Ghana case study

MANAGING AID FOR TRADE AND

DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

Ghana Case Study

MANAGING AID FOR TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

GHANA CASE STUDY

By

Bernardin Senadza, PhD

A.D. Amarquaye Laryea, PhD

November 2012

Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors wish thank staff of MoFEP, MoTI and MoFA who provided valuable insights for the

preparation of this paper. Our thanks, in particularly, goes to Mr. Lambert Abusah of MoFA for

providing us with many sector related documents and data. We also wish to thank development

partners for providing information on various issues. Our interactions with Mr. Claude Maerten, EU

Ambassador/ Head of Delegation to Ghana also proved useful. Mr. Masato Hayashikawa of the

OECD provided useful comments on an earlier draft. We acknowledge very good research assistance

from Louis Hodey, Godson Korbla Aloryito and Theophilus Eyram Kwami. Any errors and omissions

are ours.


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 2

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 4

LIST OF BOXES .................................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................... 6

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 8

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10

1.1 Background to the Economy of Ghana ................................................................................. 10

1.2 Rationale for Aid-for-Trade .................................................................................................. 10

1.3 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................... 11

1.4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 11

1.5 Outline of Report .................................................................................................................. 11

2 Role of Trade in Development ...................................................................................................... 11

3 Ghana‟s Past and Present Trade Policies and Current Development Framework ........................ 12

3.1 Past and Present Trade Policies ............................................................................................ 12

3.2 The Current Development Policy Framework ...................................................................... 14

4 Agricultural Trade, Development Cooperation and Aid Flows .................................................... 16

4.1 Agricultural Trade Performance ........................................................................................... 16

4.2 Development Cooperation .................................................................................................... 17

4.3 Aid-for-Trade Flows ............................................................................................................. 18

4.4 Donor Activities in the Agriculture Sector ........................................................................... 19

5 Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Programmes ........................................................... 22

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 22

5.2 Indicators for Measuring Outcomes of Agriculture Sector Programmes .............................. 22

5.3 The Monitoring and Evaluation Framework ......................................................................... 24

5.3.1 National Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements ..................................................... 24

5.3.2 Sectoral Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements ...................................................... 25

5.3.3 Decentralised System of Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................... 26

5.4 Donor Monitoring & Evaluation and Coordination between Donors and MoFA ................. 27

5.5 Challenges and Constraints of the M&E System .................................................................. 29

5.6 Managing Aid for Trade for Results ..................................................................................... 29

6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 31

References ............................................................................................................................................. 32


3

Annex A: On-going Donor Projects in Agriculture .............................................................................. 33

Annex B: Key Indicators for Measuring Results in Agriculture Sector ............................................... 40


4

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Sector shares in GDP (%) ........................................................................................... 16

Figure 2 Export and import shares of GDP (%) ....................................................................... 16

Figure 3 Export destination shares (%) .................................................................................... 16

Figure 4 Agriculture export revenues (US$ m) ........................................................................ 16

Figure 5 Export earnings shares (%) ........................................................................................ 17

Figure 6 Export concentration and diversification indices ....................................................... 17

Figure 7 Gross AfT commitments (2010 US$ m) ..................................................................... 18

Figure 8 Agriculture share of productive capacity AfT commitments (%) .............................. 18

Figure 9 Top 10 ODA donors, all sectors 2001-2010 (2010 US$ m) ...................................... 19

Figure 10 Top 10 ODA donors, agriculture 2001-2010 (2010 US$ m) ..................................... 19

Figure 11 National monitoring and evaluation framework ......................................................... 25

Figure 12 Sector monitoring and evaluation framework ............................................................. 25

Figure 13 Decentralised monitoring and evaluation framework ................................................ 26


5

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1 USAID Agriculture Activity in Ghana .................................................................................... 20

Box 2 German Development Cooperation in Agriculture ................................................................. 21


6

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADVANCE Agriculture Development Value Chain Enhancement Programme

ACP African Caribbean Pacific

AfT Aid-for-trade

AfDB African Development Bank

AFD Agence Francais dѐ Development

AGI Association of Ghanaian Industries

AGRA Alliance for Green Revolution for Africa

APR Annual Progress Report

ASWG Agricultural Sector Working Group

BUSAC Business Sector Advocacy Challenge

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CEPS Customs, Excise and Preventive Service

CIDA Canadian International Development Agency

COCOBOD Cocoa Board

CRS Creditor Reporting System

CSOs Civil Society Organisations

CSP Country Strategy Paper

CSPGs Cross Sectoral Planning Groups

DAC Development Assistance Committee

DPCUs District Planning Coordinating Units

DPs Development Partners

EC European Commission

EDF European Development Fund

EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária

ERP Economic Reforms Programme

EU European Union

EWB Engineers without Borders

FAGE Federation of Associations of Ghanaian Exporters

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FASDEP ΙΙ Food and Agriculture Sector Development Programme II

FC Financial Cooperation

FtF Feed the Future

GCAP Ghana Commercial Agriculture project

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIZ Gesellschaft fϋr Internationale Zusammenarbeit GoG Government of Ghana

GPRS I Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy

GPRS II Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy

GSGDA Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda

GSS Ghana Statistical Service

GSSP Ghana Strategic Support Programme

ICFG Integrated Coastal and Fisheries Governance

IDA International Development Association

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IMF International Monetary Fund

IWMI International Water Management Institute

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

JIRCAS Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Science JSR Joint Sector Review

KfW Kreditanstallt fϋr Wiederaufbau

MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation


7

METASIP Medium-Term Agricultural Sector Investment Plan

METSS Monitoring, Evaluation, and Technical Support Service

MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies

MDBS Multi-Donor Budgetary Support

MOAP Market Oriented Agricultural Programme

MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture

MoFEP Ministry Finance and Economic Planning

MoTI Ministry of Trade and Industry

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

Mt Metric tonnes

NDPC National Development Planning Commission

NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations

NIP National Indicative Programme

NTEs Non-traditional Exports

ODA Official Development Assistance

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OVCF Outgrower and Value Chain Fund

PEF Private Enterprise Foundation

PPMEDs Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Divisions

PTB German Institute of Metrology

RCC Regional Coordinating Council

RPCUs Regional Planning Coordinating Units

RSD Regional Sector Department

SAP Structural Adjustment Programme

TC Technical Cooperation

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WB World Bank

WFP World Food Programme


8

Executive Summary Ghana‟s long term development goal is to achieve a per capita income of at least US$3,000 by 2020.

The agriculture sector is expected to play a major role in this regard. However, productive capacity

constraints, arising largely from human, institutional and other bottlenecks pose a major challenge to

the attainment of this goal. Aid-for-trade, particularly, into the agriculture sector can propel the

achievement of this development objective.

This report sets out to examine the mechanisms for tracking the outcomes of AfT interventions in the

agricultural sector and recommend ways of improving on existing frameworks to enable the

measurement of the performance of AfT interventions towards quantifiable targets and objectives.

The current development policy framework is the Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda

(GSGDA 2010-2013). Within the framework, trade features prominently, and emphasises improving

export competitiveness, diversifying and increasing exports and markets. The GSGDA policy

document also emphasises the importance of the agriculture sector, and more directly related to trade

is the objective of achieving increased competitiveness. The agriculture sector objectives are to be

pursued based on the FASDEP II document and its accompanying investment plan, the METASP.

Ghana‟s main agricultural exports are cocoa and non-traditional agriculture products. Non-traditional

exports have been promoted as part of the ERP/SAP. In spite of efforts at diversifying the export base,

however, the country‟s exports continue to be dominated by a few products. As at 2011, export

earnings from agriculture amounted to just a little over 30 percent. Clearly, there is need to intensify

efforts at increasing the share of agriculture in Ghana‟s trade.

Ghana receives a significant amount of aid by African standards. Data on ODA commitments as

captured by the OECD CRS indicates that most AfT goes into economic infrastructure and the

building of productive capacities of the real sectors of the economy. These receipts into the

agriculture sector can go a long way in improving productive capacity of the sector for it to be able to

achieve both domestic and international market objectives of the sector. Improving export

competitiveness, diversifying and increasing exports and markets is one such international market

objectives. Thus trade is mainstreamed in development policy. Trade features prominently in the

GSGDA and aspects of Ghana‟s trade policy are embedded in it but the country currently does not

have coherent aid-for-trade strategy in place to ensure that aid flows into the agriculture sector have

the desired impact on Ghana‟s agricultural trade and that the impacts and outcomes can be adequately

ascertained. And while there is a significant donor presence in the agriculture sector of Ghana and

many of the projects and programmes seem to be aligned to the country‟s development objectives in

agriculture as contained in the GSGDA/FASDEP documents, examination of these activities however

indicates that only a few donors focus explicitly on activities with a trade element. While the GSGDA

and FASDEP II have some agriculture trade related indicators, the problem though is the lack of

harmonization between the indicators for the two sets of documents.

Apart from the national M&E framework that also applies to the agriculture sector to enable the

measurement of outcomes based on pre-determined agriculture sector indicators, a lot of coordination

also goes on between MoFA and development partners. Coordination takes place largely within the

annual joint sector reviews. However, what is missing from the JSRs is the lack of discussions on the

impact of donor support on agriculture trade outcomes. While there are a lot of donor activities

ongoing in the agriculture sector, most of them lack direct trade objectives. Apart from the fact that

trade impacts of aid may not be a direct objective of many donors, MoFA‟s indicators as derived from

agriculture sector policy objectives tend to focus more on domestic outcomes. For instance, increasing

food production and ensuring food security is one often highlighted objective and many donors,

including CIDA, are increasingly involved in helping the country achieve such objectives. Another

reason for low discussions on the impact of donor assistance on trade is that MoFA‟s objectives have


9

also focused more on reducing the importation of agriculture products (for example, rice) rather than

pursuing an export agenda.

Against the backdrop of the substantial AfT flows into the agriculture sector of Ghana, it is imperative

for the country to adopt a framework that enables the measurement of the trade impacts of aid based

on some identified trade-related indicators and the development of a workable M&E system to

measure results.

In 2011 Ghana introduced an aid policy, titled Ghana Aid Policy and Strategy, which spans the period

2011 and 2015. The aid policy was developed in „response to available evidence showing that

recipient country policies and procedures, human capacity, economic management and institutional

arrangements determine to a large extent the optimal allocation of aid and its impact on growth and

poverty reduction‟. The policy was fashioned out of the objectives of the Paris Declaration on Aid

Effectiveness, 2005 and the Accra Agenda for Action, 2008. The aim of the aid policy is to ensure

that aid is managed and monitored properly, i.e. to ensure effectiveness and coordination by aligning

external aid to national development priorities.

The aid policy spells out some measures to ensure effective monitoring and evaluation of aid in

general, and can thus serve as minimal framework for introducing trade objectives and indicators to

measure the impact of AfT. The ingredients that must go into this should include Ghana‟s own targets

as defined in its development policies. Indicators could include increase in the diversification of

agriculture exports, increase in export earnings and the number of export markets, and increase in the

proportion of processed (value-added) agriculture products. Also important is finding targets that can

be monitored without expending too many resources – both human and financial. The mechanism

should also reflect donors‟ views on mutual accountability.

For an aid-for-trade strategy in agriculture to work, there would be the need to strengthen the intra-

sectoral and inter-ministerial coordination through a platform for joint planning. Thus there would be

the need for a review in the development and implementation of a communication strategy to improve

institutional coordination as well as create and strengthen the framework for coordinating activities

among all stakeholders in the sector. This must include each ministry identifying an agricultural

content in its strategic policy. The strategy should thus create effective internal coordination linkages

among three key stakeholders, namely, MoFA, MoFEP and MoTI on one hand and between these

ministries and DPs on the other to ensure effective monitoring and evaluation for results. Mutual

accountability in terms of resource flow and achievement of results makes it imperative to strengthen

existing M&E systems for trade results. Mainstreaming aid-for-trade into the country‟s development

agenda would improve monitoring and evaluation.


10

1 Introduction

1.1 Background to the Economy of Ghana

Ghana gained political independence from Great Britain on March 6, 1957. With an estimated

population of 24 million in 2010, the economy of Ghana has a diverse and rich resource base, and has

one of the highest GDP per capita in Africa. The country however remains somewhat dependent on

international financial and technical assistance as well as remittances from an extensive Ghanaian

diaspora. Gold, cocoa, timber, diamonds, bauxite, and manganese continue to be the country‟s main

exports and major sources of foreign exchange. Subsistence agriculture is still pronounced and

accounts for 35 percent of GDP and employs 55 percent of the work force. In 2007, Ghana discovered

oil in commercial quantities and this has raised hopes but has also generated some fears about the

resource curse.

Ghana‟s post-independence growth record has been one of unevenness. GDP growth was reasonably

high in the 1950s and early 1960s. However, the economy‟s growth began to slow down in 1964 due

mainly to policy failure. By 1983, the economy was almost on the brink of a collapse.

Economic reforms (ERP/SAP) supported by the IMF and the World Bank were instituted to stabilise

the economy and correct a number of structural imbalances in order to spur growth. The economy

responded positively to the ERP/SAP and the favourable trend has continued since that time, with

growth settling around 5 percent for most parts of the almost three decades following the reforms. In

the past six years much higher growth rates have been recorded and with the onset of the production

of oil in commercial quantities in 2010, an exceptionally high real GDP growth of 14 percent was

recorded in 2011.

Ghana‟s long term development goal as contained in the Ghana Shared Growth and Development

Agenda (GSGDA) is to achieve a per capita income of at least US$3,000 by 2020.

1.2 Rationale for Aid-for-Trade

It has long been recognised that low-income countries cannot integrate into the international trading

system on the same terms and conditions as their high-income counterparts. Various concessions such

as trade preferences have been introduced to help low-income countries fully benefit from the

international trading system. However due to productive capacity constraints, arising largely from

human, institutional and other bottlenecks, the challenges low-income economies face in exploiting

market access opportunities continue to persist. Market access - which has assumed centre stage in

multilateral trade negotiations - is thus a necessary but insufficient condition for harnessing the

opportunities trade presents for development in low-income countries.

Aid-for-trade (AfT) is development assistance to bolster trade capacity and reduce trade costs in low

income countries. For it to be effective, however, AfT must address national trade-related priorities

identified through domestic policy formulation processes. Much of the focus of AfT is on agriculture

because of its importance to the economy. Equally important is the need to have a monitoring and

evaluation (M&E) mechanism for assessing the impacts of AfT, particularly in the context of the

country‟s development goals and/or trade policy objectives.

This report sets out to examine the mechanisms for tracking the outcomes of AfT interventions in the

agricultural sector and/ or recommend ways of improving on existing frameworks to enable the

measurement of the performance of AfT interventions towards quantifiable targets and objectives.


11

1.3 Terms of Reference

In line with the terms of reference, the report provides:

1. a concise but comprehensive survey of existing mechanisms used in Ghana to manage aid for

trade and development results (including targets and performance indicators);

2. an assessment of the targets and indicators donors use to monitor progress with their aid for

trade-related projects and programmes; and

3. an assessment of the main challenges and constraints -as well as the way they have been

addressed or should be addressed- regarding the introducing of a country-managed aid-for-

trade results framework, which would contribute to fulfilling mutual accountability

requirements.

1.4 Methodology

The approach to the assignment involved an assessment of the existing national monitoring and

evaluation framework for development plans, as well as agriculture sector-specific and donor M&E

systems. It also involved a review of existing national and sectoral development policies, trade policy,

aid policy, and the analyses of data on aid-for-trade flows and donor activities in the agriculture

sector.

Interviews with key state actors and development partners within the national landscape of trade-

related assistance were conducted. Three key MDAs were consulted, namely, the Ministry of Finance

and Economic Planning (MoFEP), whose responsibilities include national aid management and

coordination; the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MoTI), responsible for trade policy formulation and

the development of domestic and international trade; and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture

(MoFA), responsible for developing and executing policies and strategies for the agriculture sector

within the context of a coordinated national socio-economic growth and development agenda.

Interviews were conducted with and data obtained from some development partners active in Ghana‟s

agriculture sector.

1.5 Outline of Report

The rest of the report is structured as follows. Section 2 gives a theoretical background and outlines

some empirical results on the role of trade in development. Ghana‟s past and present trade policies

and the current development framework is discussed in Section 3. Section 4 gives an overview of

Ghana‟s agriculture trade, development cooperation, aid-for-trade flows, and donor activities in the

agriculture sector. Chapter 5 discusses the institutional framework for monitoring and evaluating

development programmes and project, the role of donors, the indicators used for monitoring

agriculture sector objectives, and an assessment of the challenges and constraints in the M&E system.

Concluding remarks on how to manage AfT for results are offered in chapter 6.

2 Role of Trade in Development

The importance of trade to development and growth is well grounded in theory. The rationale for

gains from trade is provided by comparative advantage theory which says all countries gain when

each concentrates on and exports goods that they can produce at lower opportunity cost than their

trading partners. Different explanations have been given for the basis of comparative advantage but

the most dominant one is the Hecksher-Ohlin Model. This says that a country can produce a product

at lower opportunity cost if that product requires intensive use of inputs the country has in relative

abundance. Thus a country well endowed with arable land will tend to have an advantage in

producing agricultural commodities. So long as its trading partners also adhere to the same principle


12

they will also gain. The recommendation for countries then is to follow the dictates of comparative

advantage and allow the free interplay of market forces.

The gains derived however are only static. Dynamic gains and growth come in when „resource

allocation according to comparative advantage, higher capacity utilisation and the exploitation of

economies of scale under an outward oriented development strategy improve investment efficiency

where the resulting savings in capital may be used to increase output and employment elsewhere in

the economy.i Other dynamic gains that can lead to growth include the ability of a developing

country especially to acquire the vital inputs such as technology to aid in the development process.

Learning effects are also achieved from the development of new product technologies and information

sources.

However, it has been observed that the transmission of economic growth from the export sector to the

rest of the economy will depend on the capital intensity of the production process, the economies of

scale in export production, the transportation requirements of exports, the availability of underutilised

factors in the rest of the economy, the level of entrepreneurial skills among others. This then hinges

on policies that can be put in place. Studies have shown that this is important. For instance time series

analysis involving 27 developing countries in the 1970s led to the conclusion that the country‟s own

policies rather than external factors dominated export growth in the developing countries. According

to the authors „the results are consistent with the hypothesis that export success is related to

favourable internal factors influencing a country‟s ability to compete and diversify‟.ii

The weight of evidence both theoretical and empirical then points to the fact that trade presents an

opportunity for growth but does not guarantee it. Consequently the onus lies with government to

adopt policies that will create the necessary environment that will ensure positive benefits from trade.

The kinds of policies that matter in this respect involve the building and enhancement of economic

infrastructure and institutions, the building of productive capacity, the kind of trade policies and

regulations undertaken and trade related infrastructure. Since developing countries typically lack

adequate resources to undertake the policies mentioned external resources especially aid are needed.

This is where the question of aid for trade comes in. The need is to create a more competitive

economy.

3 Ghana’s Past and Present Trade Policies and Current Development Framework

3.1 Past and Present Trade Policies

Before Ghana gained political independence in 1957 the trade regime was generally a liberal one with

few restrictions. There was no deliberate effort to promote exports or generally to interfere with the

trading process. This all changed with the coming of independence as Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the first

president, had ambitious plans to accelerate the pace of development of the country.

Nkrumah‟s policies were modelled on those of the former Soviet Union and other socialist states that

required the heavy hand of government in economic activity. The motivation for Nkrumah‟s policies

were reinforced by the ideas of standard development economics of the day which believed that

serious market failure in economies such as Ghana‟s required a lot of government intervention in

economic activity. The level of entrepreneurship was perceived to be low, the kind of investment that

needed to be made required saving levels far in excess of what was forthcoming, the financial system

was undeveloped and markets generally did not work well.iii

To make up for these shortcomings the government established numerous state enterprises in the

agricultural, manufacturing and the services sectors. Massive infrastructural projects such as the


13

Akosombo Hydro Electric Dam, the artificial harbour at Tema and the Accra-Tema Motorway were

built. In this kind of strategy, market forces had to take a back seat. With respect to trade and

industrial policy the import substitution strategy was pursued. This required state support for

industries based more on „national interest‟ than economics. The exchange rate was kept overvalued

to let in cheap inputs for the industries but heavy restrictions were placed on final good imports to

curtail competition for the industries created. The result of such a policy was to penalise exports as

foreign exchange earnings exchanged for relatively fewer local currency units. The policy thus led to

a shrinking trade sector to which the government responded with more interventions, restrictions and

controls. Even after the overthrow of the Nkrumah regime in 1966 such policies were largely pursued

with disastrous results

Given the poor state of the Ghanaian economy by the early 1980s, there was obviously the need for

economic reforms. Increasing globalisation and the need to respond to it also made reforms

imperative. Ghana thus launched the Economic Recovery and Structural Adjustment Programmes

(ERP/SAP) in 1983 with the support of the IMF and the World Bank. The main goal of Ghana‟s

ERP/SAP was to shift the trade regime towards more liberal, market oriented and outward oriented

policies. The objectives for the external sector were to restore incentives for the production of exports

and increase the overall availability of foreign exchange, and to improve the foreign exchange

allocation and channel it into selected high priority areas. Trade policy under the Programme included

tariff reductions, removal of quantitative restrictions on imports, liberalisation of foreign exchange,

deregulation of domestic market prices and controls and institutional reforms that particularly affected

revenue-generating bodies such as the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS). Performance

improved and both exports and imports have been growing since 1984.

These policies were further reinforced in 2005 when a new trade policy was adopted. This policy was

set within the context of Ghana‟s long-term strategic vision of achieving middle-income status by

2012 and becoming a leading agro-industrial country in Africa. The policy provides clear and

transparent guidelines for the implementation of Government‟s domestic and international trade

agenda. It is also designed to ensure a consistent and stable policy environment within which the

private sector and consumers can operate effectively and with certainty.

This policy emphasised two parallel strategies: an export led industrialisation strategy and a domestic

market led industrialisation on import competition. These new strategies are supported through the

promotion of increased competitiveness of local producers in domestic and international markets

based on fair and equal competition and by introducing an import and domestic trade regime which

promotes and protects consumer interests.

Apart from the realisation that it was necessary to encourage the full interplay of market forces it was

also recognised that the business environment mattered to the private sector and that infrastructure,

both institutional and economic mattered. Additional policies that specifically targeted the export

sector were also adopted. While the bias against exports was largely removed by the adoption of a

market determined exchange rate more specific measures were taken to support the sector. For cocoa,

Ghana‟s main agricultural export, the aim was to increase foreign exchange earnings and to maintain

Ghana‟s distinctive position as the supplier of the finest and most consistent quality cocoa in addition

to retaining the traditional premium obtained by Ghana‟s cocoa on world markets. While subsidies on

inputs were removed, the distribution of inputs to farmers was privatised and credit was made

available to farmers to purchase inputs. The most important measure though was the increase in the

producer price paid to farmers. By the start of the reforms the percentage of the world price received

by farmers had fallen to as low as 25%. It was even in single digits if assessed at parallel market

rates.iv This percentage was thus gradually increased and was 76.04% in 2011.

v Since 2001 the

government has also intensified the mass spraying of cocoa farms. The operations of Ghana Cocoa

Board (COCOBOD) were also streamlined in order to reduce overhead costs and to intensify research

on diseases and pest controls.

Other traditional exports benefited from reforms as seen from Section 4. One of the principal aims of


14

the reform programme was the diversification of exports and right from the beginning non-traditional

exports were targeted. Duty free imports of machinery were allowed and income tax rebates were

given to exporters. A foreign exchange retention scheme for non-traditional exports was gradually

liberalised and eventually the policy whereby exporters were to surrender their foreign exchange

earnings to the central bank was abolished. Currently, non-traditional exporters pay a company tax

rate of 8 percent instead of 35 percent. All these incentives led to a big increase in the agricultural

sector as seen in Section 4.

3.2 The Current Development Policy Framework

Since 1957, several policies and programmes to accelerate the growth of the economy and raise the

living standards of citizens have been pursued with varying degrees of success. Policies pursued over

the past two decades include Ghana Vision 2020: The First Step (1996-2000); the First Medium-Term

Plan (1997- 2000); Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (2003-2005); and the Growth and Poverty

Reduction Strategy (2006-2009). The overall policy framework being used now is the Ghana Shared

Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA 2010-2013). This is what guides overall policy and is

quite comprehensive.

The GSGDA is anchored on the following themes:

i. Ensuring and sustaining macroeconomic stability;

ii. Enhanced competitiveness of Ghana‟s private sector;

iii. Accelerated agricultural modernisation and natural resource management;

iv. Oil and gas development;

v. Infrastructure, energy and human settlements development;

vi. Human development, employment and productivity; and

vii. Transparent and accountable governance.

The overarching goal of this medium-term economic development policy is to achieve and sustain

economic stability while placing the economy on a path of higher growth in order to attain a per

capita income of at least US$3,000 by 2020. The macroeconomic framework emphasises

interventions in the following policy areas:

1. Monetary and financial sectors;

2. Fiscal policy management;

3. Economic policy management;

4. International trade management ; and

5. Employment, unemployment and wage policies.

Thus within the framework, trade features prominently and aspects of Ghana‟s Trade Policy

document are firmly embedded within it. International trade management under the policy emphasises

on improving export competitiveness and diversifying and increasing exports and markets. The

chapter of the GSGDA on „Enhancing the Competitiveness of the private sector‟ stresses on removing

barriers to trade and investment, reducing the cost of doing business by removing internal value chain

and institutional constraints. Also recognised in the document is the need to invest in modern

infrastructure and to enhance institutions to reduce the cost of doing business. Thus trade policy is

mainstreamed and is recognised as an integral part of overall policy.

The GSGDA policy document also emphasises clearly the importance of the agriculture sector.

Ghana‟s agriculture is dominated by subsistence small holder production units with weak linkages to

industry and the services sectors. The sector is also characterised by low level of technology and

productivity, low income and uncompetitiveness in production, processing and distribution. The main

focus of agriculture development, over the medium-term, will be to accelerate the modernisation of

agriculture through the implementation of sector-specific policy programmes, namely, the Food and

Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP II) and the corresponding investment plan as


15

detailed in the Medium-Term Agricultural Sector Investment Plan (METASIP) and ensure an effective

linkage between agriculture and industry.

FASDEP II has six objectives which are

1. Food Security and Emergency Preparedness

2. Increased growth in incomes

3. Increased competitiveness and enhanced integration into domestic and international markets

4. Sustainable management of Land and the Environment

5. Science and Technology for Food and Agricultural Development

6. Institutional co-ordination

These are envisaged to have a high degree of synergy and they all contribute to the attainment of the

overall objective of modernised agriculture, a structurally transformed economy, food security,

employment and reduced poverty. Thus under the second objective rural infrastructure is to be

enhanced but this will also enhance the third objective. Overall the aim is to enhance learning and

innovation which will provide the basis for high technology adoption and subsequent high

productivity and income growth.

More directly related to trade is the third objective which talks about increased competitiveness. Here

FASDEP II identifies the global food crisis as an opportunity, which Ghana can take advantage of,

given our resource endowment in agriculture. The overarching goal then is to enhance Ghana‟s

comparative advantage with measures that will complement the resource endowment. Three main

areas are identified for more attention. These are expanding production for the growing internal

market, further development of agricultural exports and post-production management. Within each

area constraints are identified and appropriate policy interventions proposed. For domestic marketing

the main proposal is to „encourage partnership between private sector and District Assemblies to

develop trade in local and regional markets with improved market infrastructure and sanitary

conditions, and enforce standard of good agricultural practices‟ (FASDEP II). To complement this it

is proposed to build capacity within the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to provide marketing

extension. For expanding exports the main strategy is to „provide comprehensive support of improved

access of operators to market information and intelligence, technology, relevant market infrastructure

and financing to enable operators to respond to the changing needs of market‟ (ditto). For post-

production management the main strategy is to „improve supply chain management with emphasis on

developing clusters of small to medium-scale farmers and processors to enhance access to technical

advice and logistics‟ (ditto).

FASDEP II is being implemented through METASIP and there is a consistency between the

objectives of the two. There is however a slight disconnect between the objectives specified under

FASDEP II and the GSGDA even though GSGDA talks about achieving its objectives through the

implementation of FASDEP II. In the GSGDA document the main components of the agriculture

modernization strategy are

a) Improving Agricultural Productivity

b) Increasing Agricultural Competitiveness and Enhanced Integration into Domestic and

International Markets

c) Reducing Production and Distribution Risks/Bottlenecks in Agriculture and Industry

d) Selected Crops Development

e) Livestock and Poultry Development

f) Promotion of Fisheries Development

g) Improving Institutional Coordination (GSGDA, 2010)

While some of these might overlap the differences suggest some challenges with co-ordination that

will need to be rectified. The result of this disconnect is that the indicators used to assess progress in

the various documents are different.


16

It is expected that implementation of these agricultural and other complementary strategies would

enhance the competitiveness of the agricultural sector to promote exports. These sector specific plans

have M&E systems based on a national M&E framework with clearly defined targets and indicators

for measuring outcomes. This M&E framework is discussed in Section 5.

4 Agricultural Trade, Development Cooperation and Aid Flows

4.1 Agricultural Trade Performance

The economy of Ghana is largely agrarian. The agriculture sector has been the largest contributor to

the country‟s GDP until recently when the services sector took over (Figure 1). The economy is quite

open to trade with exports constituting about 20 percent of GDP and imports hovering around 32

percent on average over the past 10 years (Figure 2) but these values remain below the Sub-African

average. Exports in particularly have exhibited stronger positive growth than imports over the past 10

years. Europe imports the bulk of Ghana‟s exports. The Netherlands has been the single largest

destination of Ghana‟s exports, consistently recording above a share of 11 percent over the 10 year

period 2000-2010 (Figure 3). The dominance of cocoa in Ghana‟s agriculture trade is obvious from

Figure 4. Export revenues from cocoa have exhibited remarkable increases due to both price and

output increases in the last few years. Revenues from the export of non-traditional agricultural

products have remained largely stagnant over the last 10 years (Figure 4).

Figure 1 Sector shares in GDP (%) Figure 2 Exports and imports shares of GDP (%)

Figure 3 Export destination shares (%) Figure 4 Agriculture export revenues (US$ m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Agriculture Services Industry

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Exports/GDP Imports/GDP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

UK USA Netherlands France Belgium

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Cocoa Timber Non-traditional Agriculture


17

Figure 5 Export earnings shares (%) Figure 6 Export concentration and diversification

indices

Figure 5 shows that non-agriculture products (mainly gold)vi and cocoa remain the country‟s two

major commodity export earners. Cocoa and gold account for more than 70 percent of total export

earnings with minerals having a slight edge. Cocoa exports displaced minerals as the major export

earner in 2004, the first time in over a decade. Non-traditional exports (NTEs) have been promoted as

part of the ERP/SAP. Figure 5 shows that agricultural NTEs contribute less than 10 percent of export

earnings and this share has been declining in recent years. In spite of efforts at diversifying the export

base, however, the country‟s exports continue to be dominated by a few products as revealed by the

export concentrationvii

and diversification indices in Figure 6.

As at 2011, export earnings from agriculture amounted to just a little over 30 percent. Clearly, there is

need to intensify efforts at increasing the share of agriculture in Ghana‟s trade. Aid-for-trade can be a

catalyst in this regard.

4.2 Development Cooperation

Ghana has been involved in development cooperation agreements and arrangements with both

industrialized and developing countries for many years. Development cooperation is both bilateral and

multilateral in nature. The most important development cooperation is with the European Union. The

Ghana-EU development cooperation dates back to more than 35 years. Development cooperation

between the EU and Ghana began with the first Lome Convention in 1975. Since 1975 the European

Commission (EC) has provided an estimated amount of 1.2 billion Euros in terms of development aid

to Ghana. This has over the years been allocated to sectors such as transport and infrastructure,

agriculture and rural development, macro-economic and budget support, governance and social

sectors, environment and natural resources, trade and private sector development, and other activities

such as technical cooperation, support activities etc. At present, between 40-50 percent of all Official

Development Assistance (ODA) received by Ghana is financed by the EU (both European

Commission and EU Member States). Unlike the World Bank, African Development Bank and some

other major donors, the overwhelming majority of the ODA that stems from the EU is provided in the

form of grants.

As a member of the ACP group of countries, the main source for EC funding to Ghana is the five year

European Development Fund (EDF), which at present is in its 10th edition (2008-2013). For all ACP

countries together a total amount of 21,966 billion Euros is available in the 10th EDF. Throughout the

years, subsequent EDF‟s have funded in Ghana a multitude of projects and programmes in the

following sectors: rural development, infrastructure, water and sanitation, governance, private sector

development and macroeconomic support. The selection of focal sectors (applying the principle of

complementarity between development partners and thus concentrating EC assistance in a limited

number of sectors) is done once every five years jointly between the European Commission and the

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cocoa Timber

Non-traditional agriculture Non-agriculture

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Export Diversification Index

Export Concentration Index


18

Government of Ghana in a Country Strategy Paper (CSP) and an ensuing multi-year National

Indicative Programme (NIP).

Other stakeholders, such as civil society, Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and

development partners are systematically consulted during the preparation process. In this whole

process, the EU is committed to the principle of „ownership‟, meaning that partner countries are

expected to set the priorities of the strategies and programmes which affect them. The European

Commission also aligns its CSP and NIP to the national development strategy of the country. In

Ghana this was the case with the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS) for the period

2003-2009. The current development framework, the Ghana Shared Growth and Development

Agenda (GSGDA) also provides the framework in which development partners will operate in Ghana

between 2010 and 2013.

A renewed EU development policy framework in support of inclusive growth and sustainable

development and aimed at increasing the impact of EU development policy underpins the 11th EDF

programmed for 2014-2020. There are three main priority areas for the 11th EDF, namely,

1. Good Governance (democracy, human resource, gender, public financial management, public

sector management, civil society, natural resources management).

2. Sustainable Growth (key sectors are private sector development, trade, regional integration,

agriculture and energy).

3. Social Inclusiveness (social and human development, i.e., health, education, social

protection).

According to the EU, national development strategy provides a sufficient basis for implementing the

programme. The GoG-DP Compact for Ghana‟s transition until 2022, based on GSGDA 2010-2013

and the Ghana Aid Policy and Strategy 2011-2015 are therefore to serve as strategy documents.

4.3 Aid-for-Trade Flows

Ghana receives a significant amount of aid by African standards. Figure 7 shows ODA commitments

as captured by the OECD CRS into three sectors often associated with aid-for-trade for the period

1995-2010. The bulk of AfT goes into economic infrastructure and the building of productive

capacities of the real sectors of the economy (such as agriculture). Except for the years 1995, 1998,

2002, 2003 and 2005 the agriculture sector received at least 50 percent of aid into building productive

capacity (Figure 8). It received a high of 93.6 percent of the total flows into building productive

capacity in 2007.

Figure 7 Gross ODA commitments, Figure 8 Agriculture share of productive capacity

2010 US$ m AfT commitments (%)

0 200 400 600 800 1000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Economic infrastructure Building productive capacity Trade policy

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

Building productive capacity

Agriculture capacity


19

Figure 9 Top 10 donors -all sectors, 2001-2010 Figure 10 Top 10 donors -agriculture, 2001-2010

(2010 US$ m) (2010 US$ m)

Figure 9 shows the 10 top donors, both bilateral and multilateral over the ten year period 2001-2010.

The 10 major sources of AfT flows into agriculture over the past 10 years are the United States,

Canada, IDA, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, IFAD, the EU and the Netherlands (Figure

10).

4.4 Donor Activities in the Agriculture Sector

There is significant donor presence in the agriculture sector of Ghana. Both bilateral and multilateral

are involved. The United Kingdom, the United States, Denmark, Canada, Germany France,

Netherlands, and Japan are among Ghana‟s most important bilateral donors. Multilateral assistance

comes from institutions like the World Bank, the EU, the African Development Bank and United

Nations agencies like IFAD, WFP and FAO as well as international NGOs.

Most of the projects and programmes by donors are aligned with the country‟s development

objectives in agriculture as contained in the GSGDA/FASDEP documents. However examination of

their activities shows that only a few of them focus explicitly on activities with a trade element. For

example, the German GIZ is engaged in what is called the Market Oriented Agriculture Programme

(MOAP), which is aimed at agricultural producers and other actors in the agriculture sector involved

in processing and trade. The project‟s objective is to improve their ability to compete in national,

regional and international markets. Components of the programme are a) promotion of selected value

chains; b) strengthening of private sector organisations; and c) improving service delivery of public

sector institutions. Similarly, the USAID‟s Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement

(ADVANCE) programme, which aims to transform Ghana‟s agricultural sector through increased

competitiveness in domestic, regional and international markets. The ADVANCE has as its

components a) value chain competitiveness; b) market access and development; and c) access to

financial services. The AfDB is also engaged in the Export Marketing and Quality Awareness Project.

The project has the goal of increasing export earnings of non-traditional agricultural products.

Targeted products are pineapple, mango, pawpaw, and vegetables. It is expected that the incomes of

horticultural crop farmers and exporters of cassava products will be increased. Components of the

project are a) production and productivity enhancement; b) export marketing promotion and

infrastructure improvement; c) capacity building; and d) project management and coordination.

Boxes 1 and 2 present some exemplary donor activities by the US and German governments in

Ghana‟s agriculture sector.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


20

Box 1: USAID Agriculture Activity in Ghana

Ghana is a „focus‟ country for a US Government-wide initiative Feed the Future (FtF).The USAID 2011-2015

multi-year FtF strategy is aligned with the Government of Ghana‟s Medium Term Agricultural Strategic

Implementation Plan (METASIP) and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP)

compact.

The strategic focus is on commercializing staple crop systems, such as rice, maize and soya, and improving

management of coastal resources such as marine fisheries. The approach includes closing the yield gaps and

reducing pre- and post-harvest losses, improving the efficiency of value chains, and strengthening the regulatory

system and policy frameworks to support regional trade. Investments in rural infrastructure and attention to

improving access to financing are central to the strategy.

Current Activities

Agriculture Development Value Chain Enhancement Program (ADVANCE) is a $32M; four-year program

(2009-2013) designed to improve the competitiveness of key agricultural commodity value chains in domestic

and regional markets, with a significant focus on the three northern regions.

Ghana Strategic Support Program (GSSP) has $17M to focus on agricultural research and policy platforms

that will ultimately modernize the agriculture sector, particularly staple crops, through 2013.

Integrated Coastal and Fisheries Governance (ICFG) is a four-year, $10M program designed to assist Ghana

to sustainably manage its coastal and marine ecosystems and improve the livelihoods and food security of

coastal communities through 2013.

Peace Corps volunteers will support agricultural production of maize, rice, and soybean, improve farmer

business and marketing skills, ensure a greater role for women, build bankable credit-worthy programs, test

alternative on-farm or processing energy options, and extend new technologies in the three northern regions of

Ghana through 2013.

Business Sector Advocacy Challenge (BUSAC), a challenge fund with pooled funding from Danida and the

EU is receiving $4M from USAID to work on improving the business environment in Ghana to facilitate private

sector growth, including in the agricultural sector, through 2014.

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Technical Support Services (METSS) is a 3 year program implemented by

USDA ending in 2013. METSS supports USAID/Ghana in the design and oversight of new programs under FtF,

provides direct technical support to the implementation of Ghana‟s Medium Term Agriculture Sector

Investment Plan (METASIP), and provides monitoring and evaluation services for both FtF and METASIP.

Box 2: German Development Cooperation in Agriculture


21

Overall context and objectives of the German Development Cooperation Agriculture is one of the three focal sectors of the German Development Cooperation. The overall objective of

German involvement in the agricultural sector is to improve the income of the rural population by supporting

value chain approaches and to strengthen small-scale commercial farmers to be able to compete in national,

regional and international markets.

Key issues

1. Improve productivity along agricultural value chains to increase competitiveness

2. Increase compliance with international quality and standard demands

3. Recognize the role of the private sector as a main driver of development

4. Adapt capacities of the civil service to the changing role of government

5. Improve the access to finance of the actors in the value chain

GDC Strategic areas of focus The German Government support to the agriculture sector has two components: Financial Cooperation (FC) and

Technical Cooperation (TC).

The FC component provides innovative agricultural financing under the Programme for the Promotion of

Perennial Crops and the Outgrower and Value Chain Fund (OVCF). The objectives of OVCF are to:

1. Improve access to medium to long-term finance using market mechanisms in cooperation with the

banking sector.

2. Promote outgrowers, outgrowers‟ schemes and integration of smallholders into commercial agriculture.

The TC component, under the Market Oriented Agricultural Programme (MOAP), provides support in three key

areas:

1. Support to specific value chains development and value addition.

2. Institutional and policy support to government.

3. Support to private sector organisation and development.

Institutions of the German Development Cooperation in Ghana are Kreditanstallt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) for

Financial Cooperation, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) for Technical

Cooperation and the German Institute of Metrology (PTB).

To date, nine value chains have been supported (rubber, mango, pineapple, citrus, chili pepper, maize, guinea

fowl, grass cutter and fish) in five regions of Ghana. 5800 farmers have been directly supported in addition to

processing companies.

Key achievements include increased income and gender participation, improved access to finance/markets and

job creation.

Some Specific activities supported FC: KfW access to finance (2004-2013) - Promotion of Perennial Crops Programme (6 million €, co-financed

with AFD) and Outgrower and Value Chain Fund (11 million €)

TC: GIZ Market Oriented Agriculture Programme (25 million € for 9 years 2004 – 2013)

Future support areas 24 more million € are committed to the Outgrower and Value Chain Fund, 3 million € for supporting climate

adaptation of agricultural ecosystems.

Currently many other donors both bilateral and multilateral including CIDA, USAID, GIZ, AFD,

JICA, the World Bank, IFAD, amongst others are engaged in various programmes and projects to

support to the agriculture sector to meet both domestic and international objectives, such as food

security, poverty reduction, and ability to compete in national, regional and international markets.

Annex A summarizes some selected ongoing activities of donors in the agriculture sector.


22

5 Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Programmes

5.1 Introduction

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) has served as an essential management tool under previous

development strategies such as GPRS I and GPRS II. This M&E framework has provided an

additional impetus both in the pursuit of policy, programme and project effectiveness, as well as

ensuring accountability, responsiveness and transparency in the allocation of resources. The M&E

system for the GSGDA is based on that of GPRS II and has been designed to ensure the availability of

reliable and comparable information at the national, regional and district levels for policy makers and

planners. Institutional arrangements for coordinating the system, including analyses and mode of

reporting on impacts and outcomes of the GSGDA to different stakeholders, including the

Government of Ghana, private sector, and civil society as well as development partners, have been set

up..

The remainder of this section discusses the indicators for measuring outcomes of agriculture sector

programmes, institutional arrangements for monitoring and evaluating projects and programmes,

particularly into the agriculture sector, how the M&E system is functioning, the extent of involvement

of development partners and an assessment of the challenges and constraints of the M&E system.

5.2 Indicators for Measuring Outcomes of Agriculture Sector Programmes

The focus of the agricultural development strategy under the GSGDA is to enhance the modernisation

of agriculture to substantially contribute to the structural transformation of the economy. There are a

set of indicators for the assessment of progress made over time in relation to the agriculture sector

objectives. While only a couple of indicators might be considered as having direct focus on

agriculture trade, achievement of other indicators may also have an indirect impact on trade. Thus

some indicators that might have an indirect effect on trade outcomes are also discussed. However, due

to some differences between GSGDA and FASDEP II, indicators from both documents are presented.

Under the GSGDA strategies for the agriculture sector that have a direct trade element are:

1. Improving agricultural productivity;

2. Increasing agricultural competitiveness and enhanced integration into domestic and

international markets; and

3. Promotion of selected (export) crops development

Specific indicators to achieve the objectives are

- Percentage change in output of production of selected crops.

- Percentage change in output /yield per unit area (Mt/ha).

- Total volume and value of agricultural commodities exported.

- Total volume of cocoa produced (Mt).

- Share of cocoa output processed locally.

- Tonnage of shea butter exported annually.

Other GSGDA strategies that do not explicitly have trade objectives but might impact trade outcomes

indirectly include:

a) Reduction of production and distribution risks/bottlenecks in agriculture and industry

b) Improved institutional coordination


23

Indicators to measure progress on these fronts include the following:

- Percentage change in number of outlets and sales points of agro-inputs.

- Percentage change in agro-chemical imports.

- Production of foundation seeds (Mt):

- Fertilizer imports (Mt).

- Tractor-farmer ratio.

- Number of agricultural mechanization services centres established.

- Total number of famers trained in the proper use and handling of farm machinery.

- Extension officer-farmer ratio.

- Total number of beneficiaries with access to various agriculture technologies.

- Percentage of cultivated lands under irrigation.

- Share of credit to agriculture, forestry and fishing by deposit money banks (excluding cocoa).

- Percentage change in post-harvest losses.

- Percentage of agriculture sector budget allocated to support extension services.

- Number of intra-sectoral and inter-ministerial coordination activities undertaken.

Annex B provides a summary of specific indicators, their definitions and progress made in achieving

these targets as at 2010.

There is another extensive set of indicators under the objectives of FASDEP II, which while similar in

some cases to that of GSGDA are different for the most part. As was done above, indicators with both

expect direct and indirect trade impacts are discussed.

The main trade strategy under FASDEP II is increased competitiveness and enhanced integration into

domestic and international markets, which is similar to the GSGDA. Indicators are however quite

from the GSGSA and include,

- Export of non-traditional agricultural commodities by men and women smallholders

increased by 50% by 2015.

- Grading and standardization systems of agricultural commodities (crops, livestock and fish)

made functional and effective by 2012.

Other FASDEP strategies that might have an indirect effect on trade and/or meet other broader

development goals of the country such wealth creation and poverty reduction include, Application of

science and technology in food and agriculture development, improved institutional coordination

(same as GSGDA) and increased growth in incomes.

The indicators under these strategies are quite many and include the following:

- Adoption of improved technologies by men and women along the value chain increased by

25%. - Laws and regulations to enhance the application of biotechnology in agriculture in place by

2011 and assessment of the country‟s biotechnology research potential by 2012. - Increased number of agricultural technologies developed. - Research extension linkage strengthened and made functional. - Capacity for planning, policy analysis and M&E at national, regional and district level

developed by 2015. - A communications strategy within MOFA is developed and implemented by 2012. - All cost centres within MOFA and relevant MDAs are adequately resourced and capacities

for electronic financial data capture and reporting and asset management are built by 2011. - The human, material, logistics and skills resource capacity of all directorates of MOFA and

relevant MDAs are built by 2012. - A joint platform for collaboration between MOFA and other MDAs established by end of

2011.


24

- A platform for private sector and civil society engagement with MDAs established by end of

2011. - Income from cash crop production by men and women increased by 20% and 30%

respectively by 2015.

- Efficient pilot value chains developed for two selected commodities in each agro-ecological

zone.

- Development of out-grower schemes and FBOs intensified and three-tier FBO structure

achieved in all districts by 2015.

- Cost of transportation of agriculture produce in rural areas reduced by at least 5% in areas

where infrastructure has been improved.

While the FASDEP II is the main agriculture sector strategy and is expected to feed into the national

framework, which is the GSGDA, the problem though is the lack of harmonization between the

indicators for the two sets of documents. Only two of the components match somewhat. Under

GSGDA, the second component is „Increasing Agricultural Competitiveness and Enhance Integration

into Domestic and International Markets‟ while under FASDEP II the third component is „Increased

Competitiveness and Integration into Markets‟. The problem though is that even here the indicators

are different as shown above. The last component for each of them is “Improved Institutional

coordination”. Here also there is a difference in the indicators.

5.3 The Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

5.3.1 National Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements

The institutional arrangements for monitoring and evaluation of government policies and programmes

are derived primarily from the country‟s political and administrative system, which in itself is

anchored on the country‟s constitution. Key institutions involved in the M&E system include: Office

of the President, Parliament, National Development Planning Commission (NDPC), MoFEP, Ghana

Statistical Service, Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Divisions (PPMEDs) of MDAs, Cross

Sectoral Planning Groups (CSPGs), Regional Monitoring Groups, District Monitoring Groups and

Civil Society Organisations. The National Development Planning Commission is expected to provide

technical coordination of the system in collaboration with MoFEP and the Ghana Statistical Service

(GSS).

To ensure improved implementation of the M&E plan the institutional arrangements currently in place

give greater responsibility to the PPMEDs of MDAs and the Regional and District Monitoring groups.

These institutions are required to monitor the key indicators and prepare annual reports on their

performance. The NDPC will then collate, synthesise and harmonise these reports into a national

Annual Progress Report (APR).

Figure 11 shows the institutional arrangements in place to monitor and evaluate the implementation of

national development policy.


25

Figure 11 National monitoring and evaluation framework

NDPC

MDAsCSOs

Think-

Tanks

Cross

Sectoral

Planning

Groups

(CSPGs) (4

District Monitoring

Groups (DMGs)

EBPM Technical

Committee

Ministry of Finance and

Economic Planning

Office of the PresidentParliament/Parliamentary

Sub-Committees on Finance

& Poverty Reduction

Ghana Statistical Service

Regional

Monitoring

Groups

(RMG)

The MoFEP, NDPC and GSS are the key government institution responsible for ensuring proper

functioning of the national M&E system. The success of the M&E system therefore hinges on how

effectively these institutions play their coordination roles. Apart from these key institutions, there is

the Cross Sectoral Planning Group (CSPGs) which comprises stakeholders from MDAs, DPs, Private

Sector and NGOs/CSOs at the national level. It is the framework within which Annual Progress

Reports are prepared.

5.3.2 Sectoral Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements

Apart from the national M&E system, there is the sectoral M&E system. Key stakeholders involved in

M&E at the sectoral level include MDAs (at regional and district levels), Regional Planning

Coordinating Units and the District Planning Coordinating Units. Development Partners and Civil

Society Organizations (CSOs) are integral part of all the groups operating at all levels, particularly

with the advent of sector dialogues under the MDBS arrangement. Figure 12 illustrates the structure

for the sector M&E system.

Figure 12 Sector monitoring and evaluation framework

District SectorDepartment

DPCU

Regional SectorDepartment

RPCU

PPMED NDPC

The responsibilities for M&E are different at each level of the structure. The PPMED has oversight

and support responsibilities at the sector level. The Regional Sector Department (RSD) has an

important function in providing the link between the districts and the national level. RSDs act as a

major clearinghouse that validate and verify information on projects and indicator achievements from

the district level, before they are received at the Regional Planning Coordinating Units (RPCU) and


26

PPMED. The District Sector Department has direct responsibility for the development and

implementation of the District Sector M&E Work Plan and collating and coordinating feedback from

the sub-district levels for onward transmission to the RSD.

5.3.3 Decentralised System of Monitoring and Evaluation

Another important component of the national M&E system is the District M&E system. It comprises

the regional and district planning coordinating units.

5.3.3.1 Monitoring and Evaluation Functions of RPCU

The Regional Planning Coordinating Unit serves as a secretariat for the Regional Coordinating

Council (RCC) to perform its coordination, monitoring, evaluation, and harmonization functions

specified under Section 8 of the National Development Planning (Systems) Act, 1994, Act 480. The

RPCU is mandated to co-opt other sector agency heads, persons from the private sector and civil

society organizations who have special expertise in a given field.

5.3.3.2 Monitoring and Evaluation Functions of DPCU

The District Planning Coordinating Unit (DPCU) assists the District Assembly to execute designated

development planning functions. The National Development Planning (Systems) Act, 1994, Act 480

defines the DPCU‟s planning, programming, monitoring, evaluation and co-ordinating functions. The

DPCU is mandated to co-opt representatives from other sector agencies, persons from the private

sector and civil society organizations with relevant expertise in a given area.

The responsibilities of the DPCU amongst others are to liaise with RPCU to agree on goals and

targets, and to collect and collate feedback from the sub-district levels for preparation of the District

APR.

The decentralized M&E institutional and reporting framework is summarised in Figure 13.

Figure 13 Decentralised monitoring and evaluation framework

Roles

DPCU

• Prepare Guidelines, Training

Manuals and Build M&E capacity

•Assist to create the necessary

supporting conditions for M&E,

etc.

•Guide districts to develop and

implement M&E Plans

•Conduct review workshops

•Prepare Regional APRs, etc.

RPCU

NDPC

Key Actors

•Develop & implement M&E

Plans

•Collect, Collate & Analyse Data

•Prepare District APRs, etc.

• NDPC

•Cross-Sectoral Planning

Group

•RPCU

•Other sector agencies

•Representatives of CSOs

•Private sector actors

•DPCU

•Other sector agencies

•Representatives of TAs and

CSOs

•Private sector actors

Information Flow and

Feedback


27

In order to strengthen the capacities of the sectors, regions, and districts to respond to the current

M&E needs at the national level, M&E guidelines have been developed for the sectors and Districts to

develop their respective M&E plans. The objective of this is to ensure that all sectors and districts

prepare Annual Progress Reports on the implementation of their sector and district plans respectively,

based on agreed set of indicators.

Thus MoFA monitoring and evaluation of agriculture sector programmes and projects follows the

above three-tier framework. Actual outcomes of various agriculture sector indicators are collated at

the district level by district statisticians and forward to the regional level for aggregation. The regional

values are then aggregated to obtain the national level outcomes. The national level outcomes form

the basis for the preparation of the Annual Performance Reports of MoFA which also feeds into the

preparation of the GSGDA Annual Progres Reports.

5.4 Donor Monitoring & Evaluation and Coordination between Donors and MoFA

Donor monitoring and evaluation of agriculture sector projects and programmes occurs through three

main channels.

Project reports

MoFA Annual Performance Reports

Joint Sector Reviews (JSR)

The JSR is an annual platform agreed in 2007 for key agriculture sector stakeholders to assess the

extent of implementation of the METASIP and ascertain progress towards the achievement of

expected outputs, outcomes and challenges of the agricultural sector. It also serves as a forum to

make recommendations to feed into the medium-term planning and budgeting exercises, build a

consensus on sector priorities, and to inform future plans and budgets for MoFA and sector-related

MDAs and also provide the focus for Development Partners (DP) support and private sector

participation. The JSR was formed so as to aid in the harmonization and alignment of development

aid and the Agriculture Sector Wide Approach (SWAp) Agenda. Main actors in the JSR include

MoFA (Ministers, Chief Director, National and Regional Directors and other staff), Development

Partners (DPs), other Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), private sector and civil society.

The first JSR was carried out in 2008, and to date five of such reviews have been conducted. The JSR

reviews performance of the agriculture sector based on MoFA‟s Annual Performance Review report.

Under the JSR, four working groups are constituted each year to deal with specific but revolving

priority areas. For instance, 2012 had the following priority areas, namely, a) sector performance in

2011 and achievement of policy/programme objectives and performance benchmarks, b) review of

recommendations of MoFA policy initiatives, including fertilizer subsidy, NAFCO, AMSEC and

block farm programme, c) review of policies/concepts to improve agricultural research and

environmental sustainability, and d) agricultural finance and financial management. Discussions

during the JSR centre on progress made in achieving targets set on agreed priority areas, what

constraints and challenges were encountered and recommendations for dealing with these constraints.

Thus the reviews highlight areas in which significant achievements have been made and areas where

problems still persist.

From the above it can be argued that by and large donors use country systems for monitoring and

evaluation and this takes place within the JSR. In spite of this joint review system, however, some

donors continue to use their own systems of monitoring and evaluation. For instance, in the areas of

projects, CIDA uses a blend of its own and GoG M&E systems.

There is also the Agricultural Sector Working Group (ASWG), which is a policy dialogue platform

for engaging Government of Ghana (GoG) and Development Partners (DPs) on delivering on the


28

agriculture sector objectives of GSGDA (2010-2013). The ASWG is smaller in membership than the

JSR and meetings are held monthly and quarterly compared to the JSR which is an annual forum. The

ASWG implements the recommendations from the JSR. Presently 11 OECD-DAC members are

engaged in the Agriculture Sector Working Group. There are also a number of development partners

from philanthropic foundations, NGOs and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) who participate in the

dialogue process of the Sector Group.

Development partners who are members of the Agriculture Sector working Group are:

African Development Bank (AfDB)

Agence Français de Développement (AFD – France)

Alliance for Green Revolution for Africa (AGRA)

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

Engineers Without Borders (EWB)

Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA)

Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN (FAO)

German Development Cooperation (GIZ-KfW)

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

International Water Management Institute (IWMI)

Japan International Corporation Agency (JICA)

Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Science (JIRCAS)

Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

World Bank (WB)

World Food Programme (WFP)

The structure of the dialogue process is as follows:

Multi Donor Budgetary Support (MDBS) consultations and negotiations are coordinated

by MoFEP and the MDBS Core Group based on prior consultation at the sector level.

There are monthly meetings of the DPs Agriculture Sector Group, jointly chaired by rotating

DP representatives and MoFA.

There are three thematic MoFA - DP sub-groups chaired jointly by a MoFA Director and a

DP for;

a) Policy, harmonization and Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) issues;

b) Human Resource, Development & Management; and

c) Public Finance and Administration.

These groups meet irregularly on demand, mandated by the dynamics of the issues at stake.

Apart from the above joint engagements there are exchanges and dialogues between the individual

DPs and MoFA on a broad variety of issues from policy to implementation issues and administrative

requirements of individual DPs and their project implementation arrangements.

The ASWG platform offers the opportunity to jointly discuss the implementation of agriculture sector

objectives and priorities, and ascertain progress towards the achievement of expected outputs,

outcomes and challenges of the agricultural sector and make clear and operationally-focused

recommendations of priority reforms/ measures to feed into the medium-term planning and budgeting

exercises. Achievement of consensus on priorities is to inform future plans and budgets for MOFA

and sector-related MDAs and also provide the focus for Development Partners (DP) support and

private sector participation. Coordination issues between DP programmes and between MDAs are

also discussed. Thus it helps in avoiding duplication of efforts by DPs and MDAs and narrow gaps in

coordination and development efforts.

While stakeholders of the JSR generally agree that the forum offers the opportunity for harmonising

donor and government programmes for the agriculture sector, very often, recommendations arising

from the reviews have been observed to be repetitions from previous years. This development may be


29

read as an indication of weak follow-up on and/or implementation of recommendations from the JSR,

which might imply weak human and institutional capacities. It may also be an indication that some of

the problems are structural in nature and cannot be overcome quickly and easily.

5.5 Challenges and Constraints of the M&E System

Measuring aid-for-trade impacts is not an easy task. Any M&E system put in place to measure

impacts and outcomes must therefore be well coordinated to function effectively. While the

measurement of agriculture sector targets derive from well structured national and sectoral M&E

systems, there seems to be weak coordination among the three key ministries, namely, MoFEP,

MoFA and MoTI. Interactions with some officials from these three ministries do not point to the

existence of a well coordinated system for the three ministries in terms of aid-for-trade in agriculture.

Thus there is a lack of appreciation of critical linkages between these ministries.

One key challenge to M&E from the perspective of MoFA is human and financial capacity

constraints. Very often there is inadequate provision of GoG budget to cover critical costs not eligible

for financing by DPs. The inadequacy of the agricultural data collection process and the unreliability

of available data has been a serious challenge to M&E for the agriculture sector.

On the part of donors challenges of the M&E system include the following:

Lack of data analysis

Over- ambitious targets

National M&E systems putting little emphasis on evaluation

National M&E systems not linking performance results and budgeting

The Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the government ministry in charge of agriculture sector

policies and programmes does not seem to have a firm focus on AfT. In the same vein some donors

do not explicitly focus on AfT in their programmes. However the Ministry of Trade and Industry is

very much in the picture on AfT. It will be useful therefore for MoTI to collaborate more effectively

with MoFA if Ghana is to achieve desired results from AfT.

According to MoFA, there is currently a matrix of 58 indicators for measuring the objectives of the

FASDEP II/METASIP. These indicators are not only many and therefore make monitoring and

evaluation difficult but also for adequate measurement of the impact of AfT, there would be need to

develop more focused indicators to measure trade impacts of aid-for-trade. Worse still there seems to

be a lack of harmonization between the indicators for the agriculture strategies for GSGDA and

FASDEP II.

5.6 Managing Aid for Trade for Results

Ghana receives substantial amounts of aid into the agriculture sector which can go a long way in

improving productive capacity of the sector in order to be able to achieve both domestic and

international market objectives of the sector. Improving export competitiveness and diversifying and

increasing exports and markets is one such international market objectives. Thus trade is

mainstreamed in development policy. While trade features prominently in the GSGDA and aspects of

Ghana‟s trade policy are embedded in it, the country currently does not have coherent aid-for-trade

strategy in place to ensure that aid flows into the agriculture sector have the desired impact on

Ghana‟s agricultural trade and that the impacts and outcomes can be adequately ascertained.And

while there is a significant donor presence in the agriculture sector of Ghana and many of the projects

and programmes seem to be aligned to the country‟s development objectives in agriculture as

contained in the GSGDA/FASDEP documents, examination of these activities however indicates that

only a few donors focus explicitly on activities with a trade element. While the GSGDA and FASDEP


30

II have some agriculture trade related indicators, the problem though is the lack of harmonization

between the indicators for the two sets of documents.

Apart from the national M&E framework that also applies to the agriculture sector to enable the

measurement of outcomes based on pre-determined agriculture sector indicators, a lot of coordination

is also going on between MoFA and development partners. Coordination takes place largely within

the annual joint sector reviews. However, what is missing from the five JSRs held to date is the lack

of discussions on the impact of donor support on agriculture trade outcomes. While there are a lot of

donor activities ongoing in the agriculture sector, most of them lack direct trade objectives (see

Appendix A). Apart from the fact that trade impacts of aid may not be a direct objective of many

donors1, MoFA‟s indicators as derived from agriculture sector policy objectives tend to focus more on

domestic outcomes. For instance, increasing food production and ensuring food security is one often

highlighted objective and many donors, including CIDA, are increasingly involved in helping the

country achieve such objectives. Another reason for low discussions on the impact of donor assistance

on trade is that MoFA‟s objectives have also focused more on reducing the importation of agriculture

products (for example, rice) rather than pursuing an export agenda.

Against the backdrop of the substantial AfT flows into the agriculture sector of Ghana, it is imperative

for the country to adopt a framework that enables the measurement of the trade impacts of aid based

on some identified trade-related indicators and the development of a workable M&E system to

measure results.

In 2011 Ghana introduced an aid policy, titled Ghana Aid Policy and Strategy, which spans the period

2011 and 2015. The aid policy was developed in „response to available evidence showing that

recipient country policies and procedures, human capacity, economic management and institutional

arrangements determine to a large extent the optimal allocation of aid and its impact on growth and

poverty reduction‟viii

. The policy was fashioned out of the objectives of the Paris Declaration on Aid

Effectiveness, 2005 and the Accra Agenda for Action, 2008. The aim of the aid policy is to ensure

that aid is managed and monitored properly, i.e. to ensure effectiveness and coordination by aligning

external aid to national development priorities.

The aid policy spells out some measures to ensure effective monitoring and evaluation of aid in

general, and can thus serve as minimal framework for introducing trade objectives and indicators to

measure the impact of AfT. The ingredients that must go into this should include Ghana‟s own targets

as defined in its policies and the nature of AfT flows. Also important is finding targets that can be

monitored without expending too many resources – both human and financial. The mechanism should

also reflect donors‟ views on mutual accountability.

For an aid-for-trade strategy in agriculture to work, there would be the need to strengthen the intra-

sectoral and inter-ministerial coordination through a platform for joint planning. Thus there would be

the need for a review in the development and implementation of a communication strategy to improve

institutional coordination as well as create and strengthen the framework for coordinating activities

among all stakeholders in the sector. This must include each ministry identifying an agricultural

content in its strategic policy. The strategy should thus create effective internal coordination linkages

among three key stakeholders, namely, MoFA, MoFEP and MoTI on one hand and between these

ministries and DPs on the other to ensure effective monitoring and evaluation for results. Lastly, it

would also be important to develop more focused indicators to measure the trade impacts of aid.

Indicators could include increase in the diversification of agriculture exports, increase in export

earnings and the number of export markets, and increase in the proportion of processed (value-added)

agriculture products.

1 CIDA for instance has observed that aid for trade is not their area of focus.


31

6 Conclusion

This report has assessed the mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating outcomes of aid flows into the

agriculture sector of Ghana. Given that substantial flows of aid flow into productive sectors, including

agriculture and the political demand for results of such interventions, it is important that adequate

structures are put in place to ensure that adequate measurement of impacts and outcomes. For this to

happen there is the need for coherent aid-for-trade strategy to ensure that aid flows into the agriculture

sector have the desired impact on Ghana‟s agricultural trade and outcomes are adequately measured.

The existing M&E system shows weak coordination among the three key ministries, namely, MoFEP,

MoFA and MoTI. Interactions with some officials from these three ministries do not point to the

existence of a well coordinated system for the three ministries in terms of aid-for-trade in agriculture.

In other words, there is a lack of appreciation of critical linkages between these ministries. Mutual

accountability in terms of resource flow and achievement of results makes it imperative to strengthen

existing M&E systems for trade results. Mainstreaming aid-for-trade into the country‟s development

agenda would improve monitoring and evaluation.


32

References

Aryeetey, E., Laryea, A.D.A., Antwi-Asare, T. O. 2007. „An Evaluation of Ghana‟s Trade and

Investment Policy Reforms: Towards Further Commitments to Reforms‟, African Economic Research

Consortium (AERC)

Balassa, Bela. 1989. „Outward Orientation‟ in H. Chenery and T. N. Srinivasan (Ed) Handbook of

Development Economics, Volume II, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,

Caves, R. E. 1965. „Export-led growth and the new economic history‟, in J.N. Bhagwati, et. al., (Ed)

Trade, balance and payments, and growth. Amsterdam: North-Holland

Government of Ghana. 2004. Ghana Trade Policy and Strategy. Ministry of Trade and Industry,

Accra, Ghana.

Government of Ghana. 2010. Ghana Aid Policy and Strategy: 2011-2015. Ministry of Finance and

Economic Planning, Accra, Ghana.

Government of Ghana. 2010. Ghana Shared Growth and Development Strategy: 2010-2013. Volume

I: Policy Framework. National Development Planning Commission, Accra, Ghana.

Government of Ghana, 2010. Aid Coordination under the Ghana Aid Policy and Strategy 2011 -2015:

Towards Middle –Income Status (Phase One), Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, 2010,

Accra, Ghana.

Government of Ghana, 2011. Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project (GCAP): Pest Management

Plan, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Accra, Ghana.

Government of Ghana, 2007, Guidelines for the Preparation of the District Monitoring and Evaluation

Plan under the GPRS II (2006 -2009), National Development Planning Commission, Accra, Ghana.

Government of Ghana National Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (2006 -2009), National Development

Planning Commission. Accra, Ghana.

Government of Ghana, 2011, The Implementation of the Ghana Shared Growth and Development

Agenda (GSGDA) 2010 -2013, Annual Progress Report, National Development Planning

Commission Accra, Ghana.

Hoekman, Bernard and Njinkeu, Dominique. 2007. “Aid for Trade Competitiveness: New

Opportunities for Africa” AERC Framework Paper on Export Supply Response Capacity Constraints

in Africa.

Jebuni C. D., Oduro A., Tutu K. A. 1994. Trade, Payments Liberalization and Economic Performance in

Ghana, AERC research Paper 27, African Economic Research Consortium

OECD. 2006. Aid for Trade: Making it Effective. The Development Dimension. OECD Publishing

OECD. 2011. Strengthening Accountability in Aid for Trade. The Development Dimension. OECD

Publishing

Prowse, Susan. 2006. “Aid for Trade: Increasing Support for Trade Adjustment and Integration - A

Proposal,” in S. Evenett and B. Hoekman (eds.), Economic Development and Multilateral

Cooperation (Palgrave-McMillan).


33

Annex A: On-going Donor Projects in Agriculture

DP Title Category Main O bjectives Components Total

budget

Currency Type of

funding

grant=0

loan=1

Runtime

GDC(Jan-12)

GTZ/DED 1

Market Oriented Agriculture Programme

(MOAP)

Value Chain Agricultural producers and other actors in the agricultural sector

involved in processing and trade improve their ability to compete

in national, regional and international markets

1. Promotion of selected

value chains

2. Strengthening of private

sector organisations

3. Improve service delivery

of public sector institutions

23.2 Eur 0 2004 - 2013

GDC(Jan-12)

KfW 2

Outgrower and value chain fund

(Successor of "Promotion of Perennial

Crops")

Value Chain 1. Poverty Reduction

2. Integration of Smallholders into commercial agric.

3. Improve access to Agri-Finance

Outgrower 10

1

Eur 1

0

2010 - 2014

USAID(Jan-

12)

USAID 1

Agicultural Development & Value Chain

Enhancement (ADVANCE)

Value Chain

[Value Chain

Competitiveness,

Market Access and

Development,

Financial Services]

To transform Ghana‟s agricultural sector through increased

competitiveness in domestic, regional and international market.

Value Chain

Competitiveness; Market

Access and Development;

Access to Financial Services

32 US$ 0 2009 - 2013

USAID(Jan-

12)

USAID 2

Integrated Coastal Fisheries Governance

Management (ICFG) Program

Fishery

[Governance,

fisheries

management, food

security, biodiversity

conservation, spatial

planning]

Support the government of Ghana in achieving its development

objectives of poverty reduction, food security, sustainable fisheries

management and biodiversity conservation

Develop a Nested

Governance Systems for

Fisheries and Landscape

Governance and Co-

Management from the

community to the District

and Regional Levels.

Landscape Governance (with

a focus on conservation and

managed areas and species

with possibilities , climate

change adaptation planning

and alternative livelihoods

that enhance food security

and poverty reduction in the

region). Seascape

Governance (with an

emphasis on fisheries

management and planning

and a preparing for a marine

protected areas network

).Capacity building within

regional institutions and civil

society organizations as well

as national universities.

10 US$ 0 2009 - 2013


35


budget

Currency Type of

funding

grant=0

loan=1

Runtime

USAID(Jan-

12)

USAID 3

Ghana Strategice Support Program (GSSP) Policy Research

[Agricultural

Research and policy]

Agricultural research and policy programs designed to help Ghana

develop an informed policy agenda that promotes agricultural

modernization.

Increase the availability of

information and knowledge,

strategy design and policy

formulation

17 US$ 0 2005 - 2013

USAID(Jan-

12)

USAID 5

Business Sector Advocacy Challenge Fund

(BUSAC II)

Other

[Advocacy, Private

Sector, Agricultural

Sector]

A grant mechanism for the Ghanaian private sector to advocate at

the local, regional and national levels for changes in the legal and

regulatory framework.

4 US$ 0 2011 - 2014

USAID(Jan-

12)

USAID 6

Development Credit Authority Agricultural Finance To increase short, medium, and long-term financing to SME‟s,

group-lending loan product targeting rural farmers, guarantee key

credit enhancement for new rural loan products.

9.3 US$ 0 2009 - 2013

USAID(Jan-

12)

USAID 8

Feed the Future Initiative Partnership Other

[Increased

Agriculture

Productivity, 2.

Accelerate

Participation of the

Ultra Poor in Rural

Growth, 3.

Improving

Nutrition, Cross-

Cutting Theme:

Engaging Women ]

1. Assist increased food production in Ghana, in amount and

nutritional value, and the capacity of communities to sustain higher

production in the long term. 2. Facilitate agricultural producers‟

increased technical expertise and access to the resources needed for

professional development. 3. Raise communities‟ ability to

generate income by enhancing the value of agricultural goods. 4.

Improve communities‟ capacity to insulate themselves from food

price and production fluctuations through improved organization,

planning and coordination. 5. Increase communities‟ capacity to

reduce malnutrition through improved agricultural and agroforestry

practices and dietary education.

Intervention at the grass-

roots level, this program

aims to increase the capacity

of partner communities to

address their food security

needs.

0.91 US$ 0 2010 - 2013

AFD(Jan-12)

AFD 2

Programme for the Promotion of Perennial

Crops

Non Food Crops

[Rubber, Oil palm]

Increase the areas planted in perennial crops, within outgrowers

schemes and public-private partnerships

Outgowers plantations :

7000 ha rubber, 3000 ha oil

palm

Support to FBOs

Research

Roads

Institutional support to

MOFA

Miscellaneous

40.65 EUR 0 (2.0 mill

DP)

1 (17.4

mill DP)

2006 - 2012

AFD(Jan-12)

AFD 4

Rubber Outgrower phase IV Non Food Crops

[Rubber]

To promote rubber plantations at village level (10500ha) 17.7 EUR 1=14 2010 - tbd


36


budget

Currency Type of

funding

grant=0

loan=1

Runtime

AFD(Jan-12)

AFD 5

Rice Sector Support Project (RSSP) Food Crops

[Rice]

Develop rice production in the four Northern regions of the

country

Support for development of

lowlands;Support for MoFA

decentralised entities and

Coordination Unit;External

technical assistant;Support

for structuring stakeholders

of the rice sector (other

than GRIB grant);Support

for

Research/Development;Supp

ort for development of rural

credit and partner

institutions

17.31 EUR 1,3=0 /

12,5=1

2009 - 2012

AfDB(Jan-12)

AfDB 6

Export Marketing and Quality Awareness

Project

Agriculture Export

Marketing

[Pineapple, Mango,

Pawpaw, Vegetables]

Contribute towards the goal of increasing export earnings of non-

traditional agricultural projects. It is expected that the incomes of

horticultural crop farmers and exporters of cassava products will be

increased

Production and Productivity

Enhancement

Export Marketing

Promotion and

Infrastructure Improvement

Capacity Building

Project Management and

Coordination

17 UA 1 2006 - 2013

AfDB(Jan-12)

AfDB 8

Afram Plain Agricultural Development

Project

The Sector goal is to contribute to the reduction of poverty and the

improvement of the welfare of the rural population. Specific

objective: to increase the agricultural output and incomes of the

beneficiaries and contribute to the well being of the peop

Production Development

Infrastructure Devpt.

Institutional capacity

Building

Project Management

19.97 UA 1 2007 - 2012

AfDB(Jan-12)

AfDB 9

Northern Rural Growth Program Agriculture and Agro-

Industry

[Different value

chains; food crops,

livestock, irrigation,

private sector

development]

Contribute to an equitable and sustainable poverty reduction and

food security among rural households, Specific objective: to

increase northern Ghana area rural households‟ income on a

sustainable basis

capacity bulding and

development of commodity

chain (small producers,

processors, exporters,

traders, transporters and

institutional buyers)

Provision of production and

marketing infrustructure

Improve access to rural

financial services

Program management

40 UA 1 2008 - 2015

CIDA(Jan-12)

CIDA 2

SFASDEP Other Implementation of the Food and Agriculture Sector Development

Policy

Sector Budget Support 110 CAD 0 2009 - 2013

CIDA(Jan-12)

CIDA 4

Food Security Advisory Services Capacity Building Support to Government of Ghana's Food and Agriculture Sector

Program (FASDEP)

Technical Assistance 4.99 CAD 0 2002 - 2015

CIDA(Jan-12)

CIDA 7

Ghana Environment Management Project

(GEMP)

Natural Resource

Management

To strengthen Ghanaian institutions and rural communities to

enable them to reverse land degradation and desertification trends

in three regions of northern Ghana

Capacity Development 7.25 CAD 0 2007 - 2012


37


budget

Currency Type of

funding

grant=0

loan=1

Runtime

CIDA(Jan-12)

CIDA 8

Food Security and Environment Facility Natural Resource

Management

To deliver and disseminate innovative food security and sustainable

agricultural programming in the three northern regions of Ghana.

Support to innovative food

security initiatives

14.3 CAD 0 2008 - 2016

FAO (Jan-12)

FAO 4

EP/GLO/802/GEF Conservation and

management of pollinators for sustainable

agriculture through an ecosystem approach:

FULL-SIZED PROJECT: Follow on from

EP/GLO/301/GEF: PDF-B)

To develop and implement tools, methodologies, strategies and best

management practices for pollinator conservation and sustainable

use;

7.810682 US$ 0 2009 - 2013

FAO (Jan-12)

FAO 18

UNJP/GHA/032/UNO Enchancing Human

Security through developing local capacity for

hollistic community-based conflict prevention

in Northern Ghana

Capacity building To empower local institutions, communities and individuals to

manage and prevent conflict in Northern Ghana as a means to

ensuring sustainable human security in the area

0.5564 US$ 0 2009 - 2012

IFAD(Jan-12)

IFAD 1

Root and Tuber Improvement and Marketing

Programme (RTIMP)

Food Crops

[Root and Tuber-

based food crop

production and value

chain]

To enhance the food security and incomes of poor rural HH in GH,

with special emphasis on women and other vulnerable groups

support to increased

commodity chain linkages

support to R&T production

upgrading of R&T

processing and marketing

programme coordination and

M&E

27.7, 1.0

Euro grant

US$ 0, 1 2006 - 2014

IFAD(Jan-12)

IFAD 2

Northern Rural Growth Programme (NRGP) Value chain

[Value chain

development to link

northern agricultural

producers to

domestic and export

markets]

Achieve sustainable agricultural and rural livelihoods and food

security for the rural poor particularly those dependent on marginal

lands, rural women and vulnerable groups in Northern Ghana.

food and commodity chain

development

natural resources

management & rural

infrastructure

Access to rural finance

Programme Management,

M&E

103.6 US$ 0, 1 2008 - 2016

IFAD(Jan-12)

IFAD 4

Rural Enterprises Project Phase II Capacity building

[Micro- and small

food and non-food

rural enterprises

development]

Reduce poverty and improve the living conditions and incomes of

the rural poor, with emphasis on women and vulnerable groups,

through increased self- and wage-employment.

business development

services

technology promotion and

transfer

rural financial services

support to rural MSE

organizations and

partnership-building

project management

29.3 US$ 1 2003 - 2012

IFAD(Jan-12)

IFAD 7

Rural and Agricultural Finance Programme

(RAFiP)

Agricultural finance

[Rural finance,

capacity building and

extension]

To support improved and sustainable livelihoods of the rural poor,

particularly women and vulnerable groups.

Strengthening of rural

financial systems

Strengthening financial and

agricultural linkages and

support systems

Programme administration

41.866 US$ 1 2010 - 2016


38


budget

Currenc

y

Type of

funding

grant=0

loan=1

Runtime

IFAD(Jan-12)

IFAD 9

Rural Enterprises Programme Capacity building

[Micro- and small

food and non-food

rural enterprises

development]

Reduce poverty and improve the living conditions and incomes of

the rural poor, with emphasis on women and vulnerable groups,

through increased self- and wage-employment.

business development

services

technology promotion and

transfer

rural financial services

support to rural MSE

organizations and

partnership-building

project management

185 US$ 1 2012 - 2019

WFP(Jan-12)

WFP 4

Purchase for Progress (P4P) Value Chain

[Improve

smallholder farmers

income through the

use of appropriate

agricultural

technologies and

access to market.]

Improve the livelihoods of participating smallholder/low-income

farmers through market based interventions.

Support to small/low-income

farmers

5.4 US$ earmarked 2010 - 2015

WFP(Jan-12)

WFP 7

Nutrition Support for Vulnerable Groups Capacity Building

[Capacity building

of Government

Partners in meeting

the nutrition needs

of vulnerable groups

and promotion of

Infant and Young

Child Feeding

Practices.]

Prioritise interventions targeting children, pregnant and lactating

women during the critical 1000-day window of opportunity from

the womb to 2 years of age and improve government capacity to

manage effective and sustainable nutrition safety nets.

THR for malnourished

children under 2 years and

undernourished

pregnant/lactaing women

and on-site wet feeding for

children 2 - 5 years in the

lean season in 5 districts in

northern Ghana

18.5 US$ earmarked 2012 - 2016

WFP(Jan-12)

WFP 8

Support for Primary Education and Girls'

Education

Capacity Building

[Assistance to

Government in

implementing

School Feeding and

encourage girls to

complete education.]

Improved attendance and completion rates for school children in

grades P1 to P6 and JHS 1 to JHS 3, promotion of local food

production and the use of local food.

School feeding, Take-Home

ration

19.6 US$ earmarked 2012 - 2016

WFP(Jan-12)

WFP 9

Resilience to Climatic Shocks and Support

for Livelihoods

Capacity Building

[Asiisting vulnerable

groups to recover

their livelihood and

improve their

income generation

capabilities.]

Increase physical and economic resilience to extreme weather

events through targeted reconstruction/rehabilitation interventions,

diversification of livelihood opportunities and reduction of poverty

among communities

Food for Work

Food for Training

6.65 US$ earmarked 2012 - 2016

WFP(Jan-12)

WFP 10

Assistance to food-insecure households

vulnerable to droughts and floods

Capacity Building

[Asiisting vulnerable

groups to recover

their livelihood and

improve their health

and nutritional

status.]

Improved food and nutritional security of food-insecure households

affected by the combination of natural disasters

Food for Work

Food for Training

Supplementary Feeding

Support to food-insecure

PLHIVs

Emergency response

22 US$ earmarked 2010 - 2012

WFP(Jan-12)

WFP 11

Purchase for Progress (P4P) Value Chain

[Improve

smallholder farmers

income through the

use of appropriate

agricultural

technologies and

access to market.]

Improve the livelihoods of participating smallholder/low-income

farmers through market based interventions.

Support to small/low-income

farmers

5.4 US$ earmarked 2010 - 2015


39


budget

Currency Type of

funding

grant=0

loan=1

Runtime

WFP(Jan-12)

WFP 12

Human Security Project in Northern Ghana Capacity Building

[Improve Human

security in conflict

areas]

The Human Security Programme seeks to empower local

institutions, communities and individuals to manage and prevent

conflict as a means to ensuring sustainable human security in the

area.

Scale up in Milling and

fortification

Targeted supplementary

feeding in project

communities

Improved Health and

Nutrition education

Value addition to marketed

products

Sentinel site data collection

Rainfall monitoring

Market price analysis

0.429 US$ Trust Fund 2009 - 2012

WB(Jan-12)

WB 1

Agric DPO 3-4 Policy

[Other]

suport FASDEP and METASIP implementation FASDEP and METASIP

support

150 1 2011 - 2014

WB(Jan-12)

WB 2

Commercial Agriculture Program Value chain

[PPP,

water/irrigation,

investment

promotion]

support relevant components of METASIP FASDEP and METASIP

support

100 1 2011 - 2016

WB(Jan-12)

WB 3

Risk Management TA Program Value chain

[Risk management

in agriculture]

support METASIP component on value chain development 0.2 0 2010 - 2013

WB(Jan-12)

WB 4

West Africa Agriculture Productivity

Program

Research

[West Africa

regional plant

technology

development]

Technology develoment and dissemination 15 1 2007 - 2012

JICA(Jan-12)

JICA 3

Project for Sustainable Development Rain-

fed Lowland Rice Production

Food Crops

[Rice]

Development of the model for Sustainable Rain-fed Lowland Rice

Development and its dissemination within the Project areas

(1)Development of the

technical package of

improved rain-fed lowland

rice production practices

500 JPY 0 2009 - 2014

JICA(Jan-12)

JICA 5

Dispatch of the technical cooperation

expert for plant breeder (rice) to the West

Africa Centre for Crop Improvement

(WACCI), University of Ghana

Research To strengthen the research capacity on rice breeding Dispatch of the technical

cooperation expert for plant

breeder (rice) to WACCI.

65 JPY 0 2010 - 2014

JICA(Jan-12)

JICA 6

Dispatch of Technical Cooperation Expert

to the School of Veterinary Medicine, UoG

Research To strengthen the research capacity of SVM, UoG Dispatch of the Technical

Cooperation Expert to SVM,

UoG

N/A JPY 0 2010 - 2013

Annex B: Key Indicators for Measuring Results in Agriculture Sector Table A.1: Percentage Change in the Level of Production of Selected Staples, 2009 -2010 (%)

Indicator Definition of

Indicator

2009

Baseline

2010

Target

2010

Indicator

Level

Progress towards

Target

Percentage change in

output of production of

selected staple crops (%):

-Maize -Rice (milled)

-Millet

-Sorghum -Cassava

-Yam

-Cocoyam -Plantain

-Groundnut

-Cowpea -Soyabean

-Cocoa

Total volume of all agricultural produce including crops, livestock

etc, expressed as a percentage.

9.2 22.9

21.1

5.6 7.4

15.3

-12.3 6.3

12.3

33.7 8.5

-11.1

11.19 32.62

NA

NA 8.81

18.22

NA NA

NA

NA NA

34

15.6 25.6

-10.8

-7.4 10.1

3.2

-9.9 -0.7

7.0

28.4 6.0

16.3

Target not achieved.

Only one crop target achieved

whiles four staple

crops recorded decline in output

compared to only

one crop in 2009.

Source: MOFA, 2010

Table A.2: Percentage Change in Output /Yield per Unit Area (Mt/ha) Indicator Definition of

Indicator

2009

Baseline

2010

Target

2010

Indicator

Level

Progress towards

Target


output /yield per unit

area (Mt/ha):

-Maize -Rice (milled)

-Millet

-Sorghum -Cassava

-Yam

-Cocoyam -Plantain

-Groundnut

-Cowpea -Soybean

-Cocoa

The ratio of total output to the area of cultivated land

expressed as a percentage

-2.3 6.2

24.5

9.2 2.4

8.4

0.0 2.5

14.9

13.5 10.7

NA

10.0 9.96

NA

NA 9.97

0.97

NA 1.04

NA

NA NA

NA

11.23 12.51

-5.73

-2.08 11.50

1.50

-1.48 -1.63

-2.17

4.28 30.44

NA

Significant progress. Only one of the

staple crops did not

achieve its target.

Source: MOFA, 2010

Table A.3: Access to Production Inputs Indicator Definition of

Indicator

2009

Baseline

2010

Target

2010 Indicator

Level

Progress towards

Target

Production of

foundation seeds (Mt):

-Maize

-Sorghum

-Rice -Cowpea

-Soybean

Production of certified seed for selected

staple crops for onward multiplication

by certified seed growers

70.0

2.0

25.0 33.3

20.0

90.0

10.0

40.0 40.0

40.0

82.5

2.0

23.5 10.0

20.0

Target not achieved.

On the other hand, a

total of 522 registered

seed growers cultivated

6,832 hectares and

produced a total of

8,767 metric tonnes of

seed


number of outlets and

sales points of agro –

inputs.

The change in the total number of

outlets and sales points, either

permanent or temporary structures where farmers can obtain their agro-

input requirement, expressed in

percentage.

3.4% NA 11% Significant progress.

Fertilizer Imports (Mt) Total amount of fertilizer imported into

this country excluding those imported

by other companies including COCOBOD and not captured by the

Directorate of Crops Services.

3,409,77

4.2

NA 19,756,232 Significant progress.


41


Agro–chemical

Imports:

-Insecticides

-Herbicides

-Fungicides

The change in total amount of

agrochemicals imported into this country, expressed in percentage.

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

-33.7%(liquid) -10.6%(solid)

46.6% (liquid) -57.6% (solid)

-26.4%(liquid) -33.8% (solid)

Lack of data

Source: MOFA, 2010

Table A.4: Agricultural Mechanization


Indicator

2010

Target

2010

Target

2010

Indicator

Level

Progress towards Target

Tractor –Farmer ratio The ratio of the total tractors to total

farmer population

NA NA NA Lack of data 125 tractors and

matching implements, 2

combine harvesters, 10 rice

mills, 35 rice threshers, 35

rice reapers and 40 irrigation pumps were acquired in 2010

Number of

Agricultural

Mechanization services

centres Established

The total number of

Agricultural mechanization services centres established by Agriculture

Engineering Services Directorate of

the Ministry of Food and Agriculture

67

Centres

NA 84 Centres

(20% increase)

Significant progress

Total Number of

Famers trained in the

proper use and

handling of farm

machinery

Total number of farmers and tractor

operators trained in proper operations,

handling and maintenance techniques of tractors, combine harvesters and

agro-chemical equipments.

NA NA 137

Farmers

and tractor operators

trained.

Lack of data

Source: MOFA, 2010

Table A.5: Access to Agriculture Research Technology and Extension Services


Indicator

Definition

of

Indicator

2010

Target

2010

Indicator

Level

Progress towards Target

Extension Officer-

farmer ratio

The ratio of the total

extension officers to total farmer population

1:1500 1:1000 1:1500 Steady progress.

Total number of

beneficiaries

with access to

various

agriculture

technologies

Total no. of beneficiaries

(farmers, processors, and marketers of agricultural

commodities) accessed

various technologies in crop production,

livestock, fisheries and

other technologies related to agriculture.

1,143,752 NA 1,279,456

(11.9% increase)

Steady progress

Female

(%)

Male

(%)

Total

Crop 27 73 882,103

Livestock 29.1 67.5 272,518

Fisheries:

-Fish processing -Fingerling prod.

29

86.1 65

71 8,316

Total 28.5 71.6 1,162,937

Source: MOFA, 2010

Table A.6: Cultivated Areas under Irrigation and Access to Credit


Indicator

2009

Baseline

2010

Target

2010 Indicator

Level

Progress

towards

Target

Percentage of cultivated lands

under irrigation (Area developed

For irrigation/ha)

The ratio of arable lands under

irrigation to total arable land, expressed in percentage

0.70 (10,065 ha)

NA

0.87 (10,242.5 ha)

Steady

progress.

The Share of Credit to

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

by Deposit Money Banks (excluding

Cocoa)

The ratio of credit to Agriculture,

Forestry and Fishing to total

credit by Deposit Money Banks expressed in percentage

4.74%

≥ 10%

5.51%

(GH¢ 4,768,902)

Significant

progress

Source: MOFA, 2010


42

Table A.7: Post Harvest Losses Management and Food Security Indicator Definition of

Indicator

2009

Baseline

2010

Target

2010

Indicator

Level

Progress

towards

Target


Post-Harvest Losses:

-Maize

-Cassava

-Rice -Yam

The quantitative or qualitative losses in storage, transport, harvest and market to agricultural

produce (crop, livestock, fisheries) incurred after

harvest as a percentage of total production.

35.10%

34.60%

6.90% 24.40%

31.59%

31.14%

6.21% 21.96%

NA

NA

NA NA

Lack of data.

Size of national buffer

stock (metric tonnes):

-Maize

-Rice

Total quantity of key staple food purchased and

stored The National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO)

900

NA

NA

NA

416

6,949

Slow

progress.

Lack of data.

Source: MOFA, 2010

Table A.8: Promote Selected Crops Development.


Indicator

2009

Baseline

2010

Target

2010

Indicator

Level

Progress

towards Target

Total volume of Cocoa

produced (metric

tonnes)

The quantity in tonnes of cocoa

produced in a given year.

632,037 950,000 735,000 Target not

achieved.

Share of Cocoa output

processed locally

The total quantity of cocoa processed

in Ghana as a percentage of total output of cocoa produced

632,037 26.32% 11.10% Target not

achieved.

Quantity of Shea

Butter exported

annually (Mt)

The total volume in metric tonnes of

Shea Butter exported annually.

67.826 NA 41.219 Target not

achieved.

Source: MOFA, 2010

Table A.9: Promotion of Livestock and Poultry Development


Indicator 2009

Baseline

2010

Target

2010

Indicator

Level

Progress

towards

Target

Contribution of the livestock sub-sector to

GDP (%)

Total annual receipts

from livestock and

poultry expressed as a

percentage of GDP.

2% NA 2% Steady

progress.

The rate of growth in the production of the

various species of livestock and poultry (%):

- Cattle - Sheep

- Goat

- Pig - Poultry

The change in total

production of the

various species of livestock and poultry.

1.1 3.2

5.0

-3.0 8.8

NA 3.4

5.3

Na 9.2

1.1 3.2

5.0

3.0 8.8

Target

not achieved.

Percentage change in meat and other

livestock products imported (%):

- Beef

- Chicken

- Buffalo - Duck

- Mutton (Sheep meet)

- Pork

- Turkey

- Milk Product

The change in total

amount of meat and

other livestock products imported into

the country (%)

Mt (%)

12,338 (-6.1%)

67,069 (-23.7%)

4,454(-39.5%) 31 (92.5%)

6,153 (3.2%)

3,150 (-42.6%)

1,980 (-40.9%)

11,406 (319.5%

NA

NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Lack of

data.

Source: MOFA, 2010


43

Table A.10: Improved Institutional Coordination. Indicator Definition of

Indicator

2009

Baseline

2010

Target

2010 Indicator

Level

Progress

towards

Target

Percentage of GoG budgetary

resources released to

Agriculture Sector.

The ratio of budgetary release to agricultural

development to total discretionary budget,

expressed in percentage

1.2% (GH¢68.09

m)

NA 1.3%

(GH¢77.20m)

Steady

progress.

Percentage of Agriculture

Sector Budget released to

support extension services

Total amount of Agricultural Sector budget

released for extension services at the district

level

7% (GH¢1018,558.8)

NA 7.6% (GH¢5,882,487)

Significant

progress.

Implementation efficiency

ratio

Ratio of activities implemented on scheduled to activities approved with budget at the

district planning level.

0.69

NA 0.69

Steady progress.

No. of intra-sectoral and

inter-ministerial coordination

activities undertaken

The total number of intra sectoral and inter-ministerial Coordination activities on the

annual work programme of MOFA

undertaken.

NA NA NA Lack of data

Source: MOFA, 2010

NOTES

i Balassa (1989)

ii Love (1984)

iii See Killick (1978)

iv See Harris and Shams (1991)

v Government of Ghana Budget Statement 2012

vi Gold accounts for about 98 percent of total mineral export earnings.

vii Measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

viii Government of Ghana (2011)

Ghana case study

Documents

Transcript of Ghana case study