD ZONES ATTRIBUTES TABLE – Socioeconomic characteristics 2

Livelihood Zone

Average landholding size (in %)

Prevalence of gender farming systems

Main constraints for livelihoods

Incidence of rural poverty (high, moderate, limited)

Market access (high, moderate, limited) Migration issues

Inputs a

b

c

d

a

b

Other aspects (e.g. dominant ethnic groups)

Outputs

c

49

1

2

3

45%

90%

25%

10%

9%

50%

1%

25%

5%

55%

35%

70%

10%

25%

5%

60%

25%

Erratic rainfall, limited irrigation infrastructure, population pressure

45%

4

25%

65%

10%

70%

5%

25%

5

60%

6%

34%

6

7

8

9

40%

Erratic rainfall, very limited irrigation infrastructure, limited potential for non‐farm activities Erratic rainfall, broken down irrigation infrastructure, limited potential for non‐farm activities, population pressure

98%

90%

15%

25%

2%

10%

40%

50%

40%

25%

5%

55%

55%

30%

25%

10%

10%

30%

35%

Erratic rainfall, absence of irrigation infrastructure, poor roads Poor water transport system, limited infrastructure to support fishing and fish processing

45%

Poor transport system, limited support to shea and cashew industry Population pressure, limited available agricultural land and very limited irrigation infrastructure

40%

Limited mechanization equipment

35%

40%

Labour shortages

High

High

Moderate

limited

limited

Moderate

Limited

High out‐migration, both seasonal and permanent to both urban and rural areas

Dagaabas, Walas, Sissalas, Lobis

Limited

High out‐migration, both seasonal and permanent to both urban and rural areas

Frafras, Kusasis, Kassenas, Builsas, Mamprusis and Bimobas

Moderate

High out‐migration, both seasonal and permanent to mainly urban areas

Dagombas, Mamprusis, Frafras Dagombas, Nanumbas, Chikosis, Kokombas, Akans

Moderate

limited

Limited

High out‐migration, both seasonal and permanent to mainly urban areas

Moderate

limited

Moderate

In‐migration mainly from Volta Region

Gonjas, Ewes, Akans

Moderate

limited

Limited

Low out‐migration and low in‐migration

Gonjas, Akans

Moderate

High outmigration to Volta lake area for fishing and urban areas

Ewes, Akans, Guans

High

Low out‐migration and high in‐migration manily form northern parts

Akans, Brongs, Mole‐ Dagbani groups

High

Low out‐migration and high in‐migration manily form northern parts

Akans, Mole‐Dagbani groups

Moderate

Limited

Limited

Moderate

High

High

50

10

45

55

30%

30%

40%

Population pressure, limited available agricultural land

11

45%

55%

60%

20%

20%

Too much rain and poor road transport

40%

Population pressure, limited available agricultural land

12

90%

10%

30%

30%

High

Low out‐migration and high in‐migration manily form northern parts and Volta Region

Akans, Ga‐Dangwes, Ewes

Mode‐ rate

Mode‐ rate

Low outmigration and low in‐ migration

Sefwis, Ahantas, Akans

mode‐ rate

mode‐ rate

High in‐ migration to cities

Fantes (Akans), Ahantas, Ga‐Dangwe, Ewes

Limited

High

Moderate

Limited

Annex 8 – LIVELIHOOD ZONES ATTRIBUTES TABLE – Water‐related characteristics

Livelihood Zone

Main water‐related constraints

1

Long dry season and lack of irrigation infrastructure

2

Long dry season and limited irrigation infrastructure

to what extent AWM can improve livelihoods (high, moderate, limited)

Very high

Very high

Local conflicts (competing uses) on water management

Moderate

Moderate

surface water availability and exploitation (high, moderate, limited)

Moderate

Moderate

groundwater availability and exploitation (high, moderate, limited)

main water use (farming, livestock, domestic, etc.)

Frequence of droughts and dry spells (high, moderate, limited)

Moderate

Crop, livestock, agro‐ processing

High

Moderate

Crop, livestock, agro‐ processing

High

Ethnicity implications for AWM

Not critical Could be a problem without adequate sensitization because of land pressure

Notes

51

3

Long dry season and limited irrigation infrastructure

4

Long dry season and lack of irrigation infrastructure

5

Poor drainage and cultivation close to bank of lake

6

7

8

9

Limited irrigation infrastructure

Lack of irrigation infrastructure

None

Very high

Low (limited)

High

High

High

Low (limited)

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

High

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

High

Moderate

Crop, livestock, agro‐ processing

High

Could be a problem without adequate sensitization Can be a very significant problem without extensive sensitization

High

Fishing, crop, agro‐ processing

Moderate

Not critical

Moderate

Crop, livestock, agro‐ processing

Moderate

Not critical

Moderate

Crop, livestock, agro‐ processing

Moderate

Not critical

Moderate

Crop, livestock, agro‐ processing

Moderate

Not critical

High

Crop, livestock, agro‐ processing

Low

Not critical

Low

Not critical

10

None

Low (limited)

Low

Low

High

Crop, livestock, agro‐ processing

11

None

Low (limited)

Low

High

High

Crop, agro‐ processing

Low

Not critical

Moderate

Crop, livestock, agro‐ processing

Moderate

Not critical

12

Lack of irrigation infrastructure

Very high

Crop, livestock, agro‐ processing

Limited irrigation infrastructure

High

Moderate

High

52

53