GHANA TRADE AND...2019/07/08 · AGRO POLICY PERFORMANCE BAROMETER (APPB) REPORT 2016 Performance Assessment This is the 6 th report to be compiled in a series of Agro Policy Performance

AGRO POLICY PERFORMANCE BAROMETER (APPB) REPORT 2016 Performance Assessment

2016 Performance Assessment

GHANA TRADE AND LIVELIHOOD COALITION

(GTLC)

AGRO POLICY AGRO POLICY PERFORMANCE BAROMETER PERFORMANCE BAROMETER

(APPB) REPORT (APPB) REPORT

AGRO POLICY PERFORMANCE BAROMETER

(APPB) REPORT

Compiled by: Ibrahim Akalbila GTLC Coordinator

[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.................................................................. 6

Introduction................................................................................................................... 6

New features of the 2016 APPB Report and ABI........................................................ 7

Performance of METASIP in 2016 as Reflected in the 2017 National Budget........... 7

METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY............................. 7

2016 AGRICULTURE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND PERFORMANCE AS

CAPTURED IN THE 2017 NATIONAL BUDGET.................................................. 11

ANALYSIS OF PME RESULTS FOR 2016 APPB REPORT................................... 12

The sustainable productivity challenge...................................................................... 12

Access to and use of certified seed............................................................................ 12

Access to land preparation (plough and harrow)...................................................... 13

Cost of plough and harrow services across communities studied........................... 14

Cost of fertilizer across communities studied......................................................... 15

Quantity of fertilizer used........................................................................................ 16

2016 Yields of farmers............................................................................................. 16

Gender gaps in productivity..................................................................................... 17

Sustainability............................................................................................................ 18

Land availability/ownership.................................................................................... 19

Water use/irrigation................................................................................................. 19

Crop insurance......................................................................................................... 20

Storage..................................................................................................................... 21

Market access.......................................................................................................... 21

Cost of credit........................................................................................................... 21

Access to credit....................................................................................................... 22

Agricultural Innovation Systems............................................................................. 23

Funding Research and Development in Ghana....................................................... 23

Investments in agriculture....................................................................................... 23

Natural capital......................................................................................................... 27

Physical capital........................................................................................................ 27

Human capital............................................................................................................... 28

Policies and institutions................................................................................................ 29


1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

2.0

3.0

4.0

4.1

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

4.17

4.2

4.21

4.22

4.22

4.23

4.24

4.25

4.26

4.3

4.4

4.41

4.42

4.43

4.45

TAKING STOCK OF ACTIONS UNDERWAY.......................................................... 32

Planting for Food Planting for Jobs............................................................................. 32

Productivity and sustainability..................................................................................... 32

Sustainability............................................................................................................... 34

Agriculture Innovation Systems (R&D)..................................................................... 37

Evaluation of the 2017 Planting for food and production targets.............................. 37

2017 Investments in Agriculture................................................................................. 39

Budgetary provisions.................................................................................................. 39

Policies and Institutions-RRole for MOFA................................................................. 40

IMPROVING THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT FOR A MORE PRODUCTIVE AND

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE............................................................................ 41

CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................... 41

Conclusions............................................................................................................... 41

Recommendations..................................................................................................... 43

REFERENCES.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF TABLESTable 1:List of Communities and Data Centres in alphabetical order 8

Table 2:Estimated 2016 Yields 15

Table 3:Case for Knowledge and location specific extension service-Rice 21

Table 4:Case for Knowledge and location specific Extension service-Maize 22

Table 5:Case for Knowledge and location specific Extension service-Tomato 22

Table 6:2016 METASIP Budget Estimate mapped by institution (GH¢ 'million) 26

Table 7:Expected Yields for Targeted Crops and Estimated Production Levels for 2017 33

Table 8:Estimate of Quantity and Cost of Fertilizer Required for Planting for Food and Jobs 33

Table 9:Comparison Between 2008 METASIP Baseline Yields and 2016 GTLC PME Estimated Yields 36

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 Map of Ghana showing Location of Communities 10

PAGE 2


5.0

5.1

5.11

5.12

5.13

5.14

5.15

5.16

5.17

6.0

7.0

7.1

7.2

8.0

ACRONYMS ABI - Agro Barometer IndexAEAS - Agriculture Extension AgentsAIS - Agriculture Innovation SystemAMSEC - Agriculture Mechanisation Services Centre APPB - Agro Policy Performance Barometer BOG - Bank of GhanaCGIAR - Consultative Group for International Agricultural ResearchCSIR - Council for Scientific and Industrial ResearchFAO - Food and Agriculture OrganisationFASDEP - Food and Agriculture Sector Development ProgrammeFBO - Farmer Based OrganisationGAEC - Ghana Atomic Energy CommissionGCAP - Ghana Commercial Agriculture ProjectGIDA - Ghana Irrigation Development AuthorityGIRSAL - Ghana Incentive Based Risk Sharing System for Agriculture LendingGiZ - German International Cooperation GTLC - Ghana Trade and Livelihood CoalitionGDP - Gross Domestic ProductIFAD - International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIFPRI - International Food Policy Research InstituteIICA - Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture IPCC - Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate ChangeMDA - Ministries, Departments and Agencies METASIP - Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment PlanMOF - Ministry of FinanceMOFA - Ministry of Food and AgricultureMOR - Ministry of RoadsMOTI - Ministry of Trade and IndustryMESTI - Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and InnovationMLNR - Ministry of Lands and Natural ResourcesNAFCO - National Food Buffer Stock CompanyNASTAG - National Seed Traders Association of GhanaNARS - National Agricultural Research SystemNRGP - Northern Rural Growth ProgrammeOECD - Organisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentPME - Policy Monitoring and EvaluationR&D - Research and DevelopmentSADA - Savanna Accelerated Development AuthoritySEEDPAG - Seed Producers Association of GhanaSREX - Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation

UN - United NationsUNCTAD - United Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentVSLA - Village Savings and LoansWFP - World Food ProgrammeWTO - World Trade Organisation

PAGE 3


thThis is the 6 report to be compiled in a series of Agro Policy Performance Barometer (APPB) reports to be published by the Ghana Trade and Livelihood Coalition (GTLC) in 6 years. The five previous reports evaluated the implementation of some agriculture policies in Ghana, which are intended to achieve food security through interventions in the production of five crops (maize, cowpea, soya, cassava and rice) and vegetables by small-scale commercial farmers. This was done through the presentation of data to show levels of access to critical agricultural inputs by small scale farmers across

thGhana. The 6 report goes beyond data presentation to conduct analysis on how access to key inputs, enabling policies and institutions influence productivity and its sustainability. The content of this analysis is informed by a global report put together on behalf of the G-20 Presidency of Brazil in 2012, which GTLC finds very relevant for agriculture in Ghana today. In addition to the production of rice and tomato in previous reports, this report includes the production of maize. The report also proposes conditions that can be created to ensure optimal productivity with a specific assessment of the current Government policy for agriculture dubbed 'Planting for Food, Planting for Jobs'. Data collected on rice, maize and tomato is analysed to assess the government's commitment to ensuring that investments in agriculture transform productivity and sustain it.

As with previous APPB reports, in this report GTLC used indicators provided in METASIP (2011-2015) as the main basis for comparison and assessment: food security and emergency preparedness, under which rice and maize are two of 5 targeted crops, and increased growth in incomes, under which tomato is placed. Other METASIP indicators such as extension service, which falls under science and technology applied in food and agricultural development, are also examined, as are the modes and sources of skill training of farmers; size of land cultivated; yield per hectare; access to land; mode of land preparation; use of fertilizers and certified seed; access to credit and extension services; source of market and access to storage facilities; perceptions of and adaptation to climate change; and contributions expected from the government and the private sector towards improving farm production. Crop insurance was included in the 2016 data, making it more extensive than that of 2015. Data for this report was collected during the 2016/2017 cropping/marketing seasons from 9 nationally recognised small-scale commercial rice, maize and tomato production areas in 6 administrative regions. Four of the areas gathered information on rice, 3 on maize and 3 on tomato. Data collected spanned the period from land preparation to marketing and sale of the produce. Sample size was sixty-six (66) persons per centre, with a total sample of 660 farmers. SPSS data processing software was used to analyse the data. Comparisons were made based on crop type, gender, age groups and across communities.

Many of the farmers acquired skills through non-formal means. Though most claimed to own the land they cultivated, few had documents to prove their ownership. The majority used tractors for ploughing while a few used the power tiller, hoe and mattock. Rice and maize farmers depended on tractors while tomato farmers used the hoe and mattock. Subsidized fertilizer was available in 2016 for most which farmers accessed mainly in village shops and the open market; and does not seem to have generally influenced increased yields. Almost all respondents used certified seed. They accessed

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PAGE 4


credit mainly from private persons and non-bank sources, but patronized and used extension advice. The major source of market for rice, maize and tomato farmers were market women. Many more rice and maize farmers had access to storage facilities than tomato farmers, for whom such facilities are virtually unavailable. On climate change, almost all the farmers mentioned a change in the rainfall pattern. Planting seeds with short gestation periods is a major adaptation strategy for rice, maize and tomato farmers, but some the former and latter adopted irrigation methods as an additional option. Farmers' main expectations from the government and the private sector comprised support to increase yield and a ready market for their produce. Crop insurance was accessed by very few farmers.

Subsidy programmes are meant to correct temporary structural issues and its implementation must be benchmarked against the creation of favourable conditions for long term increases in productivity and its sustainability. Factors that influence productivity in a geographic area may not do same in another and therefore knowledge specific and location specific means of improving productivity must be sought.

Policy and incentives are needed to encourage favourable lending by financial institutions and more private sector input credit initiatives like Wienco, albeit the role of private sector in contributing to the creation of an enabling environment at production centres must be more strategic at creating access to finance and markets. The introduction of the Ghana Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (GIRSAL) by the Bank of Ghana must be exploited by financial institutions to provide favourable lending to small scale producers and other agricultural value chain actors. Agricultural relationships in a decentralized system is not supporting sustainable productivity. Adequate funding should be provided by government for MMDAs to develop agriculture.

The implementation of METASIP I and II has so far not found solution to sustainable productivity. The role of MOFA is emphasised in budgetary provision at the neglect of key Research and Development (R&D) institutions that influence sustainable productivity. The vision for agriculture should be reassessed to ensure appropriate institutional structures are put in place to modernize agriculture. MOFA may have to play a different role from its current mandate to coordinate implementation of METASIP and oversee the crops and livestock sectors, to being an interface between R&D and producers, and other private sector value chain actors. There must be a differentiation between institutions that enable production and those that sustain it. This means that much more emphasis must be placed on demand driven agricultural R&D than previously done to ensure the development of appropriate innovations and its marketing.

The governments Planting for Food, Planting for Jobs agenda has a unique opportunity to use lessons learnt in this report and other agricultural reviews to change the status quo. Especially because, the outlook for the Planting for Food, Planting for Jobs agenda in its first year of implementation may be far from meeting its production objectives.

PAGE 5


1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 IntroductionThe Agro Policy Performance Barometer (APPB) Report is a flagship report of the Ghana Trade and Livelihood Coalition (GTLC). The publication of the APPB reports which started in 2012, is to provide detailed assessment of agriculture policy implementation and trends on how policy is affecting the productivity of small scale farmers.

The APPB report series is currently focused on the crops subsector, which constitutes about 70 percent of agriculture GDP. Proxy indicators were developed from five programme areas of the Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (METASIP) to assess whether targets in the results framework of plan are being achieved. These include indicators on access to and use of improved seed varieties, access to fertilizers and extension service. Others are yield levels, access to storage and markets. Below is a comprehensive list of these indicators. The reports have used these proxy indicators to provide indication of the extent of policy implementation and to inform better services to small scale producers for increased productivity. The target crops used for the 2016 analysis are rice, maize and tomato. The selection of crops is based on food and nutrition security aspirations of the Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP), where for food security purposes, Ghana is targeting adequate production of maize, rice, cassava, cowpea and yam. This is also reflected in the implementation of METASIP. Maize, rice, soya beans, cassava as well as tomatoes and other horticultural crops are the emphasis in the medium term (METASIP II, 2015). GTLC's objective for future APPB reports is to include other crops and the livestock subsector when more funds are secured to facilitate the process.

The focus is on government agencies that facilitate productivity of small scale farmers. The role of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) therefore comes under scrutiny as a way of enabling healthy discussion on how best it links up with other government agencies to ensure a good return on both public and private sector investment, increased food security, and promote job creation. The 2016 APPB report adopts a framework similar to the Mexican G20 Presidency Report titled 'SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH AND BRIDGING THE GAP FOR SMALL-FAMILY FARMS'.

The Food and Agriculture Sector Investment Policy (FASDEP) and Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plans (METASIP) all recognise the important role of small scale agriculture in Ghana, and government efforts have been aimed towards making small scale agriculture more productive and more profitable.

The APPB report adopts indicators that respond to the results framework in METASIP. These indicators enable a measure of service provision to small scale farmers per the Programmes II and III of METASIP II and show the extent to which government is making true its commitment to small scale producers. The APPB indicators therefore are a true reflection of the level of implementation of agriculture policy in Ghana.

PAGE 6


1.2 New features of the 2016 APPB report and ABI The 2016 APPB report is different from all previous reports. It has fewer tables and much more analysis using the GTLC 2016 survey data, adopts a framework based on a global report put together on behalf of the G-20 Presidency of Brazil in 2012, the content of which GTLC finds very relevant to the needs of agriculture in developing countries like Ghana, even today.

The 2016 report makes a strong case for agriculture policy and institutional review to enable better service delivery and higher and sustainable productivity. The GTLC Agro Barometer Index (ABI) is designed to help provide an important input to assisting stakeholders to understand at a glance what has happened in the crops sector in a previous period. It gives a sense of the performance of the sector in relation to the policy climate for agriculture in a single number or percentage. For emphasis, this score is for the agricultural sector in a particular year given the policy environment and farmers' efforts, and not the performance of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. The ABI therefore complements the aims of the APPB report. It is not a perceptions indicator, but based on ex-post field and national data.

The ABI score for 2014 and 2015 was calculated using two methods and therefore the range for the performance in these respective years is 33.6 - 35.8 percent and 37.7 -41.5 percent. The performance in 2015 was higher than in 2014. The 2016 GTLC ABI has new features that expand understanding of which indicators impact most on the score.

1.3 Performance of METASIP in 2016 as Reflected in the 2017 National BudgetIn 2016, total planned expenditure for the Agriculture Sector was GH¢355.14 million. Actual expenditure by the end of December 2016, was GH¢181.29 million. Of this amount, GH¢164.24 million, representing 90.60 percent, was spent on poverty focused expenditures such as the Fertilizer Subsidy programme and the establishment of Agricultural Mechanisation Service Centres, among others to boost agricultural production. (Budget Statement and Economic Policy, Paragraph 785, 2017)

This is a clear indication of a lower investment and a lower performance as reflected in the growth rate of 3.6 percent in 2016, lower than the CAADP target of 6 percent per year. The 2016 APPB report will show the effect of low investment on some critical inputs of agriculture and make a case for a rethink of the institutional and investment strategies to increase productivity sustainably.

2.0 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGYThere are four stages involved in compiling the APPB reports. It involves more of quantitative and less of qualitative data collection through the GTLC Policy Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) system, then compilation and analysis of the draft report, validation and publication. This process ensures that the integrity and credibility of each stage is established before the next step. For the 2016 PME process, GTLC reviewed

PAGE 7


questionnaires used in 2015, secured a survey monkey platform and uploaded the questionnaire onto the platform. A link to the platform was sent via WhatsApp to administrators in the data centres. This ensured access to the questionnaire and enabled monitoring of data collection at the GTLC Secretariat, while it was in process. The collected data was exported into the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software version 20 for the required analysis. Frequency and descriptive analysis was mainly used to identify dominant patterns in the data and support key statements.

Ten (10) data sets for rice, maize and tomato, from nine communities were collected. The communities are spread in six administrative regions of Ghana as in Table 1. The location of the communities is shown in Figure 1. The centres were as follows:

i. Rice: Afife, Nakori, Bugubelle, Jana;ii. Tomato: Kasseh Ada, Akomadan, Derma; iii. Maize: Ejura, Nkoranza and Bugubelle.

All the data centres are recognised nationally as locations where there is commercial production of rice, maize and tomato by small scale farmers. About 71 percent of respondents in 2016 cultivated up to five acres of land.

Though there was an increase in the number of crops from two, that is, rice and tomato, to three with the inclusion of maize, the number of administrative regions has reduced from nine in 2015 to six in 2016. This was because data collection in Kade in the Eastern region, Nyariga in the Upper East and Ohiamadwen in the Western region experienced challenges that were not corrected at the time of compilation of the report and therefore were left out of the 2016 analysis. Sixty-six (66) persons per centre were randomly selected, making a total sample size of 660 farmers. Four (4) of the selected centres collected data on rice, three (3) centres collected data on maize and three (3) centres on tomato.

Respondents in the 2016 survey consisted of 264 rice farmers, 198 maize farmers and 198 tomato farmers. These were 39.9, 29.9 percent and 29.9 percent of respondents respectively. Male respondents constituted 481 farmers, that is, 72.7 percent of respondents, and female respondents were 178, representing 26.9 percent of respondents.

Respondents were in different age ranges of 16-35, 36-55, 56- 75 and above 75. The corresponding numbers of respondents in the age ranges were 129, 428, 98 and 5. In percentage terms, they constituted 19.5 percent in age range 16-35, 64.7 percent for age range 36-55, 14.8 percent for the 56-75 age range and 0.8 percent for above 75 years.

Comparisons were made based on the crop types (maize, rice and tomato), gender (male and female farmers), age group and across the farming communities, that is geographical, through cross-tabulation procedures to enable a better appreciation of policy implementation and how it affects production of specific crops, gender considerations, age groups and geographical location of farmers.

The report assesses indicators in METASIP that influence productivity and its

PAGE 8


sustainability. The indicators with the corresponding programme areas and components are presented below.

Programme Area 2: Food Security and Emergency PreparednessComponent: Productivity improvement

· Access to and use of improved seed varieties· Access to and use of fertilizers· Access to and use of extension advice· Access to credit by rice producers· Yield levels of producers

Component: Food storage and distribution· Access by small scale producers to appropriate storage including private sector

provided warehousing· Access to market for produce (for processing and direct to markets)

Component: Mechanisation services· Access to timely ploughing services by farmers· Access to timely harvesting services

Programme Area 3: Increased Growth in IncomesComponent: Promotion of Cash Crop, Livestock and Fish Production for Income in all Ecological Zones

· Access to and use of improved seeds by tomato farmers· Access to credit by tomato farmers· Links to markets: direct to market centres; tomato processing facilities; and storage

of tomato· State of the tomato value chain

Programme Area 4: Marketing of Agricultural Products· Access to markets

Programme Area 5: Management of Land and Environment· Land ownership· Crop insurance· Climate change

Programme Area 6: Science and Technology Applied in Food and Agricultural Development

· Development of improved seed· Access to Extension advice · State of Research and Development

The distribution of the centres, in alphabetical order, and the corresponding crops and districts are presented in Table 1. The centres are a holistic representation of the diverse agro-ecological zones in Ghana

PAGE 9


PAGE 10

Source: GTLC 2016 PME survey

Table 1:List of Communities and Data Centres in alphabetical order

Data Centre Crop Metropolitan/Municipal

/District Assembly

Region

Afife Rice Ketu North Volta

Akomadan Tomato Offinso North Ashanti

Bugubelle Rice and maize Sissala East Upper West

Derma Tomato Tano North Brong Ahafo

Ejura Maize Ejura/Sekyedumase Ashanti

Jana Rice Savelugu Nanton Northern

Kasseh Ada Tomato Dangme East Greater-Accra

Nakori Rice Wa Municipal Upper West

Nkoranza Maize Nkoranza south Brong Ahafo

Source of map: https://images.search.yahoo.comFigure 1 Map of Ghana showing Location of Communities

3.0 2016 AGRICULTURE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND PERFORMANCE AS CAPTURED IN THE 2017 NATIONAL BUDGETPerformance of key programmes and output under the Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (METASIP) as captured in the 2017 national budget for the 2016 are listed below. These statements are lifted directly from the 2017 national budget statement.

i) Programme II: Food Security and Emergency Preparedness

MechanisationThe Ministry procured 50 tractors to support Agriculture Mechanization Service Centres (AMSECS) and 549 agricultural tractors were assembled for sale to support AMSECS (paragraph 346).

Improved seedIn 2016, 20 metric tonnes of maize foundation seed, 3,055 metric tonnes of certified seeds of rice, sorghum, cowpea, soybean, groundnut and citrus foundation seeds were produced and distributed to farmers (paragraph 347).

IrrigationThe Ministry continued its collaboration with Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) to rehabilitate dams and dugouts in the three Northern Regions.In 2016, 112 dams and dugouts were completed, whilst 67 dams and dugouts are expected to be completed in 2017 (paragraph 351).

The Ministry through the Rice Sector Support Project completed the development of water regulatory structures covering 715.1 ha in 27 valleys in the Volta Region for rice production. This brought the total coverage area under the project to 4,892.3ha out of a total designed area of 5,697.1ha (paragraph 352)

The Ministry under GCAP) developed 700 ha of land in the Nasia-Nabogo valleys in the Northern Region for commercial investors to produce rain-fed rice. ……Works were also completed on a 1,003 ha flood recession schemes in the three Northern Regions to increase the area for rain-fed rice and high value vegetable production. All the seven schemes are expected to be in use in the 2017 cropping season with over 2,000 farmers expected to benefit from the schemes (paragraph 353).

Storage/warehousing The Ministry constructed a number of warehouses and pack houses ranging between 75 and 95 percent stages of completion for the storage of cereals, grains, fruits, and vegetables across the country. Under the Northern Rural Growth Programme (NRGP), five out of eight warehouses were taken over (paragraph 354)

ii) Programme III: Increased Growth in IncomesAccess to creditTo further strengthen and widen access to credit by actors along the agriculture value chain,

PAGE 11


Government is setting up the Ghana Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (GIRSAL) aimed at employing a holistic approach to address the challenges (paragraph 356).

iii) Programme VI: Science and Technology in Food and Agricultural DevelopmentProgrammeAccess to subsidised fertilizer90,000 metric tonnes of subsidized fertilizer were procured and distributed to 650,000 crop farmers nationwide (paragraph 357).

These pronouncements in the 2017 National budget statement will help with the assessment of services rendered to the benefit of small scale farmers in 2016. The section below provides this assessment.

4.0 ANALYSIS OF PME RESULTS FOR 2016 APPB REPORT

4.1 The sustainable productivity challenge An FAO, 2009 study (as cited in FAO, et el, 2012) states that, estimates indicate that by 2050, agricultural production would need to grow globally by 70% over the same period, and more specifically by almost 100% in developing countries, to feed the growing population alone, excluding additional demand for crops as feedstock by the biofuel sector (FAO, et al., 2012).

The same FAO, 2009 study (as cited in FAO, et el, 2012) indicates that, the most popular indicator of land productivity is crop yield. The average global rates of growth in yield of most of the major cereals are declining. Since the 1980s, growth in wheat and rice yields fell from 2.5-3% to around 1%. Maize yields showed growth of slightly less than 2% over the last decade. Lower productivity and slow growth in some developing countries and in small family farms raise specific concerns. The gap between farmers' yields and technical potential yields reflects the largely suboptimal use of inputs and insufficient adoption of most productive technology, often linked to lack of market integration. (FAO, et al., 2012)In Ghana, measures to reduce the productivity gap in agriculture are articulated in the Food and Agriculture Sector Development Programme (FASDEP) and the Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (METASIP).

The Food Security and Emergency Preparedness programme aims at increasing productivity and production through better agricultural mechanization, irrigation development and the promotion of selected staple crops and livestock. It is also aimed at improving food distribution to vulnerable groups to enhance the food and nutrition security status of poor and disadvantaged groups especially in times of disasters and crisis. (METASIP II, 2015)Measures to address the low productivity include the following:

v Identify, update and disseminate existing technological packages;v Introduce improved crop varieties (high yielding, short duration, disease and pest

resistance, and nutrient-fortified);v Disseminate extension information through FBOs;v Increase access to fertiliser;

PAGE 12


v Monitor the prices of agro-inputs in relation to tax waivers to ensure that waiversare enjoyed by producers;

v Develop targeted extension messages on input use to avoid misapplication offertilizers and agro-chemicals;

v Seed/planting material.

This section assesses productivity of three crops in 2016 which in this case reflect impact of policy implementation on cereals and vegetables. It also assesses the robustness of structures that are in place to improve and sustain productivity. The assessment of productivity was done through the following measures:

v Access to and use of certified seed;v Access to land preparation service (plough and harrow);v Costs of plough and harrow service;v Costs of fertilizer;v Quantity of fertilizer used;v Yields of farmers;v Gender gaps in productivity

In the case of sustainability of productivity assessment, the following criteria were used:v Market accessv Crop insurancev Land availability and ownershipv Onset of climate change and adaptation measures

4.11 Access to and use of certified seedIn 2016, about 70 percent of sampled farmers reported using certified seed. This means that the remaining 30 percent may have used farm-saved seeds. Twenty percent of farmers considered certified seeds to be inappropriate for their agro-ecology and 10 percent attributed inability to use certified seed to cost. Across crops, maize and rice farmers tended to use certified seed more than tomato farmers. About 87 percent of maize farmers and 86 percent of rice farmers used certified seed in the 2016 farming season. Comparatively, only 30 percent of tomato farmers reported using certified seed.

The gender distribution in the use of certified seed indicates that 69 percent of female farmers used certified seed while 70 percent of male farmers did same. Among the age groups 69 percent of the 16-35 age group used certified seed against 66 percent by the 36-55 age group. Comparatively, 84 percent of the 56-75 age group used certified seed.

In the case of tomato none of the farmers in Derma and 96 percent of Akomadan farmers did not use certified seed while 88 percent of farmers in Kasseh Ada reported using certified seed. Similarly, with maize the use of certified seed was 100 percent in Ejura while in Nkoranza, it was 67 percent even though these two communities are geographically close to each other. Clearly the use of certified seed is high among farmers in the different crop types, except tomato. It is likewise high for the female and male farmers, and farmers of the different age categories.

PAGE 13


In response to the source of certified seed, about 22 percent of farmers claimed to have used seeds from other farmers and their own seeds. About 41 percent accessed seeds from certified input dealers and 6 percent had seeds from MOFA. Though MOFA may not be engaged directly in sale of seed, acquisition of seed by farmers from MOFA is usually under programmes and projects facilitated by MOFAEven though the results seem to suggest a high use of certified seeds among maize and rice farmers, the source of a large portion of seed is not verifiable as many of the certified input dealers are licensed to sell chemicals and not seeds. Bad seeds with low purity have implication on level of productivity. Effort should be made to improve access to certified seed by tomato farmers and the 36-55 age group who constitute a greater portion of all sampled farmers. The creation of the National Seed Traders Association of Ghana (NASTAG) is therefore a welcome development but a lot remains to be done to enable access to verifiable certified seed to many farmers across Ghana.

4.12 Access to land preparation service (plough and harrow)In general, the use of tractor for land preparation in the 2016 season dominated at 75 percent, while the use of hoe was at 21 percent. The use of animal traction and power tiller were respectively 2 and 1 percent.The distribution of source of ploughing in 2016 was as follows:

v One farmer constituting 0.2 percent of respondents had it from AMSECs,v 488 farmers, that is 73.7 percent of respondents sourced it from private operators,v 127 farmers constituting 12.7 percent of respondents, of which 99 farmers used hoe

and 28 farmers had it from GTLC's social enterprise, TROSDEC.

All sampled maize farmers used the tractor for ploughing while 89 percent of rice farmers did that. Rice farmers also depended on the power tiller and hoe at 3.7 and 4.5 percent respectively to plough. Comparatively, 66 percent of tomato farmers used the hoe while 33 percent depended on tractor for land preparation. By gender, about female (74.7%) and male (75.3%) farmers used tractor for land preparation. About 22 percent and 19 percent respectively of male and female farmers used the hoe. Less than 1 percent of male farmers depended on animal traction while 4.4 percent of women used animal traction as a means of land preparation.

By age group, 83 percent of the 15-35 age group used a tractor and 68 percent of the 36-55 age group did same. A large portion of the 56-75 age group, constituting 93 percent used a tractor for land preparation. However more of the 16-55 age group, depended on the hoe at 27 percent, as against 15 percent for the 15-35 age group and 3 percent for the 56-75 age group.

Further checks indicate that though many farmers are having access to tractor plough, it is not satisfactory as the service is rushed to enable the provider move on to other farm lands. This is the result of having fewer tractors than is needed for adequate land preparation. The use of hoe by tomato farmers takes place in forest areas such as Derma and Akomadan where use of tractors was difficult. Unsatisfactory land preparation is a hindrance to the use of mechanised planters and harvesters. It may not also permit for adequate good agronomic

PAGE 14


practices by farmers. If modernisation of agriculture is to succeed, serious consideration must be given by government and private sector to ensuring access by farmers to adequate and appropriate land preparation services. By community, rice producers constituting 94 percent of farmers in Afife and 32 percent of farmers in Jana used the harrow. Comparatively no farmer in Bugubelle used the harrow and a relatively small percentage of 7.5 percent of farmers in Nakori used the harrow. By gender, 13 and 18 percent respectively of female and male rice farmers used the harrow. By age group, apart from a higher percentage of 27 percent access by the 56-75 age group, the 16-35 and 36-55 age groups were at 19 and 13 percent access respectively.

Fifty-Five percent of female farmers that could not use harrow service attributed the challenge to absence of harrow services and the extra cost of harrowing. Similarly, 42 percent of male farmers attributed access to the same reasons. Access to harrowing services clearly did not favour any of the genders or age groups. Access to the service was generally low and therefore all rice farmers were similarly affected.

Use of the harrow in land preparation may not be pressing for maize and tomato farmers, but it is critical for rice farmers. Like the ploughing service, inadequate or lack of use of the harrow by rice farmers prevents good agronomic practices and attainment of high yields.

4.13 Cost of ploughing and harrowing services across communities studiedThe cost of ploughing across the communities studied varied from GH¢50 to GH¢250 per acre. Bugubelle farmers (rice and maize) paid less for ploughing per acre, with 90 percent of farmers paying GHc75 per acre and the rest at Ghc50 per acre. Farmers at Akomadan and Derma paid the highest for ploughing with Akomadan farmers paying between GHc160 and GH210 per acre while 73 percent of Derma farmers paid GHc200 and the rest GHc 150. One reason for the high cost was because all farmers in these two communities depended on the hoe as a means of land preparation which is linked to high labour cost. The cost of labour far outweighs use of mechanised service.

The use of harrowing service is dominant among rice farmers. It is considered a prerequisite to practicing Good Agronomic Practices (GAPs) and achievement of high yields. The results show that only rice farmers in Afife had better access to harrow. 69 percent of farmers in Afife paid between GHc100 and GHc200 per acre of harrow while the rest paid between GHc130 and GHc280 per acre. Access to harrow in Jana and Nakori were 12 and 6 percent respectively. The availability and cost of access to plough and harrow service is challenge for some communities and not reflective of government efforts to provide AMSECs across the country. The cost of ploughing and harrowing as inputs to agriculture is costly for many. The appropriate technology to reduce use of hoe in forested areas of Akomadan and Derma should be considered. This will enable the correspondent reduction in cost of ploughing for these and similar communities. The cost of ploughing and harrowing are generally higher in southern Ghana.

Maize farmers paid relatively lower for ploughing at an average of GHc80. The cost spread for these services for rice farmers ranged from GHc50 to GHc250. There were spikes in

PAGE 15


cost at GH¢75, GH¢100 and GH¢120 for 75 percent of rice farmers. Tomato farmers however bore the highest brunt in the cost of plough. About 58 percent of tomato farmers paid more than GH¢200 per acre for plough. Using an average figure of GH¢120 for cost of plough, about 60 percent of female farmers paid less than GH¢120 while about 63 percent of male farmers paid less than GH¢120. A larger proportion of male farmers paid less for plough than female farmers.

4.14 Cost of fertilizer across communities studiedIn 2016, Government committed to subsidize 180,000mt of granular fertilizer at a cost of GH¢ GH¢ 120 million and organic fertilizer at a cost of 18 million. It took effect from 1st April 2016, the selling prices of the various types of fertilizers for the 2016 farming season were; GH¢ 85 per 50kg bag for compound fertilizer and GH¢ 80 per 50kg bag for Urea. Results from GTLC's PME data show that, of the 78 percent of farmers that used fertilizer in 2016, 85.2 percent of them acquired compound fertilizer at a subsidised price of GH¢85 and about 12 percent bought it at prices ranging from 86 to 120 per 50 kg bag. GH¢ GH¢

The picture is different with the acquisition of urea. About 26 percent of farmers acquired urea at the subsidised price of GH¢80 per 50 kg bag. In comparison to compound fertilizer, only 54 percent farmers acquired urea. About 5 percent of farmers bought urea at prices above the subsidised price. Available data show that about 16 percent of farmers used organic manure alone and in addition to inorganic fertilizer. By community, Afife and Nakori were communities that largely acquired compound fertilizer above the subsidised price with 77 and 97 percent of farmers doing so respectively.

Majority of farmers constituting 91 percent each from Akomadan and Ejura acquired urea at subsidised price. The other community that patronised urea is Nkoranza where 62 percent of farmers acquired urea, while 24 percent of farmers in Jana acquired urea. All farmers producing the three crops highly patronised compound fertilizer at the subsidised price of GH¢85 with 93 percent of maize farmers, 68 and 96 percent of rice and tomato farmer respectively doing so. The results show that rice farmers acquired compound fertilizer at a higher price than the rest of the crops where 31 percent of rice farmers acquired compound fertilizer above the subsidised price. Patronage of urea at the subsidised rate was dominant among maize and tomato farmers.

4.15 Quantity of fertilizer usedThe average use of fertilizer was lowest in Nakori where 27.33 kilogrammes of fertilizer was used per hectare. However, the highest use by a farmer in Nakori was 370.5 kilogrammes per hectare. The highest average use of fertilizer was registered in Bugubelle among maize farmers where 335.72 kilogrammes of fertilizer was used per hectare. The highest individual use was 568.1 kilogrammes per hectare. This was the highest among maize farmers as compared to Ejura and Nkoranza where, 469.3 Kilogrammes and 432.25 kilogrammes per hectare respectively was applied. The lowest among maize farmers was registered in Nkoranza where 88.21 kilogrammes of fertilizer were used per hectare.The highest average use of fertilizer among rice farmers was also registered in Bugubelle

PAGE 16


where 329.33 kilogrammes of fertilizer was used per hectare. The lowest among rice farmers was registered in Nakori where about 90 percent of farmers did not use fertilizer. However, on individual basis a use of 370.5 kilogrammes per hectare was registered in Nakori.

Among tomato farmers, the highest average use of fertilizer was observed in Derma where 255.16 kilogrammes of fertilizer were used per hectare. The highest individual use of fertilizer among tomato farmers was also observed in Derma at a rate of 617.5 kilogrammes per hectare. The lowest individual use among tomato farmers was observed in Adda Kasseh

The quantity of fertilizer per hectare used by sampled farmers varied by community and by crop. By community, the highest use by an individual farmer was in Derma where 617.5 kilogrammes of fertilizer were used per hectare.

Clearly the use of fertilizer was not uniform across the data centres and may technically not need to be so. However, variation within communities is also wide indicating that tax waivers may not be benefitting farmers equally. If the variations are because of the inability of some farmers to purchase adequate quantities, then it reinforces the case that subsidy is not the ultimate solution to access inputs. Access to cheaper credit may provide a better access to fertilizer by farmers. There may also be the need to educate farmers to test their soils to guide them apply the required quantities of fertilizers.

PAGE 17

4.16 2016 Yields of farmers

Table 2: Estimated yields for 2016

*METASIP I, MOFA 2011-2015Source: Estimated using data from GTLC 2016 PME survey


The achievable yield for maize was attained by few farmers in Bugubelle, even though the average yield was below the achievable yield. Among maize farming communities, Bugubelle out performed Nkoranza and Ejura. Bugubelle maize farmers had access to relatively cheaper ploughing service and fertilizer at subsidised prices. They also used certified seed and high quantities of fertilizer. This may have translated into the high yields registered in Bugubelle and an example of the type and cost of service required by maize farmers to be more productive. This is beside the point that services received by farmers in Bugubelle could still be better. The high use of organic manure by farmers in Bugubelle is also instructive and could have influenced the high yields obtained.

Afife had a better individual and average yield among rice farming communities. Nakori rice farmers registered a relatively lower individual yield by a farmer and lower average yield. Over 90 percent of rice farmers in Nakori did not use fertilizer, had low access to harrow service even though plough was relatively better. Comparatively, Afife rice farmers had access to better plough and harrow services, relatively high use of fertilizer, even though cost was higher. Afife also had the advantage of irrigation, warehousing and market provided by a private operator, Wienco. Conditions for high productivity were therefore better than the rest of rice farming communities.

The gap between achievable and actual yields among tomato farmers was quite big compared to rice and maize. However, farmers in Kasseh Ada performed relatively better than the other communities. The results show that Kasseh Ada farmers used certified tomato seed, plough service (being the only tomato farming community that could use tractor service), lower cost for plough, good access and use of fertilizer. There is however a lot more to be done to improve the conditions for growing tomato in Ghana through access and expanded use of innovations such as green house.

4.17 Gender gaps in productivity FAO, 2011 study (as cited in FAO, et el, 2012) found that, high returns can also be achieved by reducing gender gaps in productivity on small family farms. According to FAO, closing gender productivity gaps associated with unequal access to resources and inputs could raise total agricultural output in developing countries by 2.5-4%, leading to a reduction of 12-17% in the number of undernourished globally (FAO, et al., 2012).

Analysis of data from the centres, show that in both average and highest yield by gender, female farmers performed relatively well in all crop areas and communities. This is notwithstanding slightly lower access to resources and inputs. This is evident in marginally lower use of certified seed and access to plough service. There was even a lower use of the hoe by female farmers. It was however evident as in past years that women depended more on animal traction, one of the few areas where their male counterparts were out performed. A higher proportion of male farmers paid for lower plough services than female farmers. An informed deduction is that, a better access to support services for female farmers may result in higher productivity and a reduction in the number of undernourished in Ghana.

PAGE 18


4.2 SustainabilityFAO, 2011 study (as cited in FAO, et el, 2012) indicates that, efforts to increase food production will take place within an environment characterised by a scarcity of natural resources. In many regions, there is little room for expansion of arable land, with virtually no additional land available in South Asia, the Near East and North Africa. Where land is available, in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, more than 70% suffers from soil and terrain constraints (FAO, et al., 2012).Assessment of sustainability of productivity in this report is done by appraising land ownership, water use, impacts of climate change as captured by the GTLC 2016 PME survey. Other factors considered were storage and marketing.

4.21 Land availability/ownership About 61 percent of all sampled farmers reported cultivating on their own land in 2016. About 5 percent reported that they had notes from former land owners to confirm ownership while 3.6 percent have land title and 0.3 percent have an indenture on the land. The claim to land ownership varies among the crop types. About 71 percent of maize farmers reported that they owned the land, while 63 percent and 49 percent respectively of rice and tomato farmers claimed they owned land. Maize farmers constituted the high percentage with access to notes from former land owners. 8.5 percent of maize farmers had notes, while 1.1 percent and 2 percent respectively of rice and tomato farmers had notes. On the other hand, more tomato farmers had title to the land at 12 percent while maize and rice farmers were at 4.5 and less than 1 percent respectively. 0.5 percent of maize and 0.4 percent of rice farmers each had access to indenture of the land.

By age group, 55 percent of the 16-35 age group reported land ownership, while 65 percent and 51 percent of the 36-55 and 56-75 age groups reported ownership. 100 percent ownership of land was reported by the over 75 age group. Having document to prove ownership was more dominant among the 36-55 age group, where 6 percent and 4.4 percent of this age group had notes and land titles respectively. One farmer each in the 16-35 and 36-55 age groups had indentures for the land. About 4.6 percent and 2.3 percent of the 16-35 age group had notes and land titles to prove ownership, while 2 percent of the 56-75 age group had land title.

By gender, 62 percent of female farmers reported to own land as against 60.8 percent of male farmers. However, while 6.2 percent and 4.4 percent of male farmers had notes and land titles respectively to the land, only 1.7 percent of female farmers each had notes and land titles to prove ownership. It was also observed that one male and one female farmer each had indentures to prove ownership of land.

The low proof of ownership of land used by farmers poses a real threat to the long-term use of such land for agriculture purposes. The absence of a land use policy in Ghana makes any attempt by small scale farmers to invest in developing agriculture on farm infrastructure a big risk. Hence, investment may be slower than is required which is a threat to sustainability of productivity.

PAGE 19


4.22 Water use/irrigationOECD study, 2012 (as cited in FAO, et el, 2012) revealed that, at the global level, agriculture is the largest water user worldwide, representing about 70% of total withdrawal. In some countries, over 90% is withdrawn for agricultural purposes. Cities and industries are competing intensely with agriculture for the use of water and an increasing number of countries, or regions within countries, are reaching alarming levels of water stress and pollution. Global freshwater resources will be further strained in the future in many regions, with over 40% of the world's population projected to be living in river basins experiencing severe water stress by 2050 (FAO, et al., 2012).

Ghana is still far behind in use of water in agriculture. According to an official at the Water 1

Resources Commission, Ghana is on the verge of becoming a water scarce country The Ghana Agriculture Trends and Outlook Report, 2012 indicates that 0.4 percent of the14.04 million hectares of arable land in Ghana was under irrigation. This figure, after almost 5 years, may still be under 1 percent. With challenges of inconsistent rainfall patterns linked to climate change, Ghana will need to develop its capacity in irrigation in the shortest possible time. This development must recognise the need to be very innovative in using irrigation systems that promote productivity and conserve water and biodiversity.

About 81 percent of farmers reported experiencing inadequate and unpredictable rainfall. Apart from Jana where 94 percent of farmers reported adequate rainfall in 2016, at least 83 percent of farmers in Afife, Kasseh Ada, Akomadan, Bugubelle, Derma, Ejura and Nkoranza experienced inadequate rainfall. In between the two extremes, 67 percent of farmers in Nakori experienced the challenge of inadequate rainfall.

Farmers in Afife, Akomadan and Derma are mitigating the inadequate rainfall challenge with irrigation facilities. At 2-3 percent of land under irrigation in the Ghana, these communities are the lucky few. To attain sustainable productivity of crop production in Ghana, much more needs to be done to increase arable land under irrigation and also improve the efficiency of existing systems.

The communities with inadequate rainfall tended to adapt through dependence on crops with low gestation period, listening to rainfall forecast and resorting to grow crops in valleys. Therefore, investment in improved innovations is needed and the development of adaptation technologies through research and development is critical if productivity is to be increased and sustained.

As cited in FAO, et el, 2012, global agriculture will need to adapt to climate change. There is growing evidence that climate change has had negative effects on agriculture and widespread agreement that agriculture, particularly in developing countries, will be for the most part negatively affected by climate change (IPCC, 2007; Lobell et al., 2011; Nelson et al., 2009, 2010; Wassmann et al., 2010; Müller et al., 2011). In the near term, climate variability and extreme weather shocks are projected to increase, affecting all regions with negative impacts on yield growth and food security, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia in the period up to 2030 (Burney et al., 2010; SREX, 2012) (FAO, et al., 2012).

PAGE 20


1. http://www.ghananewsagency.org/sciencelghana-is-economically-a-water-scarce-resources-country-dr-alfa-97834

Productivity growth needs to increase to keep up with demand growth, but also to increase resilience of the sector to supply shocks, whether due to climate change or due to resource limits more generally. (FAO, et al., 2012)

4.23 Crop insurance Another challenge with sustaining and increasing productivity is access to crop insurance and the current low crop insurance uptake by farmers. About 1 percent of sampled farmers had crop insurance. These were farmers in Ejura and Nakori. By crop type maize had the best coverage as represented by Ejura. Three (3) of the 7 persons that had crop insurance were women. Therefore, resilience of farmers to climate change shocks is further reduced without mitigating insurance coverage. However, over time and with more education on risk reduction more farmers may seek crop insurance against agricultural risks. The role and capacity of the Ghana Agricultural Insurance Pool should be enhanced to cover many more farmers with insurance.

4.24 StorageApart from rice farmers in Afife, where 56 percent of farmers had access to warehouse facilities, all other farmers in the sampled communities did not have well designed storage facilities for their produce. About 34 percent of farmers used their own space at home, 1.4 percent depended on traditional and metallic silos while 9 percent had access to warehousing, mostly from the private sector. Wienco was the dominant provider of warehouse facilities especially in Afife. The results showed that most farmers did not have access to appropriate warehouse and storage facilities for their produce. 56 percent did not have storage at all and about 34 percent stored in their houses. Access to storage between the genders was not very different with the proportion of female and male at 49 and 52 percent respectively. Availability affected all equally albeit with a slight edge in favour of male gender.

4.25 Market accessAn analysis of survey data show that majority of farmers, constituting 83.5 percent sold their produce to market women. Less than 1 percent of farmers sold to NAFCO and processing companies. Market women play many important roles in the market chain including the provision of credit support to farmers and an interface between farmers and consumers. The quality of produce is more often determined by how the women handle it from the farm gate to the consumer. The infrastructure that supports them to purchase, transport, store and further market produce is however very weak. Beyond the farmgate, much of postharvest losses and quality deterioration of produce takes place in their hands. If this weakness in the market system is not addressed by supporting better handling of produce by traders prior to consumption, any increases in productivity may not reflect in better availability and access to quality food.

4.26 Cost of creditFor most maize farmers in Bugubelle and Nkoranza, the period for which loans were acquired was between 1-3 months. This was different for farmers in Ejura where it varied

PAGE 21


from 4-6 months. For the purposes of comparison, all interest rates were annualised and interest rates for maize farmers ranged from 48 to 375 percent per annum. Farmers in Bugubelle borrowed from their own Village Savings and Loans Association (VSLA) at an interest rate of 120 percent. All beneficiaries of the loan in the VSLA benefited from paying both the principal and interest back to chest as shareholders to the Association. Farmers in Nkoranza experienced the highest interest payments of between 48 to 375, with Ejura technically having the lowest ranging from 13 to 75 percent per annum. Source of loans in Nkoranza was from maize traders and money lenders. Farmers in Ejura depended on GN Bank and Sekyere Odumase Rural Bank. The lowest rates of cost of credit here were given by the GN Bank.

Cost of credit for rice farmers ranged from 20 percent to 600 percent. For most rice farmers, it was from 120 to 150 percent. The worst-case scenario at Afife was when in a couple cases, farmers contracted a loan of GHc 1,200.00 and GHc800.00 and paid back GHc1, 800.00 and GHc1, 200.00 respectively in one month. One would consider that the conditions of farming in Afife provide the environment to attract interventions from financial institutions. However, the security of irrigation and involvement of private sector in marketing did not guarantee farmers in Afife access to cheaper loans from financial institutions. All sampled farmers acquired credit from traders, money lenders and family members. The VSLA scheme in Bugubelle provided access to some farmers at a rate of 120 percent interest payment.

Except a case or two where credit was acquired at 120 percent, all farmers at Nakori contracted loans at 60 percent interest. Most farmers in Jana had credit at 60 percent. However, a few farmers acquired it at 80 percent with the lowest being 40 percent. In both Nakori and Jana, the source of credit was micro finance institutions and in addition, savings and loans in the case of Jana.

For tomato, most farmers at Ada Kasseh did not access credit in the 2016 season. A few however had it at 200 percent interest rate.

In general, tomato farmers enjoyed the lowest cost of credit. It ranged from 25 to 114 percent for Derma with the majority having it at a rate of 32 percent. The average rate in Akomadan was 37 percent with a registered high of 133 and a low of 20 percent.

On the average, the cost of credit to farmers is far higher than what the formal private sector gets. The cost of produce as raw material will therefore be too high to attract the formal private sector into value addition. This has implications on the growth of agro industry and job creation. The high cost of credit may have a negative impact on marketing of produce and even the incentive to produce more by farmers.

These issues compromise the sustainability of any measures to sustain and improve productivity in agriculture and must be tackled with all seriousness.

PAGE 22


4.27 Access to creditAdequate access to credit by farmers to enable adequate investment in land preparation and application of extension advice is related to productivity. Credit is required for application of extension advice, to rent a tractor, hire labour, acquire good certified seeds and where possible to rent planters and harvesters. Without adequate access to financing, the application of R&D by farmers when available, is limited.

It was reported by 45.6 percent of sampled farmers that credit was sought for in 2016. However, only 38.6 percent of sampled farmers really had access to credit. By crop type, 53 percent of tomato farmers that sought for credit had it. However, out of 50 percent of rice farmers that sought for credit only 34 percent of rice farmers had it. The demand for credit was lower among maize farmers at 32 percent which led to 30 percent access. Clearly, access to credit was below what farmers sought for. There was equal level of demand for credit from female and male farmers at 45 percent, though more male farmers had access at 40 percent against 35 percent for female farmers.

4.3 Agricultural Innovation Systems

Funding Research and Development in GhanaAgricultural research is fundamental to enhancing Ghana's agricultural productivity. To this end, Ghana has created a National Agricultural Research System (NARS) that spans research institutes, tertiary educational institutions, and other organizations. How effective the NARS has been in enhancing agricultural practices and productivity in Ghana is a fundamental question of concern to all stakeholders, including policymakers, farmers, researchers, and development workers. Ghana's main agency for Agricultural R&D is the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and its 13 research institutes, of which 10 are engaged in agricultural and related research activities. (Asare & Essegbey, 2016)

The predominant model for innovation has been mostly supply-driven: scientists in the public sector create new technologies which are then disseminated by extension officers to the farmers who are asked to adopt them. Many countries have reviewed their Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in recent years in response to concerns about lack of adoption of innovation and the need to increase performance to respond to emerging and pressing challenges. Indeed, sustainable production intensification requires a major shift from the supply-driven innovation model to knowledge-specific and often location-specific farming systems which conserve and enhance natural resources. Non-technological innovation such as marketing or organisational innovations also receive more attention today. (FAO, et al., 2012)

It will be seen from this report that Ghana is similarly facing a challenge in the adoption of innovation and therefore the need to ensure that the right mix of strategies is generated to enable adoption of extension advice by farmers in Ghana. The introductions of the Research Extension Liaison Committee (RELC) concept and the Competitive Agriculture Research Grant Scheme (CARGS) have proven to be effective ways of promoting demand driven research. However, low levels of funding have constrained the success of participatory research. (METASIP I, 2010) A quick appraisal while compiling this report

PAGE 23


PAGE 24

shows that the RELC concept is still not working effectively, largely because of lack of funding. As shown above, levels of access to improved seed and fertilizer is high, but the influence on yield is not correspondingly high. Adequate funding to R&D is therefore critical in this endeavour especially because the skill set and competency levels of farmers is low and a participatory process will help understand their extension needs better. The skill set of farmers should be a consideration in design and use of innovations to influence productivity. About 72 percent of sampled farmers acquired farming skills from informal sources that include relatives and friends and only 26 percent of the sampled farmers had formal training through Agriculture Extension Agents and agriculture colleges. More so, 42 percent of the farmers have never been to school. A further breakdown shows that 55 percent of female farmers have never been to school compared to 37 percent of male farmers. This may be a barrier to adoption of innovation in Ghana. There is the need for targeted research and development of extension advice and an effective and innovative means of transferring information and knowledge to farmers, especially female, if productivity should improve.

The contribution of CSIR to the total agricultural R&D expenditure is quite significant. It constitutes about 50 per cent of the total for the country, showing an increase of 42 per cent over the period, considering government-funded expenditures. The expenditure for CSIR by cost category follows similar pattern to that of the total agricultural R&D expenditure. On the average, salary of staff accounted for 78 per cent of the total agricultural R&D expenditure in CSIR, while operating and program cost and capital investments accounted for 20 per cent and 2 per cent respectively. The study showed a drastic decline in capital investments from an already low 6.7 per cent in 2000 to 0.1 per cent in 2011. This phenomenon indicates the priority of the government as far as agricultural R&D in Ghana is concerned. The government seems to be interested in only getting researchers paid without the provision of requisite financial resources to work and the infrastructure for R&D which are of utmost importance. (Asare & Essegbey, 2016)

The need for extension advice among farmers is quite high. This report found that, in 2016, 82 percent of sampled farmers accessed extension advice, with MOFA Agriculture Extension Agents (AEAs) being the largest providers at 62 percent of sampled farmers. A high proportion of about 84 percent of sampled farmers, implemented recommendations provided by extension agents. The 2 percent difference is the result of farmers extracting the advice from their colleagues within an FBO rather than directly from the AEAs. A similarly high percentage of farmers reported that they found the advice useful. Female farmers had a better access to AEAs at 88 percent than their male counterparts which stood at 85 percent access. High access to extension did not reflect in high yields even among communities that had high access to inputs. This raises the question of how appropriate extension advice was for farmers. It therefore seems that access to extension is largely, still a supply-driven innovation. Set against the low levels of investment to R&D, there is an uphill task to sufficiently feed extension with the appropriate innovations.


PAGE 25

Evidence of the need for knowledge-specific and location specific farming system was identified in the 2016 PME data. Using three of the five pillars under the planting for food and jobs, that is, use of improved seed, fertilizer and extension service, it is observed that, in tomato growing communities, Kasseh Ada, in Table 6, registered a higher productivity possibly because it was the only tomato growing community that used improved seeds, though it had the lower average use of fertilizer and extension advice. With maize, as shown in Table 5, Bugubelle and Ejura compared similarly in the use of improved seed, fertilizer and extension advice. However, Bugubelle registered average yields 3 times higher than Ejura and Nkoranza. This points to peculiarities that should be further studied to understand the kind of interventions needed in each of these areas to make them more productive. The findings point to the need for increased knowledge-specific and location-specific extension services.

Table 3:Case for Knowledge and location specific extension service-Rice

Source: Compiled by GTLC from 2016 GTLC PME surveyNOTE: *18 percent used Animal traction**Use of irrigation

Table 4:Case for Knowledge and location specific Extension service-Maize

Source: Compiled by GTLC from 2016 PME survey

Table 5:Case for Knowledge and location specific Extension service-Tomato

Source: Compiled by GTLC from 2016 PME survey***Use of hoe


It is worth mentioning, that in paragraph 408 in the 2016 national budget statement on Ministry of Trade and Industry a concern of poor funding to R&D was raised. It states that, the country's industrial sector faces significant challenges including inadequate and poor

2quality raw materials for industrial processing, poorly developed domestic trade, weak

3consumer protection, and poor research and development support scheme for industry. The strong relationship between agricultural production and agro-industry is demonstrated in this statement. It also highlights that the challenge of low investment in R&D equally affects these very important sectors. The 2017 national budget statement under paragraphs 441 and 442 highlights two (2) R&D gains in 2016 thus:

i. Paragraph 441. To improve local rice production, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) trained 3,150 farmers in 20 communities in the three Northern Regions in Good Agriculture Practices (GAP). In addition, over 3,000 small holder rice farmers were introduced to the “Sawah” technology to enhance local and commercial rice production.

ii. Paragraph 442. The CSIR established a tomato nursery in a greenhouse for research and demonstration to farmers to develop high yielding disease and pest tolerant varieties of vegetables, fruits, certified seeds and improved planting materials for the local and export markets.

Even though laudable, much more is required from R&D institutions to really make a difference in sustainable agricultural productivity.

4.4 Investments in agriculture Investments in agriculture encompass both public and private spending on natural capital (such as land, water and biodiversity), physical capital (such as animals, machinery, irrigation systems, storage, processing and marketing facilities, roads, ports and other - ”hard” infrastructure on - or off-farm), human capital (such as health, education, training, and advisory services), and knowledge capital (such as research, technology development, and organisational and other innovations). These various types of investments play complementary roles in the production process and contribute to increase productivity. Investment needs will vary depending on the stage of economic and agricultural development. (FAO, et al., 2012)

As cited in FAO, et el, 2012, investment in agriculture, is of special interest as a limiting factor to agricultural production capacity and production because an alarming trend is being observed: public and private investment in agriculture has been declining (World Food Summit (WFS), 1996a). The decline in public investment is of particular concern because public investment in basic infrastructure, human capital formation and research and development (R&D) are necessary conditions for private investment. (Antholt, 1994; Evenson and McKinsey, 1991; Pray and Evenson, 1991; Pardey Roseboom and Craig, 1992). Public investments also promote technology adoption, stimulate complementary on-farm investment and input use and are needed for marketing the agricultural goods produced (Feder, Just and Zilberman, 1985; Nelson, 1964 and 1981; Nelson and Phelps, 1966; Rahm and Huffman, 1984; Rogers and Stanfield, 1968; Wozniak, 1989) (FAO, et al., 2012). Within the current scope of data gathered by the GTLC's PME, assessment of the four key areas of

PAGE 26


2. Emphasis is that of the Author 3. Emphasis is the Author's

investment will be as follows: ü Natural capital (Land ownership); ü Physical capital (availability of adequate plough, harrow, planting and

harvesting machinery; irrigation; storage; marketing facilities), ü Human capital (educational levels, level of skills, use of extension advice), ü Knowledge capital (this has already been discussed above)

There is a linkage between sustainability and investment and that issues that sustain agriculture productivity are the same that make it attractive for investment. The issues discussed here demonstrate that public investment is not doing enough to attract adequate private investment into small scale agriculture development.

4.41 Natural capitalThere are a few places in Ghana where public and private investment has secured land and water for production. These are irrigated lands managed by GIDA and some private companies. Majority of farmers in the survey, which may reflect the situation in Ghana, produce on lands that do not have the benefit of being secured for the long term. Government irrigated lands and dams in Dawhenya, Weija and Ashaiman near the capital in Accra have been encroached upon and are still under threat. This exemplifies the challenge that private farmers go through sometimes to fight off encroachers who are mostly estate developers and only interested in the land. The recent invasion of cocoa farms by galamseyers is an indication that the threat is becoming more diverse and knows no boundaries. Water bodies and biodiversity is more than before under threat of permanent destruction.

Governments are yet to put in place comprehensive land governance policies to demarcate land for the different uses and therefore protect agricultural lands. The GTLC survey established that only about 5 percent of farmers had documentation to prove ownership of land within areas of operation that may, in future, not be used for agricultural purposes. Long term security of tenure is not guaranteed for most farmers. In less than 50 years, Ghana's primary rainforest has been reduced by 90 percent, while in the past 15 years (1990-2005), the country lost 1.9 million hectares or 26 percent of its forest cover. At this rate, the three key resources that support agriculture, land, water and biodiversity will be lost if measures are not taken to reverse loss of forest cover. Beyond investing in the physical capital, government and private sector must focus on sustaining and growing the natural capital.

4.42 Physical capitalIt is cited in FAO, et el, 2012 that, in terms of physical capital, increased mechanisation by investment in tractors and other agricultural machinery spurred crop yield growth in many industrialised countries a few decades ago and continues to do so in developing countries. While this type of investment can be characterised as private investments in agriculture, investments for agriculture play an important enabling role. They have public good (or quasi-public good) characteristics and are consequently predominantly financed from public sources. Investment in infrastructure in rural areas, in particular transportation (ports and rural roads), soil and water conservation, irrigation systems, electrification and information and communication technologies, is an effective way to stimulate productivity

PAGE 27


PAGE 28

growth (Shenggen Fan, 2008; Mogues and Benin, 2012) (FAO, et al., 2012). It allows smallholders to connect to markets and thereby provide higher incentives to increase productivity.

4.43 Human capital4.431Skill of farmersSkill of farmers seem not to have changed since GTLC started data collection in 2011.This is an indication that little investment has gone into building effective human capital. In the 2016 season, 71.5 percent of farmers acquired skills informally from relatives, friends and other farmers. About 25.4 percent of all sampled farmers had formal training. Bugubelle, Derma and Ejura had about half of farmers going through formal training methods and also one third of farmers in Akomadan. More maize farmers were skilled in production than rice and tomato farmers and this is linked to Ejura and Bugubelle. Equal proportions of about 25 percent of male and female farmers were skilled. Among the age groups skill levels varied from 15 percent for the 55-75 group, 27 percent for the 36-55 age group and 30 percent for the 16-35 age group. The provision of certified seeds and fertilizers without appropriate skills to use them for productivity increases may be reducing the efficiency of government support measures. The result clearly shows that there is an urgent need to increase investment in building skill of farmers. For government's input subsidies to influence a higher productivity and revenue for farmers on a sustainable basis, farmer to extension agent contact must be increased. Unfortunately, the current extension agent to farmer ratio of 1: 1,500 – 3,000 must be reduced to the World Bank recommended level of 1:500. This investment will pay for itself if planned and carried out well as it “promotes the adoption of new production systems that enable productivity growth on a sustainable basis (FAO, et al., 2012)”.

4.432 Level of education of farmersBetter investment in R&D and extension delivery is more compelling in the face of the low level of education of farmers as reflected in the survey. About 55 percent of all respondents had at least basic education. Basic education up to middle school and junior high was highest with 33 percent of respondents. This contrast with the level of skill among farmers and an indication that there is opportunity to target the 55 percent for improved skills and competencies in production. In general, communities in southern Ghana had better basic education than communities in northern Ghana and Ejura, a transition community between north and south. By crop type, a higher proportion of maize farmers had a better basic education than tomato and rice farmers. Proportion of farmers in rice cultivation had the lowest level in basic education. A higher proportion of male farmers constituting 35 percent had basic education against 30 percent of female farmers. About 56 percent of female farmers have not been to school compared to 37 percent of male farmers. Efforts to improve productivity should recognise these characteristics and adopt measures and strategies to appropriately target farmers.


PAGE 29

4.5 Policies and institutions The Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) is mandated to coordinate activities of all agriculture related institutions and activities. It also has the role of directly managing the crops and livestock sub sectors.

Ghana is in the last year of implementation of the second Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan 2014- 2017 (METASIP II). METASIP is the flagship implementation plan of all agricultural policies in Ghana and provides a comprehensive set of programmes to deal with the numerous challenges facing agriculture in Ghana. It was developed, based on the Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy II. It has six programme areas which include:

· Management and Administration;· Food Security and emergency Preparedness;· Increased Growth in Incomes;· Marketing of Agricultural Products· Management of land and Environment;· Science and Technology Applied in Food and Agricultural Development.

These programmes are informed by the vision of Ghana's agriculture sector of “a modernised agriculture culminating in a structurally transformed economy and evident in food security, employment opportunities and reduced poverty”. The stages for agriculture development are well set in this vision. First, is modernise agriculture, which will secondly, result in a structurally transformed economy. Food security, employment and poverty reduction are by products of the two stages. Any attempt therefore to have the result before modernisation and structural transformation, will be 'putting the cart before the horse'. Unfortunately, this has been the trend of events in the last few decades. The institutions that should work to secure and preserve the natural capital-land, water and biodiversity are given little attention. Similarly, institutions that should generate human, knowledge and physical capitals are at the fringes of investment.

The total planned budget for 2016, according to METASIP II, was GH¢505,163,000.00. Food security and emergency preparedness had the highest planned allocation of 43.4 percent of this amount, followed by increased growth in incomes at 34.5 percent. The two programmes therefore were allocated an amount of 77.9 percent of investment amount for 2016. If the assertion by METASIP I still holds, these amounts do not include staff compensation. Science and technology programme was allocated 11.6 percent. It is the considered opinion of this report that, when well-managed, these three programmes target productivity improvement, sustainability, and innovation. The components of these programmes include agriculture financing, irrigation development, road infrastructure, application of R&D in agriculture, post-harvest measures, among others. The sustainability of these components includes proper management of land and environment.

MOFA's role as the lead agency responsible for agricultural development, largely influences the spread of budgetary provision to METASIP. This undoubtedly influences weighting of the budget provisions to METASIP programmes 2 and 3. This strategy targets service provision in productivity more and less at enabling institutions and structures that will


PAGE 30

sustain productivity. This is because, MOFA and its departments and agencies is in the frontline of service provision to producers. However, the METASIP budget is meant to go beyond MOFA to include MESTI/CSIR, GAEC, MMDA's, Ministry of Roads, Ministry of Trade and Industry among others. It is out of place for MOFA to play a lead role in all aspects of agriculture that it has no implementation control over while still focusing on delivering on its mandate in the crops and livestock sectors. Decentralisation brings new dynamics in policy implementation and institutional relationships. This has been recognised in the MOFA organogram captured in METASIP II though little in it show how the administrative role of the Regional Coordinating Councils and District Assemblies could work effectively in tandem with the technical role of MOFA to increase productivity on a sustainable basis. GTLC engagements with personnel at the local government level identifies a lack of clarity on how the system should work.

Below is a mapping of METASIP budget estimates against MDA's with subsumed responsibility for expenditure of the budget. This is GTLC's way of generating understanding of the agricultural budget and also to trigger discussion on the real breakdown of the budget. The 2016 METASIP budget is here used for the purpose. The mapping suggests that beyond MOFA, allocation and disbursement of the 2016 annual agriculture budget should have been among the listed MDA's. If this were the case, it will be in conformity with meeting productivity gains through MOFA and sustainability through other institutions.


PAGE 31Source: Compiled by GTLC

Table 6:2016 METASIP Budget Estimate mapped by institution (GH¢ 'million)

The assumption here is that all institutions mapped against the estimated budgets have been assigned the maximum budget for the component. The idea is to estimate the highest possible METASIP budget allocation to each institution to enable comparison to the allocated 2016 budgets.

A further study of the 2016 Programme Based Budgeting estimate for MOFA as captured in the 2016-2018 Medium Term Expenditure Framework reinforces the overlapping role of MOFA and that of other institutions. This may be one of the weaknesses of METASIP that need to be corrected if institutional capacities should be maximised for the growth of agriculture. If the figure of GH¢263.151 million share of investment budget to MOFA is correct, will it be a representation METASIP estimates required by MOFA in 2016 to contribute to the 6 percent growth rate for agriculture?

5.0 TAKING STOCK OF ACTIONS UNDERWAY

5.1 Planting for Food Planting for JobsThe agenda of the government in agriculture dubbed 'Planting for Food, Planting for Jobs' was started in the year 2017. Even though the reference point for this report is 2016, it provides a framework to assess the extent to which productivity, innovation and institutions have been considered in the design and how these will play a part in the sustainability of programmes under the policy. There is no comprehensive policy document to start with, albeit bits and pieces of it are unveiled periodically. The challenge for the policy is therefore in discussing it without having the full appreciation of its content even as its implementation has taken off.

It is reported that, in its first year of implementation, 200,000 farmers selected from the nearly five million farmers in the country will be provided, with fertilizers, logistics, an e-platform and extension services to enhance their work. It is expected to increase the production of maize by 30 percent, rice by 49 percent, soybean by 25 percent and sorghum by 28 percent from current production levels. The campaign is supposed to create 750,000 jobs in both direct and indirect employment in the first four years of its implementation. The campaign will be anchored on five pillars namely:

i. Seed supply and distributionii. Fertilizer supply and distributioniii. Extension services provisioniv. Marketing; andv. E-Agriculture and Monitoring

5.11 Productivity and sustainability5.111 Access to and use of subsidised certified seed/supply of fertilizerIt is very important to establish in collaboration with NASTAG, credible and verifiable improved/certified seed vendors across Ghana. Past surveys and the 2016 survey point to the need for this. The culture and structure of producing and marketing of seeds locally, in conditions that preserve the purity should be progressively addressed so that in the next four years at least 80 percent of seeds used by farmers could be of high quality. The planting for food and jobs agenda includes subsidised improved seed and fertilizer as a package. Though

PAGE 32


highly commendable, the APPB reports have not identified a strong direct correlation between the subsidy programmes and increased productivity, unless in combination with other favourable conditions for production, such as good rainfall. But then this was also applicable to farmers that did not have access to subsidised inputs. Their yields were similarly high during seasons of good rainfall. It is cited in FAO, et el, 2012 that, available evidence, albeit very limited, suggests that subsidies in many countries have contributed to agricultural productivity gains, although their success cannot be totally separated from exogenous factors such as favourable weather and depends strongly on implementation performance (Druilhe et al., 2012). It is important that such programmes be temporary and only target farmers who are not aware of the benefits of fertiliser and improved seeds, or who have no means to finance input purchases or access to credit. Interventions that do not affect the cost of specific inputs, but rather enhance farmers' liquidity, such as loan guarantees and credit for input purchases, or facilitate access to inputs under value chain arrangements, can provide efficient alternatives (Rapsomanikis, 2009) (FAO, et al., 2012). Therefore, the long-term prospect is to ensure that small scale farmers accessed cheaper credit to purchase seed and fertilizer in the market. This should be the path for the planting for food and jobs campaign.

5.112 Access to land preparation (plough and harrow)Results of the 2016 survey show that ploughing and harrowing services are accessible to farmers within 3 weeks of seeking for it, albeit, many rice farmers do not harrow because of cost and access issues. This is consistent with past survey results. Unfortunately ploughing and harrowing are the only mechanisation services that many farmers can easily access. Mechanised planting and harvesting for maize and especially for rice farmers is still a pipe dream for many farmers. Beyond selling tractors to individuals to set up AMSECs, consideration should be given to having centres that have a complete set of tools from land preparation to harvest. Data exist on available cultivable land and crop types for each district and should serve as the basis for setting up private sector led mechanisation services centres guided by very intelligent and transformational business plans.

5.113 Cost of ploughing and harrowing services Government subsidy on cost of equipment may be targeted at ensuring that providers are able to grow services in their respective areas of operation. It is the considered opinion of GTLC that it was not meant to influence, and has not influenced the lower or uniform cost for land preparation. According to the 2015 Agriculture Sector Annual Progress Report, no new centres have been established since 2012, and the number of centres in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 seasons were respectively 55, 63, 89 and 59. This means in 3 years the number rose to a maximum of 89 and dropped to the 2012 levels in the following 3 years. The challenge of availability and accessibility to plough and harrow service by farmers is still a long way from levels that could bring down the price of ploughing and harrowing. Land preparation cost is currently exorbitant in most farming communities in Ghana, especially with those that use the power tiller and hoe. Its influence on the cost of production will certainly have implication on extent of investment by farmer, cost of food and success of the Planting for Food and Jobs agenda, if not comprehensively addressed.

PAGE 33


5.114 Cost of fertilizer across data centres The subsidy programme succeeded in 2016 to reach many farmers with fertilizer at the advertised cost. It is expected that, progressively, more farmers will be reached at the advertised cost of fertilizer if the subsidy programme continues. 5.115 Quantity of fertilizer usedThe subsidy package under the Planting for Foods and Jobs campaign includes a package of improved seeds and fertilizer, the cost of which is estimated per acre. The 2017 APPB report will assess the impact of this strategy to increased productivity of farmers.

5.116 Extension advice The Planting for Food and Jobs agenda seeks to provide dedicated extension services and e-agriculture and monitoring. The explanation of the word 'dedicated' will help provide clarity as to whether the services will be supply driven across all regions as it has always been, or knowledge-specific and location-specific. Any further move away from the RELC concept due to no or low funding will not bring about high productivity in this campaign. Without this, the campaign and any other future intervention, for that matter, may depend on 'luck', that is, favourable weather conditions to draw any close to its targets.

5.117 Estimated Yields of Farmers in 2017Clearly, no one single factor or input could guarantee high yields. It takes adequate access and use of a number of critical inputs to achieve this. It is therefore critical for the planting for food and jobs agenda to consider a more comprehensive agricultural policy implementation. The revision of METASIP during this period provides an opportunity and will hopefully be exploited to ensure this is the case.

5.118 Gender gaps in productivity The survey results demonstrate a high level of productivity by female farmers. The estimated average yield by gender show that female farmers were more productive in 8 of the 10 communities sampled. The yield level also demonstrates a higher conversion rate of inputs and labour by female farmers into productivity. A strategy to improve productivity must provide better access to services and inputs by women for better returns. The Planting for Food and Jobs agenda is gender blind in this regard. Information to stakeholders on the National Fertilizer Subsidy Programme for 2017 states that 'Women farmers would receive priority as much as possible' without providing specific explanation of what it means.

5.12 Sustainability5.121 Land availability/ownership (2015 APPB report and 2016 data)One key indicator under sustainability is land availability and ownership.A very important risk identified in METASIP I (2011-2015), page 77, was 'Poor land use planning'. The proposed mitigation was to 'Develop a comprehensive land use plan and the use of crop suitability map' by the end of 2015. The SADA zone has already succeeded in developing crop suitability maps in a commendably short time. The national land use plan has been on the drawing board for years and it is time for government, under its agriculture

PAGE 34


and industrialisation policies, to give due attention to having the plan in place. This will also help build investor confidence for the implementation of the policies. Without these steps the Planting for Food and Jobs agenda may not be sustainable in the long term.

5.122 Water use/IrrigationRainfall exceeds potential evaporation during relatively short periods. Even in the southern forest zone where rainfall is at its highest, irrigation is essential for short season crops during the dry period. The unreliability of rainfall is a cause of concern. Complete crop failures can be expected in most northern areas in about one in every five years. This risk can rise to one in every three years during low rainfall periods (FAO, Water report 29, 2005). Adequate access to moisture plays a very important role in productivity increases. It is therefore commendable that a complementary policy-'one village one dam' for the northern parts of Ghana, is being implemented alongside the campaign. The hope is that the dams will hold enough water to enable widespread irrigation.

5.123 Crop insuranceTargeted crop insurance started with the advent of Ghana Insurance Pool, an initiative from a collaboration between Ghana Government and GiZ, the German Cooperation Agency. Crop insurance may be currently remote to most farmers that will be engaged in the Planting for Food and Jobs, but it provides opportunity to expand the coverage to include them to enhance programme sustainability Results of the survey show a paltry 1 percent crop insurance coverage. It is expected that at the end of four years of implementation of the

4policy, coverage for crop insurance will increase to at least 30 percent of farmers involved in the project. This is a sure remedy to progressively entrench lessons of the project. In as much as inadequate rainfall and bushfires are not wished, it may affect different parts of the country during the period of implementation of the policy, as it has done in the past, and many farmers may fall victim to this hazard. It is therefore important to protect investments of small scale farmers by expanding insurance coverage using this campaign as a platform. At the same time the rural populace have to constantly reminded on the dangers of bush fire and the penalties for causing such fires.

5.124 StorageIt is well that 216,000 metric tonnes of storage space will be added to the initiative. When put to effective use, the provided storage will significantly cut down post-harvest loss in Ghana. However, the location of the facilities in each district will play a big part in accessibility to farmers and traders. Results of 2016 GTLC PME survey found that about 14 percent of maize farmers spread the sale of produce over a 3-month period, and more than half sold their produce within the first month after harvest. Similarly, about 31 percent of rice farmers sold over a period of 3 months and more than half of farmers sold in a month after harvest. Majority of maize and rice sold within 3 months after harvest.

Tomato and for that matter vegetable farmers have rarely been targeted in the provision of storage by government. As a result, majority of sampled tomato farmers may be adopting a strategy of planting in stages to permit for differentiated harvest periods. This enables many farmers to harvest continuously over a three-month period. Understandably, the experience

PAGE 35


4. A benchmark suggested by GTLC to measue progress in crop insurance coverage this is no scientific basis for it, Just informed by the need.

of tomato gluts has taught them a very good lesson in the face of lack of storage for vegetables. Provision of storage must therefore consider who the target for storage is. Is it the farmer, aggregator or the trader? If it is the farmer, the maximum efficient use of storage may be three months and here again the location of such a storage facility in the district should be studied before construction. It may be that, depending on the practices in a district, the 1000 metric ton will need to be spread in 2-3 spaces of 300-500 metric ton storage. Accessibility to farmers is key to the success of storage within districts. If the target is the aggregator or trader, where are they more likely to store the produce before sale?

In any case, storage must be considered for tomato farmers to trigger higher productivity which is curtailed because of the fear of glut and loss, especially also because the current national production level of tomato is not sufficient to support agro-industry, which in this case is being targeted for employment generation.

5.125 Source of market/Market AccessIt is obvious from the GTLC data that traders currently constitute the biggest source of market to farmers. The Planting for Food and Jobs policy seeks to secure markets as one of the six pillars of its implementation. It is difficult to appreciate what will happen in the first year of implementation since it will not be possible to change the current dominance of traders as a market source within the period. Also because the complementary industrialisation initiative may not be ready in the next year to increase uptake to agro-industry. An opportunity exists in the medium to long term to develop these relationships beyond the breweries, which are one of the markets under consideration, while also strengthening the capacity of traditional market sources.

5.126 Cost of creditThe high cost of agriculture credit is inhibiting to many farmers and makes little business sense. Farming could be much more profitable if the cost of credit as captured in 2016 report were lower. There may be three categories of farmers in regard to access to credit:

i. those that seek for the credit and get it;ii. those that seek and do not get it; andiii. those that perceive that it is too costly or too difficult and therefore do not even

consider it.

The two latter categories are in the majority which limits the level of investment that farmers could make into increasing productivity. Registration of the 200,000 farmers may solve the challenge of the second category of farmers who are mostly denied because of identity issues. The third category will require assurances of a very transparent process of acquisition of credit. More importantly, all the three categories want credit at a cheaper cost. Therefore, the announcement by the Agricultural Development Bank (adb) that a total of GH¢450 million has been set aside to support the government's 'Planting for Food and Jobs' programme came as welcome news. Unfortunately, neither in the 2016 or previous GTLC surveys did adb come up as a strong supporter of small scale farmers regarding access to credit. The GN Bank, though relatively young, is already providing a lead in lower levels of cost of credit to small scale farmers.

PAGE 36


5It is hoped that the launch of the “GHANA INCENTIVE-BASED RISK-SHARING SYSTEM FOR AGRICULTURAL LENDING” (GIRSAL) by Dr Abdul-Nashiru Issahaku, Governor, Bank of Ghana at La Palm Royal Beach Hotel aimed at boosting lending to the export-intensive and import-substituting products will really help motivate banks to lend at lower cost to farmers. Planting for Food and Jobs provides a very excellent opportunity.

5.13 Agriculture Innovation Systems (R&D)Of the five pillars under the Planting for Food and Jobs campaign, capacity already exist among R&D institutions to produce seeds, Unfortunately the best seeds for the campaign is being imported, which may be a reflection of the state of Agriculture Innovation Systems in Ghana. Local institutions such as GAEC, CSIR and NASTAG are already facilitating the production of improved seed varieties in difficult circumstances. As part of implementation of the policy, government must assess the budgetary constraints of these institutions and support them to fully take up the responsibility of improved seed production in the next four years. The growing use of improved seeds in Ghana will ensure that the investment in the R&D institutions will pay off.

Beyond seeds the capacity of research institutions to sustainably support agriculture through research and development must also be improved. The policy planning and implementation is currently in the bosom of MOFA with possibility of little involvement by these R&D institutions. That is why, through this programme, it is very important to support R&D institutions to develop products that are attractive to formal and informal private sectors in agriculture, especially if the 'one-district one-factory' initiative should successfully work in consonance with this agriculture policy.

5.14 Evaluation of the 2017 Planting for Food and Jobs production targetsThere is indication from the assessment below that the target of the Planting for Food and Jobs campaign may not be met. 2015 production figures were used for the calculation. A study of yield and production levels in the last decade show that the difference between two consecutive years that had favourable rainfall was little. Projections as elaborated in Tables 7 and 8 shows that the project will require about 830,000 metric tonnes of fertilizer at an estimated cost of over GH¢1 billion to achieve all the set targets in productivity gains. Information to stakeholders provided in National Fertilizer Subsidy Programme for 2017 states 'A food crop farmer whether on his/her own or as a member of an out-grower scheme shall be entitled to NOT more than the fertilizer inputs for 2 hectares, amounting to 10 bags of compound fertilizer and 5 bags Urea'. With a target of 200, 000 farmers in the first year of Planting for Food Planting for Jobs, this means that government is providing subsidy for 16 percent of the total cost of GTLC's estimated fertilizer requirements to enable Planting for Food and Jobs meet the production targets. The history of negative relationship between allocated and expended budgets in Ghana is not in favour of a full disbursement of the 2017 allocated budget to ensure the attainment of the 16 percent investment, which in any case is not more ambitious that subsidy programmes in previous years. While hoping for the best outcomes, there is no reason to believe that the Planting for Food and Jobs campaign will receive all the needed investment to meet the set production targets.

PAGE 37


5. http://www.bog.gov.gh/../or www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/.../Bank-of-Ghana-launches-initiative-to-supp..., on Oct 14, 2016

Table 7:Expected Yields for Targeted Crops and Estimated Production Levels for 2017

Source: Compiled by GTLC from 2015 Agriculture Sector Annual Progress Report

Table 8:Estimate of Quantity and Cost of Fertilizer Required for Planting for Food and Jobs

Source: Estimated by GTLCNOTE: +Soybean estimates not included

PAGE 38


5.15 2017 Investments in Agriculture

The Planting for Food and Job policy is expected to cost GH¢560 million and generate GH¢1.3 billion gross revenue for participating farmers in its first year. This indicates a cost benefit analysis of the project in its first year has been conducted.

This means that the following key investment questions have been answered:

What is the area of land to be planted for each target crop?

What is the quantity of fertilizer to be subsidised?

What is the quantity of seed to be subsidised?

What will be the estimated cost of fertilizer and seed subsidies?

What is the cost of human resource, that is, AEA's to be employed in the project?

The information to stakeholders provided in National Fertilizer Subsidy Programme for 2017 states the following 'A food crop farmer whether on his/her own or as a member of an out-grower scheme shall be entitled to NOT more than the fertilizer inputs for 2 hectares, amounting to 10 bags of compound fertilizer and 5 bags Urea.' This is translated by GTLC to mean that each farmer in 2017 will not receive subsidised inputs for crop cultivation beyond an equivalent of 5 acres of land representing a maximum amount of GH¢812.50 fertilizer subsidy per farmer. This means GTLC's estimated investment by government to subsidise fertilizer for 200,000 farmers in 2017 is about GH¢162.5 million, which is equivalent to 150,000 metric tonnes of fertilizer. This represents about 18 percent of GTLC's estimated fertilizer requirement in metric tonnes for 2017 crop season. In comparison, this is below the planned 2016 fertilizer subsidy at 180,000 Metric Tonnes of which only 90.000 Metric Tonnes was supplied.

No specific statements for subsidy to cost of seed and mechanisation in 2017 have been seen by GTLC and therefore will not be able to discuss the estimated investment requirements.

In the opinion of GTLC, the Planting for Food and Jobs agenda is focused more on planting for food and less on planting for jobs. It will require organised, skilled and informed individuals and enterprises to ensure sustainable planting for food and job creation. The Department of Cooperatives (DoC) under the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations has the mandate and national visibility to conduct and create conditions needed to succeed in planting for jobs. The involvement of DoC would facilitate and attract investment for a sustainable planting for food.

5.16 Budgetary provisions

The government has secured Canadian $125 million (GH¢385 million) to support the 6

“Planting for food and jobs” campaign to popularize farming and encourage many people to take agriculture as a full or part time activity. The 2017 national budget statement states that, a total of GH¢450.33 million is estimated for agriculture. An amount of GH¢421.52 million of this allocation, representing 93.60 percent, will be spent on the Fertilizer Subsidy programme and the Agricultural Mechanisation Service Centres, among others.

PAGE 39


6. Secured under the Mahama NDC administration for a different agricultural agenda before planting for food and jobs. Not sure how this fits into the current agricultural programme.

From estimates of quantities and cost of fertilizers required for the planting for food and jobs agenda, the 2017 budgetary provision when fully disbursed will cater for the estimated cost of GH¢162.5 million for fertilizers. Therefore, an estimated amount of Gh¢259.02 million is meant for seed subsidy and Agricultural Mechanisation Service Centres, among others. Agricultural productivity has in the past faced inadequate budgetary disbursement and there is no guarantee that the problem has been resolved.

There is a pending proposal from R&D institutions to allocate 1 percent of GDP to R&D. The 2017 budgetary allocation, as observed, will provide support for about 18 percent of the total fertilizer requirements of the targeted crops. Is this the optimum fertilizer subsidy support needed to raise productivity to planned levels? The answer may be found if the 2017 budgetary allocation above is fully and timely disbursed.

5.17 Policies and Institutions-Role for MOFA

Sections above have already made a case for the rethink of how agriculture policy is implemented in Ghana. The above sections have also made specific recommendations in relation to components and development issues in policy and on institutional restructuring. This section will make broad assessments of agriculture policies and institutions with the purpose of contributing to ongoing discourse towards improving agriculture production in Ghana. It will put forward a few suggestions and prompt further discussions towards strengthening policy implementation and institutional delivery.

GTLC is not an expert in organisational development but is making these suggestions and proposal from a very informed position of a decade of working in agriculture and six (6) consistent years of agriculture data collection and analyses which includes observing and participating in the implementation of METASIP I and II. It is on this basis that a strong conviction emanates, that better progress in agriculture productivity and its sustainability could be achieved if the vision for agriculture development in Ghana is revisited and discussed to enable the redefinition of the strategies and institutional structures that serve it. The Vision for Ghana's Agriculture Sector is “a modernised agriculture culminating in a structurally transformed economy and evident in food security, employment opportunities and reduced poverty”. (METASIP I, 2010) The first step therefore is to modernise agriculture. The challenge of low productivity in agriculture emanates from the inability to modernise agriculture. METASIP II ends in 2017 and a window of opportunity has opened once more to collate the lessons of implementation of METASIP I and II to develop a more responsive agriculture investment plan, METASIP III. For example:

i. Identify all components to do with modernisation (METASIP I & II have done well with that),

ii. Which of the components of modernisation are relevant to Ghana's agriculture?

iii. Does Ghana have all the institutions to implement a modernisation strategy?

iv. Are these institutions capacitated enough to carry out their mandate?

PAGE 40


v. What are the gaps in capacity, if they exist?

The coordination role of MOFA could be diversified from their current mandate of managing policy implementation, the crops and livestock subsectors, and SOE's to just focusing on coordination of agriculture policy implementation. This will require MOFA to serve as the link between R&D and production. Many of its current directorates will have to be reorganised to collect data in their respective areas of competency from all subsectors of agriculture which will be filtered and made available to R&D. The reverse will be the transfer and dissemination of R&D to producers and the range of other market and value chain actors. The bottom line is that agriculture productivity must be driven by innovation.

6.0 IMPROVING THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT FOR A MORE PRODUCTIVE

AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE The required investments to achieve sustainable agricultural productivity growth encompass knowledge, human and physical capital, and both on-farm investments in agriculture and off-farm investments for agriculture. A challenge for policy makers in developing countries is to move beyond a plethora of interventions and policies towards a coherent policy framework which both facilitates and stimulates all actors, including smallholders and other private investors, to invest in and foster the accumulation of productive human and natural capital.

At the national and regional levels, this calls for comprehensive policy and investment strategies to increase agricultural productivity, improve the nutritional content of foods, mitigate food safety risks, promote sustainable use of resources, unleash innovation and new technologies, and enhance farm profitability. Climate change adaptation, water conservation, soil protection and biodiversity enhancement are also part of such strategies. Progress towards a more strategic approach to investment in agriculture, with clear long-term objectives and the harmonization of policy and public and private investment, would bring sustained benefits. (FAO, et al., 2012)

The competition by governments in Ghana to gain political capital by introducing a plethora of agriculture policies that 'provide complete solution' to the challenges has only served to entrench inefficiencies in agriculture policy formulation and implementation. This report has demonstrated that no one single factor could solve the challenge of low agriculture productivity until an environment is created to permit for public institutions and private sector to engage in providing real solutions to challenges through better investment to R&D.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusionsv There is a disconnect between the vision for agriculture development in Ghana and

real practical steps towards attaining the vision. Investments toward enabling the critical step needed to meet the vision, that is, modernisation of agriculture, has been low.

v Only 51 percent of planned 2016 budget to agriculture was disbursed as at

PAGE 41


December 2016. The crops sector grew at 3.3 percent in 2016, and agriculture growth was 3.6 percent. Yield levels in 2016 reflect the reality of these growth figures. The CAADP target of 6 percent growth for agriculture may never be attained at this level of commitment by Ghana.

v The challenges in production and R&D that were identified in this report coupled with low skills of farmers may not attract much private sector interest to invest in agriculture. The role of the Department of Cooperatives in the development of human capital in agriculture, that is, to improve competencies and skills of small scale farmers to absorb agricultural R&D, must be exploited.

v Apart from low budgetary disbursements, the complementary role of MDAs in the implementation of METASIP is weighted too much towards MOFA at the disadvantage of very important R&D institutions. The role of R&D institutions such as CSIR and GAEC in increasing and sustaining productivity has not been maximised.

v Based on the selected crops and centres, productivity in 2016 was relatively still low in Ghana and have not increased in comparison with 2008 baseline figures in METASIP I. This unfortunately has consistently been the case since the GTLC PME system started collecting data in 2011.

v In its ninth year of implementation the fertilizer and seed subsidy programmes look set to continue. The subsidy programme seems to have influenced increased use of fertilizer and improved seed by farmers.

v The high cost of credit to farmers will not motivate small scale farmers to increase on-farm investment.

v Access to mechanisation is still strongest in land preparation, albeit access to harrowing by rice farmers is very low and inadequate.

v The role of R&D in developing and introducing innovations in agriculture is very weak. The first critical step required to meet the vision for agriculture in Ghana-Modernisation, has failed to live up to expectation. In short, the desired structural transformation of the economy is years away from attainment.

Table 9:Comparison Between 2008 METASIP Baseline Yields and 2016 GTLC PME Estimated Yields

Source: GTLC with data from METASIP I and 2016 yield data

PAGE 42


v Female farmers have proven to be more efficient in the use of inputs and resources to

PAGE 43


44

· In its ninth year of implementation the fertilizer and seed subsidy programmes look set to continue. The subsidy programme seems to have influenced increased use of fertilizer and improved seed by farmers.

· The high cost of credit to farmers will not motivate small scale farmers to increase on-farm investment.

· Access to mechanisation is still strongest in land preparation, albeit access to harrowing by rice farmers is very low and inadequate.

· The role of R&D in developing and introducing innovations in agriculture is very weak. The first critical step required to meet the vision for agriculture in Ghana-Modernisation, has failed to live up to expectation. In short, the desired structural transformation of the economy is years away from attainment.

· Female farmers have proven to be more efficient in the use of inputs and resources to increase productivity.

· The inadequacies in agricultural policy implementation and low institutional coordination have been transferred to the Planting for Food Planting for Jobs agenda of the government in its first year of implementation. Lessons of the year 2016 and the past seem not to have informed the design of governments 2017 programme. The probability therefore of meeting the set targets for the agenda in the first year is low.

7.2 Recommendations· Government must really buy into the vision for agriculture in Ghana to inform its

investment. Investment should be adequate for MOFA and R&D institutions such as CSIR and GAEC. Government should consider allocating and disbursing 1 percent of GDP to R&D to ensure that the transformation process is led by appropriate technology and innovation.

· Rather than focusing its efforts mainly on subsidy programmes, government should create conditions for cheaper cost of credit to the private sector and farmers to enable them work with R&D institutions and MOFA in the development and use of appropriate technologies and innovations.

· R&D institutions should play the lead role in providing direction to agriculture development while MOFA should be playing a mediating role between R&D and private sector actors and farmers. Knowledge- and location specific support systems should be the basis for this relationship.

· Female farmers should be given better access to government and private sector input support to improve productivity. The government should generate a database of farmers in Ghana to enable better targeting of female farmers.

· The government must commit to updating the Co-operative Societies Decree, 1968 (NLCD 252) and the Co-operative Societies Regulations (L.I. 604) to ensure a more functional and effective Department of Cooperatives, in support of the long term sustainability of job creation in agriculture. This will strengthen the JOBS component of the Planting for Food, Planting for Jobs agenda.

· The government should consider conducting an early appraisal of year 1 activities of the Planting for Food, Planting for Jobs agenda and bring to bear in its future implementation specific lessons on how not to repeat past mistakes to ensure that it is transformational. The review of METASIP II in its last year of implementation

PAGE 44


http://www.melr.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Co-operatives-Deree-1968.pdf

http://www.melr.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Co-operatives-Deree-1968.pdf

Documents

GHANA TRADE AND...2019/07/08 · AGRO POLICY PERFORMANCE BAROMETER (APPB) REPORT 2016 Performance Assessment This is the 6 th report to be compiled in a series of Agro Policy Performance