GHANA : LIVELIHOOD ZONES ANALYSIS

Page 1

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

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.