GIDA Ashaiman Report

[1]

GIDA ASHAIMAN REPORTClient: International Water Management Institute

Authors: MSc Environment & Sustainable Development Students: Sa’adatu Abatemi-Usman, Veronica Cheng, Andrea Demurtas, Sara Guy, Ai Kaibu, Cassidi Kunvipusilkul, Robin Pratap,

Salman Rassouli, Hauwa Usman

4 June 2010Developing Planning Unit, University College London

[2]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations 3

Preface 4

Executive Summary 5

1 Introduction 61.1 Purpose of the study 6

1.2 Urban & peri-urban agriculture 6

1.3 Food sovereignty 6

1.4 Background: Ashaiman GIDA site 6

2 Research 72.1 Definition of SUPA & areas investigated 7

2.2 Methodology / conceptual framework 7

2.3 Tools 10

2.4 Limitations 10

3 Ashaiman GIDA site 113.1 Findings 11

3.1.1 Environmental sphere (encroachment, farming practices, right bank) 11

3.1.2 Social sphere 14

3.1.3 Economic sphere 15

3.1.4 Policy sphere 15

3.2 Summary 16

4 Recommendations 17Strategy 1: Land control: drawing the line 17

Strategy 2: Development of the right bank: right bank rehab 19

Strategy 3: Farmers‘ association: unity & strength 21

5 Conclusions 23

References

Appendices

Appendix A: Payment of irrigation service charges to the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority Appendix B: Mono-cropping versus crop rotation, intercropping and integrated farming: an introduction Appendix C: Research schedule Appendix D: District Citizens Monitoring CommitteeAppendix E: Costs of growing 1 acre of riceAppendix F: Organisational hierarchy of Ghana Irrigation Development Authority and the Irrigation Development CentreAppendix G: Findings and food sovereigntyAppendix H: Strategies

[3]

ABBREVIATIONS

AIFCS Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society

AshMA Ashaiman Municipal Assembly

AshWGUPA Ashaiman Working Group on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture

AWGUPA Accra Working Group on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture

CACS College of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences

DCMC District Citizens Monitoring Committee

DPU Development Planning Unit

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FUP Federation of the Urban Poor

GC Ghana cedi

GIDA Ghana Irrigation Development Authority

GWCL Ghana Water Company Limited

IDC Irrigation Development Centre

ILGS Institute of Local Government Studies

IWMI International Water Management Institute

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture

MWD Metropolitan Works Department

NDPC National Development Planning Commission

RBC Right Bank Committee

RD Roman Down

RUAF Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security

SUPA Sustainable urban and peri-urban agriculture

TCPD Town and Country Planning Department

TDC Tema Development Corporation

UPA Urban and peri-urban agriculture

WMD Waste Management Department

[4]

June 2010

PREFACE

Over the past 5 months, many people and organisations have helped us in our research. Special thanks are due to Dr Olufunke Cofie and the International Water Management Institute, Memuna Mattah and Nii Ofoe Hansen for their commitment and generous assistance. We are also extremely grateful for the support and advice from our lecturers and team leaders, Adriana Allen, Pascale Hofmann, Alex Frediani and Rita Valencia. We also thank our colleagues

The GIDA site (Ashaiman, Ghana)

SUST

AINA

BLE U

RBAN

AGR

ICUL

TURE

IN

ASH

AIM

AN, G

HANA

working at the Roman Down site for their cooperation.

Special mention must also be made of the Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society, Ghana Irrigation Development Authority and the Ashaiman Stool for receiving us. Thanks are also due to the Roman Downs Farmers’ Cooperative and all the other individuals and organisations who graciously gave us their time.

[5]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

MAP OF GIDA SITE

Agriculture is a key industry in Ghana, occupying a central socio-economic position (JICA, 2006); in addition, urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) is seen as both a common and beneficial use of land (Smit and Nasr, 1992). The situation regarding food in Accra is that 40% of the inhabitants are, “considered vulnerable, in that they have enough food for now, but still spend a high proportion of income on food, making them vulnerable to seasonal and price changes or other global food supply issues” (Maxwell et al., 2000). Urban agriculture can serve the multiple purposes of helping to alleviate poverty while also conserving natural resources and making productive use of under-utilized areas.

In Ghana, a national policy for food security contributed to the introduction of the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) and its subsequent schemes. This report details research conducted into sustainable UPA on one such GIDA site, located in Ashaiman, a rapidly urbanising area near Accra. The current state of UPA at the Ashaiman GIDA site was ascertained, achievements and problems identified, and potential solutions to these problems proposed.

Food sovereignty, as an alternative paradigm to both food security and current global food systems, was used as the benchmark and signpost for the research. The challenges of food sovereignty are particularly pertinent in a country such as Ghana, with a strong export-oriented agricultural sector. We believe that sustainable UPA can be used to support the progress of food sovereignty, particularly given the importance attached to local food markets and food for people rather than export and trade (Nyéléni, 2007, La Via Campesina).

We review the progress of the GIDA Ashaiman scheme and the roles of the various groups involved. The report outlines a framework for analysing the sustainability of the scheme and its position with regards to food sovereignty, looking at environmental, social, political and economic spheres. While political commitment for UPA is presently in rhetoric, the situation on the ground shows conflict among institutional groups (particularly around issues of land and encroachments), a low importance attributed to ecological concerns and a lack of supportive financial options.

The recommendations given are aimed at sustaining UPA in Ashaiman and further afield, and towards promoting the principles of food sovereignty. Strategies are focused on land (allocation and use) and the organisation of farmers:

๏ Drawing the line: defining and protecting the areas of land dedicated to agriculture and putting a halt to further encroachments and the degradation of natural resources necessary for UPA.

๏ Right bank rehab: rehabilitation and development of an unused area of the Ashaiman GIDA site with full participation of all stakeholders, to make the best use of the land and safeguard it for agricultural purposes.

๏ Unity and strength: improving the resilience of UPA through strengthening the internal cohesion and functioning of the farmers’ association while at the same time networking with other farmers to give them a louder voice, greater control and a wider knowledge base.

LocationAshaiman is a rapidly urbanising municipality located approximately 20 km east of Accra, capital city of Ghana. The site studied is a government-led irrigation scheme used also as a model for agricultural development.

[6]

1 INTRODUCTIONPurpose, Structure & Scope of the Report1.1 Purpose of the study

This project builds upon the research on sustainable urban agriculture conducted in 2009 by the DPU students of the 2008/2009 academic year. Focusing on land, water and waste management, our study aimed to:

๏ explore the existing achievements and their background,

๏ identify remaining obstacles, and ๏ develop potential strategic

interventions for overcoming these obstacles

towards the achievement of sustainable urban and peri-urban agriculture (SUPA) in the Greater Accra Region, using the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) site in Ashaiman as a case study.The study will be analysed using the principles of food sovereignty, which we believe is the ultimate goal that SUPA should support.

1.2 Urban & peri-urban agricultureUrban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) is recognized increasingly by the private sector, governments (national and local), NGOs and development agencies as a means for poverty alleviation in urban and peri-urban areas. Cities Farming for the Future (Adam-Bradford et al., 2006) defines UPA as: “… the growing of plants and the raising of animals for food and other uses within and around the cities and towns, and related activities such as the production and delivery of inputs, and the processing and marketing of products”. There is great potential but also elements of risk around various issues, for example, health benefits and impacts, local economic development and urban environmental management.

City dynamics have changed rapidly over recent decades and, due to continued urban growth and rural−urban migration, cities have to extend their capacities in terms of infrastructure, providing economic opportunities, housing and, of course, food provision. UPA can play a sizeable role in improving livelihoods of the urban population; having been part of many cities for centuries, it is flexible and can be adapted to changing situations. At least 50% of the average income of a family living in a developing country is spent on food (Adam-Bradford et al., 2006). With this figure in mind, UPA can contribute significantly to food security, especially among the urban poor, and help to move societies towards food sovereignty.

1.3 Food sovereignty

When discussing food sovereignty, we first need to consider the more established concept of ‘food security’ and why food security could not live up to the expectations of either scholars or stakeholders within the sustainable development discourse. Under the Food and Agriculture Organization’s definition, food security prioritises the permanent availability of and access to healthy food for all; however, it fails to address how this is to be achieved. Neo-liberal advocates then encourage poor countries to achieve food security through importing cheap food or foreign aid, rather than through domestic production (Lee, 2007), ignoring the dependency created by this integration with the global market and the threats to smallholder producers, who cannot compete with subsidized imports. By contrast, the notion of food sovereignty prioritizes the production of food for local consumption, resulting in a sustainable pattern of agriculture in which the viability of both the social and ecological aspects of agriculture is guaranteed (Pimbert, 2008, La Via Campesina).

Food Sovereignty“Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to

define their own food and agriculture; to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to

determine the extent to which they want to be self-reliant; to restrict the dumping of products in their markets; and to provide local fisheries-based communities the priority in managing

the use of and the rights to aquatic resources. Food sovereignty does not negate trade but rather it promotes the formulation of trade

policies and practices that serve the rights of peoples to food and to safe, healthy and

ecologically sustainable production.” (La Via Campesina)

1.4 Background: Ashaiman GIDA site

The Ashaiman GIDA site is located in Ashaiman Municipality, which was carved from Tema in 2008. Ashaiman is 5 km2 and has a population of approximately 75,000. The site is one of 22 projects run by GIDA, a government organization under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA).

The land for the site, traditionally owned by the stool, was purchased by the Tema Development Corporation (TDC) when the government launched the GIDA project under

President Kwame Nkrumah in the early 1960’s. The total area is approximately 155 ha, divided into a left (56 ha) and right bank (99 ha) by a central drainage canal. The reservoir, constructed in 1965−68, has a capacity of approximately 5.6 million metric tons and provides the water for irrigation.

Agriculture is a key export industry of Ghana1. Shortly after independence, the Ghanaian government worked on the development of a formal irrigation scheme in order to increase domestic food production; the Ashaiman GIDA site was one such project.

A top-down, centralized management approach failed to adequately maintain the irrigation facilities. Under the World Bank’s Structural Adjustment Program of the 1980s, government expenditure on the irrigation scheme was reduced and the irrigation sites became dilapidated (Sato, 2006). Against this backdrop, the Ashaiman GIDA site was selected by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) as a model site for the Small-Scale Irrigated Agriculture Promotion Plan in the 1990’s, aiming for a transition from government- to farmer-led management (JICA, 2006). With JICA’s support, the Irrigation Development Centre (IDC) in Ashaiman was established within GIDA as a “base for the development and dissemination of irrigated farming techniques” (ibid.) and the left canal was reconstructed. Currently, 93 farmers are growing rice, maize, okra and other vegetables on the site; in addition, unregistered farmers are using land known as Roman Down (RD) and seasonal farmers are using land on the right bank. Registered farmers belong to the Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society (AIFCS) and pay an irrigation service charge to GIDA every 6 months (APPENDIX A).

1 According to the 2000 census, 50.6% of the labour force (4.2 million people) is directly engaged in agriculture, and the contribution of agriculture to national GDP is approximately 40% in Ghana (MoFA, 2007, MoFA seminar 10 May 2010).

Report by:Sa’adatu Abatemi-Usman

Veronica ChengAndrea Demurtas

Sara GuyAi Kaibu

Cassidi KunvipusilkulRobin Pratap

Salman RassouliHauwa Usman

[7]

2 RESEARCH2.1 Definition of SUPA & areas to be investigatedTo address the research aim mentioned earlier, the team developed a working definition of SUPA.

Based on this definition, the Terms of Reference and secondary research, three main areas were investigated:

1) Water supply and waste managementA sufficient quantity of good-quality water is an essential natural resource in terms of the physical environment required for sustainable agriculture. Encroachments on the Ashaiman GIDA site, exacerbated by a lack of waste collection and sewerage of surrounding area, are affecting the water quality for irrigation, as well as the volume of water available.

2) Sustainable farming practicesIn order to maintain and enhance the natural resource base, a reduced dependence on chemical inputs (e.g., fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide) is necessary. Cropping techniques can also increase or decrease resilience (APPENDIX B). The team hypothesised that there are economic barriers to adopting ecologically sustainable farming practices.

3) Farmers’ association and collective actionThe farmers’ association should be integral conveying farmers’ needs to policy-makers. Joint action amongst farmers may improve their economic and political conditions.

2.2 Methodology/conceptual frameworkRapid urbanization and increasing rural−urban migration in the South is changing the face of poverty from being a rural phenomenon to an increasingly urban one. “Today a poor person is more likely to be African, to be a child, a woman or an elderly person in an urban area, to be landless, to live in an environmentally fragile area and to be a refugee or a displaced person (Human Development Report, 1997)”. In this atmosphere, the importance of (S)UPA meeting the principles of food sovereignty as a “precondition to genuine food security (Via Campesina, 1996)” has become more and more significant. It may be true to say UPA would not be sustainable unless practiced through the principles of food sovereignty. Autonomous, localized food production systems, such as UPA, are encouraged by the concept of food sovereignty as genuine tools securing the right and access of vulnerable groups to food that have been neglected in

conventional market-oriented agriculture. On the other hand, SUPA has been seen as an appropriate tool for achieving the ecological goals of food sovereignty, in terms of its approach to using ecological inputs and considering long-term benefits for both humans and the environment (Pimbert, 2008). Neoliberal economics and the green revolution paradigm advocate the replacement of smallholders with large-scale, industrial farming and of intercropping with cash mono-crops, undermining both the socio-economic livelihood of the farmers and the environment. This double-edged damage becomes more significant when we consider that, in the global South, 800 million people are dependent on small-scale UPA (Pimbert, 2008). Countries aiming to secure a sustainable food supply should follow appropriate policies that support UPA. However, domestic production alone cannot guarantee the sustainability of food supply, since agricultural practices may still contradict the principles of food sovereignty. To move UPA toward sustainability (SUPA), all principles of food sovereignty should be considered and integrated in policy-making for (S)UPA.

Four main spheres were found to be crucial to SUPA on the GIDA site: policy, environment, economics and society. These spheres influence (positively or negatively) the sustainability of UPA; the principles of food sovereignty also apply across these spheres. The different spheres are inter-related and coordination among them is needed to ensure SUPA.

To better understand the integration of food sovereignty in SUPA and the relationship between the two, we have developed a set of criteria, using Nyéléni’s Pillars of Food Sovereignty (2007), against which the current situation can be measured. These criteria are given in the table on the following page.

Sustainable Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture

“Urban and peri-urban agriculture is a process of crop and/or animal

production activities in the city and its peri-urban areas for consumption and/or commercial purposes. Its sustainability is dependent on the physical environment,

the availability of resources and the relationships among actors. Suitable farming practices that maintain and

enhance the natural resource base and supportive policies across all levels of

governance are needed to enable sustainable UPA, thus enhancing health and well-being in the city, food security and moving towards food sovereignty.”

SUPAENVIRONMENTAL

SPHERESOCIAL SPHERE

POLICY SPHERE

ECONOMIC SPHERE

Conceptual Framework

[8]

Six pillars of food sovereignty

Spheres of influence in achieving and maintaining sustainable UPASpheres of influence in achieving and maintaining sustainable UPASpheres of influence in achieving and maintaining sustainable UPASpheres of influence in achieving and maintaining sustainable UPASix pillars of food sovereignty

Policy sphere Economic sphere Environmental sphere Social sphereFocuses on food for peopleFocuses on food for peopleFocuses on food for peopleFocuses on food for peopleFocuses on food for peopleAvailability of enough, healthy and nutritious food for all, particularly vulnerable groups

Food is distributed equitably and without prejudice among people

Food is affordable, healthy and nutritious

Migrants have a share in UPA practices to provide sufficient food

Indigenous people are involved in UPA

Women are involved in UPA

Values food providersValues food providersValues food providersValues food providersValues food providersRespecting the right of small farmers and rejects policies that threaten or undervalue their role

Policies support security of tenure and/or control over land for UPA farmers

Youth are encouraged and supported in UPA

Official media adequately reflect the importance of UPA and small-holder farms

Economic policies are not biased to industrial or Green Revolution-inspired farming but put value on and provide opportunities for urban farmers

Farmers have access to loans and credit with suitable payment terms and interest rates

Urbanization and encroachments are not a threat to UPA

Media adequately reflect the importance of UPA and small-holder farms

Localises food systemsLocalises food systemsLocalises food systemsLocalises food systemsLocalises food systemsBringing food providers and consumers closer and rejecting of policies that favour unsustainable international trade and unaccountable remote commercials

Policies support the expansion of local markets for UPA produce

Imported crops are subject to tariffs

Local consumption is prioritized over export

Access to local market as a source of income is guaranteed

Farmers are not dependent on middlemen for selling crops

Consumers choose local products

Farmers are not integrated into global trade and dependent on exporters but sell crops to the local market

Puts control locallyPuts control locallyPuts control locallyPuts control locallyPuts control locallyGives local producers control over their natural resources and rejects privatisation of local resources through laws and contracts

Public and private sector ownership or management is limited in UPA by decentralised policies

The control and responsibilities are well transferred to the municipal level and roles are well defined

Local urban/peri-urban farmers have a voice and can decide the methods and products they grow.

Farmers’ associations help farmers to gain management knowledge

Associations operate in a transparent and accountable manner

[9]

Builds knowledge and skillsBuilds knowledge and skillsBuilds knowledge and skillsBuilds knowledge and skillsBuilds knowledge and skillsSupports sustainable localized food production knowledge and skills and rejects undermining technology

Policies do not support use of genetically modified crops and limit undermining technologies

Education on and experimentation with traditional practices takes place

Traditional practices are used in UPA

Farmers’ associations are linked to enhance and exchange indigenous knowledge and skills

Works with natureWorks with natureWorks with natureWorks with natureWorks with natureHas an agro-ecological production and farming approach that maximize long term ecosystem functions and improve resilience

Appropriate policies favour composting

Appropriate regulations encourage and facilitate composting plants

Regulations limit the excessive use of chemicals and destructive farming technologies

Monitoring of the quality and nutrition of UPA products takes places

Adequate state and international funds are allocated to education on environmentally friendly farming methods

The source of water is not contaminated and suitable for UA.

Irrigation methods reduce health risk and contamination

The water used for irrigation does not pose any threat to farmers or consumers

There is consumer pressure for organic produce

Has an agro-ecological production and farming approach that maximize long term ecosystem functions and improve resilience






Intercropping is practised

Food grown respects the local vegetation

Farmers implement closed loop farming








Soil has a good structure (not compacted) and is suitable for agricultural purposes

Soil quality is protected from toxicity and salinity caused by the (over-) use of chemical inputs (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc)








Farmers’ practices endorse: Minimization Reusing Recycling Composting

The areas of food production are free from waste








The surrounding area is clean

The surrounding area is served by adequate garbage collection


Source: Adapted from Nyéléni, 2007Source: Adapted from Nyéléni, 2007Source: Adapted from Nyéléni, 2007Source: Adapted from Nyéléni, 2007Source: Adapted from Nyéléni, 2007

[10]

2.3 ToolsAn initial review of the literature on UPA was conducted to underpin the theoretical perspective of the research. In addition, the literature concerning the political and administrative context of Ghana, in particular Accra, Ashaiman and the GIDA site, and the approach to UPA were reviewed.

This was followed by fieldwork in Accra and Ashaiman, consisting of a number of meetings with primary and secondary stakeholders from state, private and civil society sectors. Authorities from MoFA, GIDA, Zoom Lion, the Stool and others were consulted. This information was complemented by individual (semi-structured) interviews with farmers and officials; focus groups with the farmers to identify their perceptions of farming on the site GIDA; and transect walks to gain understanding of the infrastructure and natural environment of the site (for a full schedule of the fieldwork conducted, see APPENDIX C).

2.4 LimitationsFieldwork was conducted within a 2-week timeframe. The language barrier resulted in a possible loss of understanding or even misunderstanding, and the disengagement of some farmers from focus group discussion. We were also unable to meet with all relevant stakeholders, such as the encroachment residents and migrant farmers. A final presentation and plenary session was held with the majority of stakeholders, which allowed areas of conflicting information to be raised; the additional presence of the Stool would have made the discussion more complete.

Research was conducted using our Terms of Reference, focussed on urban agriculture, as the starting point. Therefore, we mostly focussed on the views and needs of farmers and not, for example, those in need of housing.

Focus GroupsBetween 4 and 11 May 2010, nine focus groups were conducted with approximately 45 farmers. Primary data on the perceptions and practices of the farmers with regard to the natureal and built environment, political support, financial situations and social interactions were gathered

TOOLS

On-site research

[11]

3.1 Findings

3.1.1 Environmental Sphere

Encroachment

Encroachments on the GIDA site are a significant threat to sustaining the irrigation scheme. Houses have been erected around the reservoir, on the shoulder of the left bank, along the left irrigation canal on the buffer zone and pollution catchment area, and on the floodplain of the site. Land erosion and solid waste cause siltation and pollution of the reservoir, as well as pollution from waste water. Reducing the buffer zone, developments affecting the catchment drain and inappropriate use of water in the canals increase the likelihood of water pollution. The boundaries were marked by trees, which have in some areas been cut down by encroachers.

Encroachments on the buffer zone are the result of an unclear land ownership agreement between the government and the Stool, as well as unclear demarcation of boundaries. It is apparent that the government has not enforced its authority strictly; as such, farmers who feel the direct impact have no control to resolve the problem. Due to the lack of documented evidence and unclear demarcation, the Stool

claims that the Ashaiman GIDA site is on a long lease of 125 years of which 75 years is already spent, yet the Stool has not received the full compensation. Land in Ashaiman is becoming increasingly valuable as the area becomes further urbanised.

Currently, the Land Allocation Committee, which includes representatives from Ashaiman Municipal Assembly (AshMA), the IDC/GIDA, the Stool and the farmers (AIFCS), meets regularly to discuss the land issue. There have been negotiations between the government and the Stool to allow a 50 m buffer zone on the catchment area of the left canal, and there are also plans to demolish 150 homes out of the total 1000 encroachment residences on GIDA-managed land. The District Citizen’s Monitoring Committee (APPENDIX D) is facilitating dialogue between the RD farmers and the Stool with regards to land security. However, there is an urgent need for a more comprehensive negotiation among GIDA, TDC, farmers, Stool and residents to resolve the land disputes.

From top to bottom:Encroachments around the reservoir; just below the dam; and alongside the left irrigation canal.Plans for the demolition of illegal development were repeatedly raised; however, the root causes of the conflict, including a lack of consistency between customary and official land systems, also need to be addressed.

THREATS TO WATER

3 ASHAIMAN GIDA SITE

[12]

Left canalThe only fully functioning main canal on the site.

CHARACTERISTICSFarming Practices

Farming activities on the GIDA site take place on the 56 ha of the left bank. Each farmer cultivates a plot of 1−2.5 acres (0.4−1 ha). Although most farmers acknowledge the negative impacts of using chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, they continue to use them. Chemical fertilizers are used at many stages of crop production, from land preparation to shortly before harvesting. From interviews with farmers we learned that pesticides are widely used. Farmers do not use compost because they perceive it to be labour intensive, time consuming and with high associated transportation costs. Research into the viability of composting as a private enterprise has been conducted by Zoom Lion. The farmers are more concerned with short-term rather than long-term goals, even though their land tenure is secure. In other words, farming practices are not harmonious with nature. By contrast, they degrade the natural

resources, moving them away from the fundamental principles of food sovereignty and sustainability.

Intercropping is used rarely; crop rotation and mono-cropping are more common. The farmers claim that their small plot size discourages them from intercropping, as they believe they will yield an insufficient amount of each kind of vegetable for sale. In fact, intercropping methods can be implemented on small plots; when done appropriately it gives a high yield, promotes resilience and has the potential to reduce the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers (pers. comm. Biel R, 2010). However, land limitation is still the main constraint that hinders farmers from farming practices such as integrated farming (the combination of crop, animal and fish farming).

IntercroppingIntercropping is used rarely; crop rotation and mono-cropping are more common.

Integrated farmingA MoFA-run demonstration farm with fish ponds, pigs, poultry and rise paddies.

[13]

Right Bank

The 99 ha of the right bank are designed to beirrigated through the right canal by gravity.However, the canal is constructed of earthrather than concrete, allowing water seepage,and water flow is impeded by waste andweeds. As a result, not only is the canal tooshallow to channel the water, it is also blockedby debris. At present, only part of this area isbeing used to cultivate onions seasonally andinformally by migrant farmers. In individual interviews, farmers mentioned that onions can provide additional benefits for farmers above their usual cultivation. However, the information on migrant farmers was gathered towards the end of our research and we were not able to meet any of these farmers or follow-up on, for example, the regulations governing this use of the right bank. The lack of water has forced farmers on the right bank toabandon their land and transfer to the leftbank, resulting in smaller plot sizes forcultivation, thereby generating lower incomes.Rehabilitation of the right canal is capitalintensive, beyond the farmers’ means, so theyare dependent on GIDA for reinforcing thecanal. GIDA also requires external funding todevelop the right bank as it lacks thenecessary finance.There are a number of ideas for thedevelopment of the right bank, such as the

‘Youth in Agriculture’ program. This Program, implemented by Ghanaian government, aims to reduce the both unemployment and poverty. According to MoFA, approximately 47,000 people benefitted from the program in 2009 (IIJ 2009). As a result, in 2010 the government will invest another 50 million GC into the program (Ghana Business News 2010). Both GIDA and the Stool recognize the potential of the Youth in Agriculture program for the right bank.

GIDA has drafted plans to rehabilitate the right bank towhich MoFA has agreed in principle, and isnow working on sourcing funds. The IDC hasalso proposed introducing small animalfarming and aquaculture on the right bank.Even with the repair of the right canal, thevolume of the water from the reservoir wouldonly allow 70% of the right bank to beirrigated. As a result, any planned interventionwill require less water-intensive activities. GIDAis looking to implement new technology, suchas water dripping, on the site. A majordrawback, however, is the minimal to nonexistentrole that AIFCS farmers have in thedecision-making and development plans forthe right bank.

UNPRODUCTIVE LAND

Right CanalThe canal is not made of concrete and water flow is impeded by waste and weeds. Not only is the canal too shallow, it is also blocked by debris

Right BankAs the right canal is not functioning, this area is under-utilised for farming. Plans are being developed to rehabilitate the right bank.

[14]

3.1.2 Social Sphere

On the GIDA site there are 93 farmers who have formed a cooperative, the AIFCS, which has been registered with the Department of Cooperatives since 1998. AIFCS is also a member of the Ghana Peasant Farmers Association. Members and their elected executives manage the cooperative.

Within the assembly, there are various sub-committees; each comprises five members, including the sub-committee chair as the figure on the right hand shows. The Chairman and the executive members are elected by the General Assembly. Once elected, the chairman designates the respective positions for each member of the Executive Committee. Elections are held every 3 years and members can be elected for two consecutive terms only. The last election was in 2007. All decisions taken by the executive members have to be ratified by the General Assembly to take effect. Since 2000, accounts are opened to members at the end of each year to increase transparency.

All members of the cooperative work together once a month in order to maintain common property. A fine of 5 GC is levied on any member who fails to participate. The maintenance committee works closely with GIDA to co-manage the site. The cooperative does not play a role in sales or marketing; as a result, farmers have to deal with ‘market mummies’ individually, which has made the farmers vulnerable.

During the fieldwork, a joint focus group of the AIFCS, farmers from the RD site and representatives from the Federation of the Urban Poor took place. A vision for sustainable agriculture in Ashaiman was discussed and the creation of an ‘umbrella’ organisation of farmers in Ashaiman was agreed upon, in order that the farmers may support each other and work together, for example, in political lobbying.

General Assembly

Disciplinary Committee Welfare Committee

Agriculture Committee

Finance Committee

Womanʼs Leader Maintenance Officer

Maintenance Committee

Chairman

Secretary

Organizer

Treasurer

Vice Chairman

(1) Maintenance committee chaired by the Maintenance Officer(2) Agriculture committee chaired by the Secretary(3) Finance committee chaired by the Treasurer(4) Disciplinary committee chaired by the Vice Chairman(5) Welfare committee chaired by the Vice Chairman

Meeting between Roman

Down & GIDA site farmers

Combined farmers meetingA joint focus group with farmers from the main GIDA site and Roman Down. The farmers discussed their vision for agriculture in Ashaiman and agreed to forge stronger ties between the two associations

[15]

3.1.3 Economic sphere

Farmers belonging to the AIFCS make regular financial contributions of up to 62 GC/year to the association that are allocated to administration, welfare and share capital funds.

In addition to these funds, there is a Farmers’ Bank on the site that provides loans for inputs of seeds and chemicals. However, in our discussions with the farmers, lack of adequate finance was highlighted as a significant problem. Owing to the nature of farming, there is a need for cash advances throughout the growing process, not only at the input stage. The costs of hiring labour was one of the highest costs of the process (for more detailed information, see APPENDIX E). The absence of cash credit availability leads the farmers to rely on market mummies, who not only dictate the prices of produce but also influence the crops grown to suit their demands.

A women’s savings group was previously active in the AIFCS but the leaders left the farm and members of the group were not able to get their money. However, the farmers were positive regarding the potential benefits of regular group savings and, with support from an organisation such as the Federation of the Urban Poor, some members would be interested in starting such groups. Greater financial independence would help to reduce the dependency on GIDA and the market mummies, a desire that was expressed strongly by the farmers.

3.1.4 Policy sphere

The traditional belief in Ghana is that “all power is in land” (Dyasi, 1985). This belief is founded on the principle that land provides the basic elements that sustain people; in turn, the earth is owned by the ancestors who maintain it. Therefore, the land, waters and minerals cannot be owned by individuals as they are sacred and must be treasured (ibid), rather they are safeguarded by the chiefs, which is why land transactions are leases rather than outright purchases. On the GIDA site, various institutions, such as MoFA, GIDA, IDC, AshMA and the Stool, have inter-related roles regarding food production, poverty alleviation, sustainable land practices and sound indigenous beliefs that can ensure SUPA and lead to food sovereignty.

The relationships of the various parties and institutions on the GIDA site as their activities relate to UPA have been mapped using the Web of Institutionalisation (Levy, 1996).

Financial contributions of the Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative SocietyFinancial contributions of the Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative SocietyFinancial contributions of the Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society

Fund Amount, frequency Use and distribution

Administration 1 GC/month To cover administrative costs of running the cooperative

Welfare 10 GC/6 months Financial assistance for those in need (e.g., through illness or death in the family). Distribution is decided by the Welfare Committee

Share capital 30 GC/year For investment purposes

High influence & low support

The Web of Institutionalisation

MoFAGIDAIDC

Market Mummies

AshMAJICA

DANIDANDPC

MoFAGIDARUAF

AshMAGTV

Organisational Sphere

Delivery Sphere

MoFANDPC

MoFAEPAILGS

AshMAStoolIDC

Procedures

MoFAIDC

Staff Development

IDCILGS

IWMIJICA

Methodology

Citizen Sphere

FarmersMarket mummies’

associations Encroachment

residents

Woman & Men’s Experience & their Reflexive

Interpretation of Reality

MoFAGIDA

AshMANDPC

ILGSTDC

GWLCTCP

Mainstream Responsibility for Transformatory

Principles

Policy / Planning

AshMAStool

Representative Political

Structures

MoFAWMDMWD

IDC / GIDAGWLC

Zoom Lion

Delivery of Programmes &

Projects

Resources

Political Commitment

Policy Sphere

Farmers associations (RD & AIFCS)

Market mummies’

associations

DCMCFUP

Pressure of Political

Constituencies

IWMIRUAFWMD

Fisheries Department

CACS / University of GhanaDPU

Applied Research

MoFANDPC

AshMA

WMDStool

Theory Building

Source: Adapted from Levy, 1996

Low influence & high supportHigh influence & high support Low influence & low support

[16]

GIDA is as much a demonstration site as an agricultural scheme. The IDC, as the research arm of GIDA, provides numerous workshops and training for the farmers on new techniques, as well as guiding crop choices, resulting in an absence of indigenous knowledge and practices. The organisational structures of GIDA and the IDC are given in APPENDIX F.

The dependence of farmers on institutions is manifest in MoFA’s subsidizing of chemical fertilizers and the establishment of the Farmers’ Bank by JICA, which lends for seeds and fertilizers. Extension services and some forms of credit are available and food production is mainly for economic purposes rather than self-consumption, yet the younger generation is discouraged from farming as a result of the low standing of farmers in society and the low economic benefits.

The absence of infrastructure further discourages sustainable farming practices. The Stool and AshMA, while claiming to support UPA, plan to develop the land around the reservoir into a leisure resort as an alternative income-generating strategy. The Stool is also involved in selling land to developers; it believes that urbanisation and UPA should have equal opportunities, although they appear to lean more towards urbanisation (Ashaiman Stool Chairman).

3.2 Summary

An overall assessment of our findings using the criteria developed is given in APPENDIX G. The Ashaiman GIDA site is now facing a substantial challenge from encroachments and their impacts on water quality and quantity. The lack of agreement and documentation regarding the land allocated to the GIDA site seems to be the main cause of this threat to the long-term viability of the irrigation scheme. The roots of the conflict can be traced back to political (customary and official systems, as well as individual interests), economic (revenue from land leases and development) and societal (a need for more housing)

concerns. Food providers are not always valued by the system and farmers do not have control of the land they farm.

Regarding SUPA, there appears to be a vicious circle in operation on the site. One of the biggest constraints for the site is poor maintenance of the irrigation facilities on the right bank, which has led to limited land available for farmers. This causes a decreased income for each farmer (compared with larger plots), which is combined with inflexible credit services. Although farmers are aware of the importance of more sustainable farming practices, such as intercropping and composting, their economic conditions and perceptions lead them to adopt less sustainable farming practices. The low collection rate of the irrigation service charge may partially reflect the farmers’ inadequate incomes, yet it is exacerbating the poor maintenance. In addition, the ecological impacts of high chemical inputs will bring about a decrease in agricultural productivity and increased expense in the long term.

The Ashaiman GIDA site has enjoyed substantial support both from GIDA/MoFA and external donors, such as JICA; however, there have been some unintended consequences. Our research revealed an apparent financial and technical dependency at two levels, the farmers on GIDA and GIDA on external donors. This loss of control over finances impacts practical decisions regarding farming practices. In addition, the high level of technical training received through GIDA/IDC belittles the value of traditional knowledge and skills, rendering them almost non-existent.

A transparent policy- and decision-making process in close collaboration and coordination with all stakeholders is lacking, leading to confusion and setting the scene for potential future conflicts. In particular, active participation of the farmers in decisions regarding the running and development of the site, as well as the integration of UPA into Ashaiman’s relevant plans and policies is desirable to give local control.

Looking south over the GIDA site

from the dam

[17]

4 RECOMMENDATIONSOur recommendations are aimed at improving the sustainability of UPA. A more in-depth discussion of the reasoning behind each strategy is given in APPENDIX H.

Strategy 1: Land control: drawing the line

Encroachments on the eastern side of the GIDA site cause several problems to the farmers and are threatening the long-term survival of the scheme. From our research, the root cause seems to be the mismatch between the traditional council and current local administration regarding the leasing of the land, especially for some areas, such as Roman Down or the reservoir’s banks. It is thus necessary to involve local dwellers and workers in understanding the problem (sub-strategy 1), to conduct a technical assessment of the requirements of protecting the site, and to insure that new and existing housing is adequate for Ashaiman’s growth and has access to municipal services and infrastructure (sewage, piped water, waste collection, etc).

Define and protect areas dedicated to urban agriculture.Main objective: having secure boundaries and a buffer zone to protect farmland and water reserves.Define and protect areas dedicated to urban agriculture.Main objective: having secure boundaries and a buffer zone to protect farmland and water reserves.Define and protect areas dedicated to urban agriculture.Main objective: having secure boundaries and a buffer zone to protect farmland and water reserves.Define and protect areas dedicated to urban agriculture.Main objective: having secure boundaries and a buffer zone to protect farmland and water reserves.Define and protect areas dedicated to urban agriculture.Main objective: having secure boundaries and a buffer zone to protect farmland and water reserves.Define and protect areas dedicated to urban agriculture.Main objective: having secure boundaries and a buffer zone to protect farmland and water reserves.

Sub-strategy Actions Timeline Outcomes Monitoring Actors (main

driver[s])

Sub-objective Facilitate and lower resistance to the process (of securing boundaries)Sub-objective Facilitate and lower resistance to the process (of securing boundaries)Sub-objective Facilitate and lower resistance to the process (of securing boundaries)Sub-objective Facilitate and lower resistance to the process (of securing boundaries)Sub-objective Facilitate and lower resistance to the process (of securing boundaries)Sub-objective Facilitate and lower resistance to the process (of securing boundaries)

Expand the role and membership of the Land Allocation Committee

Map local stakeholders and engage them in the appraisal of the encroachment problem

Immediate Bringing local actors to a common understanding of the problem

Needs of different stakeholders identified

DCMC AshMA GIDA

Expand the role and membership of the Land Allocation Committee

Produce a common proposal to address the issue

Short term (3 months)

Report Integration of local needs within city-wide projects

DCMC AshMA GIDA

Sub-objective Define environmental and technical necessities of the siteSub-objective Define environmental and technical necessities of the siteSub-objective Define environmental and technical necessities of the siteSub-objective Define environmental and technical necessities of the siteSub-objective Define environmental and technical necessities of the siteSub-objective Define environmental and technical necessities of the site

Implement a technical environmental assessment

State of the Environment Report of Ashaiman


Report

DCMC

TCPD (University of Ghana)


Include the views coming from the expanded Land Allocation Committee in the masterplan


Integrate planning with actors’ needs, including protection of farmers and adequate residential development DCMC

TCPD


Define the buffer zone Short term (6 months)

Masterplan for Ashaiman includes buffer zones

DCMC

TCPDGIDA


Demarcate the boundaries of flooding/catchment areas


Secure flooding/ catchment areas

DCMC

GIDA

[18]

Sub-objective Secure competences, roles and future upgrading of the areaSub-objective Secure competences, roles and future upgrading of the areaSub-objective Secure competences, roles and future upgrading of the areaSub-objective Secure competences, roles and future upgrading of the areaSub-objective Secure competences, roles and future upgrading of the areaSub-objective Secure competences, roles and future upgrading of the area

Redefine and formalise the agreement for the GIDA scheme

Conclude new arrangements with local chief (if necessary)

Medium term (1 year)

New, documented lease that all parties agree on

DCMC

AshMAMoFAStool Improve coordination

procedures between traditional and formal land agreements

Define new protocol to formally register customary leases


New, publicised protocol for land sales/leases

DCMC

AshMAMoFAStool

MotivationGIDA/IDC: The progressive expansion of encroachments is threatening the scheme. GIDA/IDC, as the formal tenants of the site, have a responsibility to protect it as a priority.AshMA TCPD: among the duties of TCPD is the zoning of the city and the provision of infrastructure to citizens. The encroachments are undermining the TCPD plans and the possibility of planned development in the area.Stool: To maintain a good relationship with the local administration and farmers on the GIDA site, the Stool must help to resolve current land disputes in Ashaiman.






Resources The resources for implementing this strategy would have to come mainly from AshMA and GIDA. The preliminary State of the Environment Report could be outsourced to university students, while the farmers’ association could provide labour for securing the perimeter of the GIDA scheme.






MonitoringThe monitor selected for the second strategy is the DCMC, with the participation of AIFCS and Roman Down farmers for actions more related to the GIDA scheme. Areas to monitor are:

· Effective involvement of local stakeholders· Production of documents showing the boundaries of the GIDA scheme· Financial allocations for practically securing the boundaries· Removal acts/demolition of houses illegally built











Food sovereigntyThe principle of protecting natural resources and securing the land are core values of food sovereignty. This strategy aims to create a stable and legally sound basis from which to protect farmed land from the speculative interests of the housing sector from a long-term perspective.






AIFCS: Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society; AshMA: Ashaiman Municipal Assembly; DCMC: District Citizens Monitoring Committee; GIDA: Ghana Irrigation Development Authority; IDC: Irrigation Development Centre; MoFA: Ministry of Food and Agriculture; TCPD: Town and Country Planning Department.






[19]

Strategy 2: Development of the right bank: right bank rehab

A portion of the 99 ha of the right bank is farmed seasonally and informally; farmers on the left bank struggle because of limited plot size, while in Roman Down farmers are farming informally. The development of the right bank is both a logical solution and a necessary action, in order to prevent possible encroachments.

Interviews with key stakeholders revealed a lack of coordination between the different bodies interested in developing the area and a general lack of resources for development. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a committee (Right Bank Committee [RBC]) to assess different plans for the area and provide in-depth consultation with other stakeholders (particularly farmers). Having farmer representatives in the RBC would help to address any potential conflicts at the initial planning stage to ensure that actions proceed in the most effective and appropriate way. Any plans for the rehabilitation of the right bank should also take into account the impact of such plans on the migrant farmers who use the land at present. The inclusion of migrant farmers on the RBC would be beneficial; unfortunately, as we were unable to meet this group we cannot say to what degree they are organised or willing to participate in such a venture.

When the opportunity of a composting site has been presented to farmers, several technical difficulties were raised. However, the incorporation of a composting facility on site could resolve many of their concerns.

Expand urban agriculture through long-term strategic plans for peri-urban areas.Main objective: proactively safeguarding green areas from new housing; making productive use of farmland available. Expand urban agriculture through long-term strategic plans for peri-urban areas.Main objective: proactively safeguarding green areas from new housing; making productive use of farmland available. Expand urban agriculture through long-term strategic plans for peri-urban areas.Main objective: proactively safeguarding green areas from new housing; making productive use of farmland available. Expand urban agriculture through long-term strategic plans for peri-urban areas.Main objective: proactively safeguarding green areas from new housing; making productive use of farmland available. Expand urban agriculture through long-term strategic plans for peri-urban areas.Main objective: proactively safeguarding green areas from new housing; making productive use of farmland available. Expand urban agriculture through long-term strategic plans for peri-urban areas.Main objective: proactively safeguarding green areas from new housing; making productive use of farmland available.

Sub-strategy Actions Timeline Outcomes MonitoringActors (main

driver[s])

Sub-objective Ensure transparency and participation in the decision-making processSub-objective Ensure transparency and participation in the decision-making processSub-objective Ensure transparency and participation in the decision-making processSub-objective Ensure transparency and participation in the decision-making processSub-objective Ensure transparency and participation in the decision-making processSub-objective Ensure transparency and participation in the decision-making process

Create a committee for the development of the right bank

Identification of representatives of other main actors (AshMA, Stool, Farmers)


Local stakeholders representative

AshMA

GIDAAshWGUPA


Establishment of the committee (RBC)


Assessment and public disclosure of projects for the right bank

AshMA

GIDAAshWGUPA


Identify a site for Integrated Farming on the right bank


Site identification

AIFCS(Monitoring Committee)

GIDA RBC


Establish a dialogue with the Fishery Department to implement IF on the Right Bank


Feasibility of Integrated Farming determined


GIDA RBC


Identify possible sources of finance


Financial possibilities


GIDA RBC

Sub-objective Replace the use of chemicals with natural compost and begin recycling practices Sub-objective Replace the use of chemicals with natural compost and begin recycling practices Sub-objective Replace the use of chemicals with natural compost and begin recycling practices Sub-objective Replace the use of chemicals with natural compost and begin recycling practices Sub-objective Replace the use of chemicals with natural compost and begin recycling practices Sub-objective Replace the use of chemicals with natural compost and begin recycling practices

Implement a composting site

Identify a suitable site on the right bank


Site identified

AshWGUPA

GIDA/IDC RBC Zoom Lion


Feasibility study and economic preliminary assessment


Economic budgetingAshWGUPA

Zoom Lion


Realisation of the composter

Medium term (3 years)

Composter realised

AshWGUPA

Zoom Lion

[20]

MotivationAIFCS: Limited access to land is one of the main concerns of farmers; therefore, their participation in the development of the right bank is in their best interests.MoFA−GIDA: The GIDA scheme is one of the most organised sites of urban agriculture in Ghana. Expanding and improving it would create a model that could be replicated in other urban areas. Results from research into more ecologically sustainable farming practices could be applied on GIDA sites across Ghana.AshMA: In the AshMA plans for a global city, protection and use of currently unused green areas is a must, especially to preserve the pleasantness of the place in sight of touristic developmentsZoom Lion: Providing composters close to the city centres and integrating them into urban farming practices could be a profitable business if planned in participation with the main customers of the composted output.

Resources The whole planning process would be resource intensive. AshMA and MoFA should take the main responsibility for financial inputs, providing initial resources for the RBC; once the committee is set up, private entrepreneurship would provide the money to build the Integrated Farm and the composter. Projects to implement the site would be initially financed with revenues from the land rented to farmers.

MonitoringA multi-stakeholder committee, able to represent the political interests and citizens requests, would be ideal to monitor a more technical organism like the Right Bank Committee and private involvement. The farmers interests would be best represented both as the main driver of the strategy (RBC) and in the monitoring part, with the involvement of the AIFCS monitoring committee.· Meetings of the RBC· Projects reviewed by the committee · Financial sources identified· Private partners involved

Food sovereigntyThe right bank is a large unused area which has to be protected and which has to be developed by farmers and local civil society. It can be the opportunity to implement more ecological farming practices and to help to manage biodegradable waste.

AIFCS: Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society; AshMA: Ashaiman Municipal Assembly; AshWGUPA: Ashaiman Working Group on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture; GIDA: Ghana Irrigation Development Authority; IDC: Irrigation Development Centre; MoFA: Ministry of Food and Agriculture; RBC: Right Bank Committee.

[21]

Strategy 3: Farmers’ association: unity & strength

The AIFCS plays an important role; however, it has shown several limitations with regard to its dependence on external actors. Furthermore, to date the association has not taken a particularly proactive role. Therefore, two strategies are proposed: one of internal reorganisation, to be carried out by the AIFCS; and one of networking, to be fostered by AshMA and MoFA.

Strengthening the internal organisation follows three main directions:

๏ Improve management practices: after being elected, the executive team should follow a training course (one or two workshops) in organisational management and group dynamics, as provided in Accra under AWGUPA. The IDC could provide the necessary human resources. Creating additional area-specific task forces is also suggested to involve a greater number of farmers in active management of the scheme.

๏ Increase transparency of the executive team: given the number of farmers in GIDA scheme conflicts among them may easily arise; it is therefore necessary to have procedures to avoid suspicion and mistrust.

๏ Improve self-financing capacity: research has highlighted the constraints to farmers’ choices posed by limited finances. Saving groups could ease the situation, while also building social capital within the AIFCS.

The association can also be empowered in the local community. For this purpose, AshMA and MoFA-Ashaiman should support the creation of a multi-stakeholder task force, along the model of AWGUPA, while supporting networking among farmers of other sites in Ashaiman (e.g., migrant farmers) and among other stakeholders of food value chain (market women, consumer groups, catering enterprises etc.)

Improve the resilience of urban agriculture through the farmers’ association. Main objective: Strengthen the internal organisation and external position of the farmers’ associationImprove the resilience of urban agriculture through the farmers’ association. Main objective: Strengthen the internal organisation and external position of the farmers’ associationImprove the resilience of urban agriculture through the farmers’ association. Main objective: Strengthen the internal organisation and external position of the farmers’ associationImprove the resilience of urban agriculture through the farmers’ association. Main objective: Strengthen the internal organisation and external position of the farmers’ associationImprove the resilience of urban agriculture through the farmers’ association. Main objective: Strengthen the internal organisation and external position of the farmers’ associationImprove the resilience of urban agriculture through the farmers’ association. Main objective: Strengthen the internal organisation and external position of the farmers’ association

Sub-strategy Actions Timeline Outcomes MonitoringActors (main

driver[s])

Sub-objective Strengthen internal organisationSub-objective Strengthen internal organisationSub-objective Strengthen internal organisationSub-objective Strengthen internal organisationSub-objective Strengthen internal organisationSub-objective Strengthen internal organisation

Improve management practices

Train elected executive on basic management practices (IDC)

From next elections (to be repeated for every new election)

Increased efficiency of the executive

AIFCS

AIFCSGIDA/IDC

Improve management practices

Creation of new task forces


Dedicated groups to deal with common issues: · Marketing· Machinery maintenance · Sustainable farming

practices· Patrolling

AIFCSAIFCS

Increase transparency of the executive team

Identify a monitoring team Immediate Improved internal monitoring and control

AIFCSAIFCS

Increase transparency of the executive team

Release an audio-recorded report on the works of the executive every 6 months

Immediate Improved accountability Recorded basis for assessment

AIFCSAIFCS

Improve self-financing capacity

Release a 6-months budget (for plenary session)

Immediate Improved financial accountability

AIFCSAIFCS

Improve self-financing capacity

Initiate saving groups on the model of FUP (inputs, machinery maintenance)

Immediate Reduced dependence on market womenAllow farmers who are not officially creditworthy access to funding

AIFCS

AIFCS

FUP

[22]

Sub-objective Improve external positionSub-objective Improve external positionSub-objective Improve external positionSub-objective Improve external positionSub-objective Improve external positionSub-objective Improve external position

Have an active role in policy-making

Create a multi-stakeholder task force (AshWGUPA) on the model of AWGUPA


Increasing political representation United actions planned and carried out

AIFCS

MoFA AshMA

Strengthen links to other farmers associations

Create a partnership with Roman Down farmers’ association

Immediate Having a platform for dealing with common issues

AIFCS

AIFCS MoFAAshMA

Strengthen links to other farmers associations

Encourage city/nation-wide farmers association (in part already done?)


Increasing political representation

AIFCS

AIFCS MoFA

Improve their position in the local community

Facilitate new partnership within the local civil society


Becoming an important and accepted local actor

AIFCS

AIFCS MoFAAshMAFUP

MotivationAIFCS: Besides being well organised, the farmers’ association can improve its performances by increasing participation and improving accountability. Financing has been highlighted by the farmers as one of the biggest limitations in their business. Grassroots models of self-financing are a strong alternative.MoFA: Having more organised and connected partners would help MoFA to implement its policies easily and more efficiently because it will be dealing with fewer bodies rather than several site-specific associations.GIDA/IDC: By adding management practices to its workshops, GIDA would carry out actions towards achieving the goal of less hands-on site management.AshMA: It is in the interests of AshMA to have strong and organised partners for the promotion of a more sustainable urban development.






Resources This strategy requires resources mainly in terms of personnel commitment and time, especially from MoFA and the IDC. AIFCS should commit mostly human resources and a small amount of money for the audio-recording






MonitoringImplementing a reorganisation of the association, the AIFCS should create a monitoring committee, which could go beyond internal control and collect information also on the support of institutions to the second part of the strategy. For monitoring the internal reorganisation, the AIFCS monitoring committee could collect information regarding:

· Farmers actively involved in the association (part of task forces or committee)· Audio-recorded reports· Saving groups created· Workshop organised by IDC· Joint meetings with Roman Down’s association· Networks created · Commitment from AshMA for the creation of AshWGUPA











Food sovereigntyThese recommendations are aimed at the empowerment and networking of farmers. Under the principles of food sovereignty, farmers have the right to direct their lives and their produce. This can only be achieved with strong organisational capabilities and a consistent political voice that is heard. It is also necessary to build strong local ties with other actors to be able to implement a localised food system.






AIFCS: Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society; AshMA: Ashaiman Municipal Assembly; AshWGUPA: Ashaiman Working Group on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture; FUP: Federation of the Urban Poor; GIDA: Ghana Irrigation Development Authority; IDC: Irrigation Development Centre; MoFA: Ministry of Food and Agriculture.






[23]

5 CONCLUSIONSInvestigation of the Ashaiman GIDA site gives an insight into some of the challenges facing UPA in a rapidly urbanising area in the context of a planned intervention. In a situation where the green (UPA) and brown (housing needs) agendas clash, land remains a contentious issue, even where a government site has been established. The situation is made more complex by the tandem operation of customary and official land systems. In addition, some of the indirect consequences of unplanned development are visible. The lack of agreement and documentation regarding the land allocated to the GIDA site threatens the long-term viability of the irrigation scheme through the effects of encroachments on water quality and quantity.

Further, a side effect of this planned intervention is that of dependence, seemingly created by external assistance in setting up and developing the site, and by the large amount of training and facilities provided to farmers. Regarding finance in particular, dependency is evident on at least two levels: GIDA on external donors; and the farmers on GIDA. This lack of self-reliant funding is impeding the adoption of

more ecologically sustainable farming practices. A dependence and elevation of modern farming practices also negates the value of indigenous practices, and short-term productivity is prioritised over long-term sustainability.

Food sovereignty, with its emphasis on local markets and people, valuing small-scale farmers and working with nature, provides a challenging yet compelling direction for UPA in the Greater Accra Region. The role of UPA within food sovereignty is not clearly defined, yet the principles highlighted are not incompatible with SUPA and the objectives are ecological, social and financial sustainability. The strategies recommended support these aims through: increased dialogue with and participation of farmers and other stakeholders; greater control for farmers through a greater voice and wider financial options; decreasing reliance solely on GIDA through working more with other organisations; and increased self-reliance of the farmers. The ultimate goal of food sovereignty is a long way off; however the proposals given provide initial steps towards this ambitious target.

[24]

REFERENCES

Adam-Bradford A, Bailkey M, de Bon H et al. (2006). Cities Farming for the Future. van Veenhuizen R (Ed.). IIRR/RUAF/IDRC, Ottawa, Canada.

Adams S, Athulathmudali S, Breyer E et al. (2009). Towards a Model of Sustainable Urban Agriculture: A Case Study of Ashaiman, Ghana. DPU, UCL, London, UK.

Dyasi HM (1985). Culture and the environment in Ghana. Environmental Management 9(2), 97−103.

JICA (2006). Historical changes in technical cooperation provided to Ghana’s irrigated agriculture sector. In: A Study of the Effectiveness and

Problems of JICA's Technical Cooperation from a Capacity Development Perspective. Available at www.jica.go.jp/english/publications/reports/study/capacity/200609/pdf/200609_04e.pdf (Accessed 30 May 2010).

Lee R (2007). Food Sovereignty and Food Security. Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series No.11, Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.

Levy C (1996). The Web of Institutionalisation. Working Paper No. 74, UCL, London, UK.

Maxwell D, Levin C, Armar-Klemesu M, Ruel M, Morris S, Ahiadeke C (2000). Urban Livelihoods and Food and Nutrition Security in Greater

Accra, Ghana. Available at www.who.int/nutrition/publications/WHO_multicountry_%20study_Ghana.pdf (Accessed 30 May 2010).

Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana (2007). Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP II). www.mofa.gov.gh/FASDEP

%20II (Accessed 29 May 2010).

Nyéléni (2007). As cited in Mulvaney P. Food Sovereignty Comes of Age. www.foodethicscouncil.org 2(3), 19−20 (Accessed 25 March 2010).

Pimbert M (2008). Towards Food Sovereignty. Available at www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/14855IIED.pdf (Accessed 30 May 2010).

Sato K (2006). Construction of Participatory Irrigation Management in Ghana Irrigation Project Sites Assisted by Foreign Aid. PhD thesis,

University of Tsukuba, Japan [Article in Japanese].

Smit J, Nasr J (1992). Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: using wastes and idle land and water bodies as resources. Environment &

Urbanization 4(2), 141−152.

Websites

FAO. www.fao.org (Accessed 2 June 2010).

Ghana Business News. 2010. Ghana to implement GH¢50m youth in agriculture project in 2010.http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/09/25/ghana-to-implement-gh%C2%A250m-youth-in-agriculture-project-in-2010/ (accessed 21 June 2010).

IIJ, the International Institute for Journalism of InWEnt. 2009. Ghana: Youth in agriculture gets GH¢10.7m government support.

http://inwent-iij-lab.org/Weblog/2009/08/25/ghana-youth-into-agriculture-gets-governments-support/ (accessed 21 June 2010).

La Via Campesina. www.viacampesina.org (Accessed 30 May 2010).

Interviews, seminars & focus groups

Ashaiman Stool Chairman (2010). Meeting with the Chief and his associates, Ashaiman, Ghana, 8 May.

Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society (2010). Focus groups and individual interviews, Ashaiman, Ghana, 4−11 May.

Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana (2010). Seminar within MSc Fieldtrip, Paloma Hotel, Accra, Ghana, 10 May.

http://www.jica.go.jp/english/publications/reports/study/capacity/200609/pdf/200609_04e.pdf




http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/WHO_multicountry_%20study_Ghana.pdf

http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/WHO_multicountry_%20study_Ghana.pdf

http://www.mofa.gov.gh/FASDEP%20II




http://www.foodethicscouncil.org

http://www.foodethicscouncil.org

http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/14855IIED.pdf

http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/14855IIED.pdf

http://www.fao.org

http://www.fao.org

http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/09/25/ghana-to-implement-gh%C2%A250m-youth-in-agriculture-project-in-2010/

http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/09/25/ghana-to-implement-gh%C2%A250m-youth-in-agriculture-project-in-2010/

http://inwent-iij-lab.org/Weblog/2009/08/25/ghana-youth-into-agriculture-gets-governments-support/

http://inwent-iij-lab.org/Weblog/2009/08/25/ghana-youth-into-agriculture-gets-governments-support/

http://www.viacampesina.org

http://www.viacampesina.org

[25]

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Payment of irrigation service charges to the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority Appendix B: Mono-cropping versus crop rotation, intercropping and integrated farming: an introduction Appendix C: Research schedule Appendix D: District Citizens Monitoring CommitteeAppendix E: Costs of growing 1 acre of riceAppendix F: Organisational hierarchy of Ghana Irrigation Development Authority and the Irrigation Development CentreAppendix G: Findings and food sovereigntyAppendix H: Strategies

[26]

Paymentofirriga.onservicechargestotheGhanaIrriga.onDevelopmentAuthority.Paymentofirriga.onservicechargestotheGhanaIrriga.onDevelopmentAuthority.Paymentofirriga.onservicechargestotheGhanaIrriga.onDevelopmentAuthority.Paymentofirriga.onservicechargestotheGhanaIrriga.onDevelopmentAuthority.Paymentofirriga.onservicechargestotheGhanaIrriga.onDevelopmentAuthority.Paymentofirriga.onservicechargestotheGhanaIrriga.onDevelopmentAuthority.Paymentofirriga.onservicechargestotheGhanaIrriga.onDevelopmentAuthority.

Year Season ISC/ha(GC)

Areacropped.Ha

Amt.expectedGC

Amt.receivedGC

%recovery Amt.DisbursedGC

2002Rainy

2552.3 1509 1033.37 68 685.18

2002Dry

2552.6 1524 100.71 7 1448.81

2003Rainy

2564.7 2129 1058.65 50 240.2

2003Dry

2563.1 2049 1547.23 76 362.31

2004Rainy

2565.07 2147.5 992.6 46 2648.6

2004Dry

2564.87 2137.5 1416.7 66 662.5

2005Rainy

5045.62 2350 837.88 36 2347.43

2005Dry

5050.86 2874 1292.57 45 256.07

2006Rainy

8051.25 4660.8 4346.35 93 969.7

2006Dry

8050.21 4494.4 717.68 16 972.68

2007Rainy

8043.81 3504.8 3504.8 100 5757.88

2007Dry

8049.91 3812.8 1100.13 29 3439.63

2008Rainy

8046.88 3750.4 2540 68 Nodata

2008Dry

8047.78 3822.4 2140 56 Nodata

Amt.:Amount;GC:Ghanacedi;ISC:IrrigaPonservicecharge.Amt.:Amount;GC:Ghanacedi;ISC:IrrigaPonservicecharge.Amt.:Amount;GC:Ghanacedi;ISC:IrrigaPonservicecharge.Amt.:Amount;GC:Ghanacedi;ISC:IrrigaPonservicecharge.Amt.:Amount;GC:Ghanacedi;ISC:IrrigaPonservicecharge.Source:InterviewwithGhanaIrrigaPonDevelopmentAuthority,Accra,Ghana,12May2010.Source:InterviewwithGhanaIrrigaPonDevelopmentAuthority,Accra,Ghana,12May2010.Source:InterviewwithGhanaIrrigaPonDevelopmentAuthority,Accra,Ghana,12May2010.Source:InterviewwithGhanaIrrigaPonDevelopmentAuthority,Accra,Ghana,12May2010.Source:InterviewwithGhanaIrrigaPonDevelopmentAuthority,Accra,Ghana,12May2010.Source:InterviewwithGhanaIrrigaPonDevelopmentAuthority,Accra,Ghana,12May2010.Source:InterviewwithGhanaIrrigaPonDevelopmentAuthority,Accra,Ghana,12May2010.

Appendix A

[27]

Appendix B: Mono-cropping versus crop rotation, intercropping and integrated farming: an introduction

Several cropping patterns are widely used in agricultural practice: mono-cropping, crop rotation, intercropping and integrated farming. Since World War II, a less diverse pattern of cropping, originating in the industrialised countries and termed ‘mono-cropping’, has been implemented widely (Liebman and Dyck, 1993). Mono-cropping is a method growing the same crops in the same place repeatedly, without resting the land. It is dependent on high use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to attain a high yield. More recently, this methodology has been transferred to developing countries to grow cash crops and vegetables for sale to and support of developed countries. However, mono-cropping is susceptible to both environmental and economic risks. Economically, a single crop system is vulnerable to shocks from market prices and fluctuating weather − the system lacks flexibility and resilience, the complete reverse of natural ecosystems. From an environmental perspective, the dependence of mono-cropping on chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides will increase productivity in the short term but causes drastic soil degradation in the long term, reducing productivity due to: erosion, compacting, soil structure destruction and loss of organic substances. Moreover, mono-crops are subject to chronic pest and weed problems, which exacerbate the issues mentioned previously (Dairy Nutrient, 2005).

Crop rotation is a farming methodology that attempts to run farms in harmony with nature. “Crop rotation involves growing different crops in systematic and recurring sequence on the same land … Ration cycles typically extend over several years with often only annual changes of crops but the concept of crop rotation also includes the use of green manures and cover crops.” (Liebman and Dyck, 1993, pp. 93). With good farming practices and a well-selected combination of crop types, farmers can grow different crops on a cycle throughout the year while maintaining the soil’s organic matter and top soil, leading to high productivity; for example, a field experiment of crop rotation between maize and various legumes in Africa resulted in an increase in maize production (Horst and Ardter, 1994).

Intercropping is “the growing of two or more crops in close proximity to promote interaction between them” (Sullivan, 2003, pp. 3). This methodology uses the principle of diversity, mimicking the natural ecosystem. There are different types of intercropping: traditional intercropping, mixed intercropping relay intercropping and strip cropping. This methodology can give higher production per unit of land more than mono-cropping; however, careful selection and arrangement of plants is needed, such as the type of plant, maturity rate and plant density (ibid.). By imitating nature, intercropping has the potential to reduce or even stop the use of chemical pesticides, which can reduce investment costs, is environmentally friendly and has benefits for human health. Diversity in ecosystems brings stability to the system. Natural pest

control, which can bring the population of each species into balance, means that outbreaks of pests are rare. Moreover, this system can maintain the fertility of the soil, as nutrients in the soil are able to accumulate and reproduce through the biodiversity of the system. Intercropping is a good long-term agricultural practice that reduces the use of chemicals.

Integrated farming is a further agriculture system that uses a combination of crop production and animal farming in the same area. The crops and animals should support and assist each other. However, in order to operate integrated farming successfully, the correct operating system and management of the activities are needed to ensure that farmers are utilising the synergies within the physical environment, economic and social systems. The labour investment, funds, land and production inputs have to be considered. Importantly, the waste from one production system must be reused as an input to another system effectively; this method can reduce input costs and promotes a closed-loop, recycling farming system that benefits nature. For example, chicken droppings can be used to promote algae growth in fish ponds, pig manure can be used on vegetable fields, waste water from fish ponds can be used in rice paddies, bee keeping can be conducted in an orchard or a composting site can be set-up on the farm (Department of Agriculture).

Integrated farming is widely practiced in Thailand, under the name ‘New Theory Agriculture’, as part of the ‘Sufficiency Economy Principle’ introduced by King Rama IX. This integrated farming system can help Thai people to survive even during times of economic crises and secures livelihoods by providing food for many people, as demonstrated by a poverty rate of less than 10%, a lower rate than in many developed counties (Isarangkun and Pootrakool, 2005). Integrated farming in Thailand has the aim of helping farmers to operate their farms independently, reducing impacts from external factors. The practice is set by a rough formula, where an area of 1.6–2.4 ha is divided into four parts: 30% is used as rice paddy, 30% for mixed cultivation, 30% as a fish pond and 10% for housing and small-scale animal farming (Border Patrol Police Bureau, 2007; ONEP, 2000). One success story is that of a farmer in the Thai countryside who used to grow only rice but changed to integrated farming using the King’s principle. He now has a greater variety of food production, which has given him an improved quality of life, as proved by his award of Best Farming Practice prize in the province in 2001 (Land Development Department, 2001). This integrated pattern of farming was designed for use mainly in rural areas; however, can be translated to urban or peri-urban areas and the formula can be adapted to suit the conditions of a particular site.

References

Border Patrol Police Bureau (2007). Royal Project: New Theory Agriculture. www.bpp.go.th/project/project_4.html (Accessed 30 March 2010).

Dairy Nutrient (2005). Crop Rotation: Risks of Mono-cropping Systems and Renewed Interest in Crop Rotation. http://dairynutrient.wisc.edu/468/page.php?id=165 (Accessed 28 April 2010).

Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Integrated Farming. http://oard3kk.dyndns.org/newfarm.asp (Accessed 12 April 2010).

Horst WJ, Hardter R (1994). Rotation of maize with cowpea improves yield and nutrient use of maize compared to maize monocropping in an Alfisol in the Northern Guinea savanna of Ghana. Plant and Soil 160, 171—183.

Isarangkun C, Pootrakool K (2005). Sustainable Economic Development Through the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy. www.sufficiencyeconomy.org/old/en/ (Accessed 31 March 2010).

Land Development Department (2001). Year Report 2001. www.ldd.go.th/ofsweb/news/report_ldd_44/report_ldd_44/report_ldd_44_19.pdf (Accessed 27 May 2010).

Liebman M, Dyck E (1993). Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecological Application 3(1), 92—122.

Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (2000). Report on the Environmental Situation 2000. www.onep.go.th/download/soe43dl.html (Accessed 30 March 2010).

Sullivan P (2003). Intercropping Principles and Production Practices. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service: A Project of National Center for Appropriate Technology. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/intercrop.html#prod (Accessed 27 April 2010).

http://www.bpp.go.th/project/project_4.html

http://www.bpp.go.th/project/project_4.html

http://dairynutrient.wisc.edu/468/page.php?id=165




http://oard3kk.dyndns.org/newfarm.asp

http://oard3kk.dyndns.org/newfarm.asp

http://www.sufficiencyeconomy.org/old/en/

http://www.sufficiencyeconomy.org/old/en/

http://www.ldd.go.th/ofsweb/news/report_ldd_44/report_ldd_44/report_ldd_44_19.pdf

http://www.ldd.go.th/ofsweb/news/report_ldd_44/report_ldd_44/report_ldd_44_19.pdf

http://www.onep.go.th/download/soe43dl.html

http://www.onep.go.th/download/soe43dl.html

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/intercrop.html#prod

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/intercrop.html#prod

[28]

Appendix C

Fieldvisit

Researchschedule.Researchschedule.Researchschedule.Month DayDay Stakeholders AcPvityJan‐Apr Literaturereview,seminars,lecturesLiteraturereview,seminars,lecturesFeb 5 DPU GrouppresentaPononprogressMar 5 DPU InterimgrouppresentaPonApr 28 DPU Pre‐fieldtripgrouppresentaPon

May

2

Fieldtrip

CitytourofAccra

May

3

Fieldtrip

IWMIGrouppresentaPononreserchplan

May

3

Fieldtrip

IWMISeminar,Q&Asession

May

3

Fieldtrip

AWGUPA Seminar,Q&Asession

May

3

Fieldtrip

Localfacilitator IniPalmeePng

May

4

Fieldtrip

FarmersFocusgroups

May

4

Fieldtrip

FarmersTransectwalk

May

4

Fieldtrip

IDC Seminar,Q&Asession

May

4

Fieldtrip

MoFAAshaiman Seminar,Q&Asession

May

5

Fieldtrip

WMD Seminar,Q&Asession

May

5

Fieldtrip

ZoomLion Seminar,Q&Asession

May

5

Fieldtrip

EPA Seminar,Q&Asession

May

5

Fieldtrip

IDD&GhanaTV ObservaPon,transectwalk

May

6

Fieldtrip

Farmers Interview

May

6

Fieldtrip

GIDA Interview,transectwalk

May

6

Fieldtrip

FisheryDepartment Interview,transectwalk

May

6

Fieldtrip

FUP Interview

May

6

Fieldtrip

RomanDownFarmers Focusgroup

May

6

Fieldtrip

AshMAMunicipalPlanningandCoordinaPngUnit

Seminar,Q&Asession

May

7

FieldtripGIDA Seminar,Q&Asession

May

7

Fieldtrip

GOAN Seminar,Q&Asession

May

7

Fieldtrip

DANIDA Seminar,Q&Asession

May

7

Fieldtrip

EnterpriseWorks/ReliefInternaPonal Seminar,Q&Asession

May

8

Fieldtrip

Farmers Focusgroups

May

8

Fieldtrip

AshaimanStool Seminar,Q&Asession

May

10

Fieldtrip

ExoPcVegetableSellersAssociaPon Interview

May

10

Fieldtrip

ILGS Seminar,Q&Asession

May

10

Fieldtrip

MoFA Seminar,Q&Asession

May

10

Fieldtrip

SocialInvestmentFund Interview

May

11

Fieldtrip

FarmersJointfocusgroupwithRomanDownfarmers

May

11

Fieldtrip

Farmers Interview

May

11

Fieldtrip

IDC Interview

May

11

Fieldtrip

AshMAAssemblymember Seminar,Q&Asession

May

12

Fieldtrip

GhanaFederaPonoftheUrbanPoor Interview

May

12

Fieldtrip

GIDA Interview

May

12

Fieldtrip

Landplanning Seminar,Q&Asession

May

13

Fieldtrip

Variousstakeholders GrouppresentaPon,Q&Asession

May

26 DPU FinalgrouppresentaPonJun 4 DPU Finalgroupreportsubmission

[29]

The Ashaiman District Citizens Monitoring Committee (DCMC) is a

civil society group led by Braimah Abdulai from the Rural−Urban Women and Children Development Agency. The DCMC is a

network comprises different NGOs and community-based organizations, as well as individual representatives from the Stool,

Municipal Assembly and Roman Down farmers.

The role of the DCMC is to monitor policies, such as national health

and insurance policies, or grants through, for example, budget tracking. In Ashaiman, one of the group’s initial tasks was to

conduct agricultural budget tracking for a national NGO, Send-

Ghana, to ensure that pro-poor policies were being adhered to.

Through this, the DCMC became aware of the problems regarding land and encroachments facing farmers on Roman Down. The

group works primarily through establishing dialogue between different actors to bring about solutions, as well as lobbying and

advocacy, although the resources for this are limited.

A member of the DCMC attended the joint focus group of farmers

from the GIDA site and Roman Down, where he was able to meet with farmers from both areas, as well as a representative of the

Federation of the Urban Poor.

Appendix D: District Citizens Monitoring Committee

[30]

Appendix E

Costsofgrowing1acreofrice.Costsofgrowing1acreofrice.LandpreparaPon Ploughing+handweeding+levelling+linemarking:155GC

PlanPngCarrying+transplanPng:75GCSeeds:20‐40kg/acre(1kg=1GC)

Spraying PesPcide:mainlyCONDAX(lowcastandeffecPve),8GC/bag,20‐Pmes/acre

FerPlizerMPK(50GC/bag),UREA(40GC/bag)andammonia(30GC/bag):6bagsintotal(2:2:2or3:1:2),twoapplicaPonsandtopdressing

Handweeding Labour:40GC/acre

Maintenance Mendingofbund:30GC

Bathing IntroducPonofrodenPcide:24GC

Birdscaring 3GCx30daysx2people

HarvesPngCumng:60GCHeaping:30GCThreshing:60GC

DryingandBagging 60GC

Selling 22‐25bagscanbeharvestedfrom1acre(84kg/bag).Priceisvariablefrom55to70GCbuttheaverageis60GC/bag.

Averagees.matedtotalcosts

962GC

Averagees.matedsales 1410GC

Profit 448GC

Miscellanious:70GC

[31]

Appendix F: Organisational hierarchy of Ghana Irrigation Development Authority and the Irrigation Development Centre

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

Organ

isa.

onalhierarchyofG

hana

Irriga.on

Develop

men

tAutho

rity

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

MINISTR

YOFFO

ODANDAGRICU

LTURE

(MoFA)

BODYOFDIREC

TORS

BODYOFDIREC

TORS

BODYOFDIREC

TORS

BODYOFDIREC

TORS

BODYOFDIREC

TORS

BODYOFDIREC

TORS

BODYOFDIREC

TORS

BODYOFDIREC

TORS

BODYOFDIREC

TORS

CHIEFEXECUTIVE

CHIEFEXECUTIVE

CHIEFEXECUTIVE

CHIEFEXECUTIVE

CHIEFEXECUTIVE

CHIEFEXECUTIVE

CHIEFEXECUTIVE

CHIEFEXECUTIVE

CHIEFEXECUTIVE

INTERN

ALAU

DIT

INTERN

ALAU

DIT

INTERN

ALAU

DIT

INTERN

ALAU

DIT

INTERN

ALAU

DIT

INTERN

ALAU

DIT

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

T

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

T

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

T

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

T

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

T

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

TINTERN

ALAU

DIT

INTERN

ALAU

DIT

INTERN

ALAU

DIT

INTERN

ALAU

DIT

INTERN

ALAU

DIT

INTERN

ALAU

DIT

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

T

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

T

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

T

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

T

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

T

LEGALSERV

ICES&

STATES

MANAG

EMEN

T

DEPUTYCHIEFEXECUTIVE

‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐EN

GINEERING


‐AG

RONOMY


‐AG

RONOMY


‐AG

RONOMY


‐AG

RONOMY


‐AG

RONOMY


‐AG

RONOMY


‐AG

RONOMY


‐AG

RONOMY


‐AG

RONOMY


‐AG

RONOMY


‐AG

RONOMY

REGIONAL

OFFICES(6

)RE

GIONAL

OFFICES(6

)RE

GIONAL

OFFICES(6

)RE

GIONAL

OFFICES(6

)RE

GIONAL

OFFICES(6

)RE

GIONAL

OFFICES(6

)

PLANNING,

MONITORINGAND

EVALU

ATION

DEPART

MEN

T

PLANNING,

MONITORINGAND

EVALU

ATION

DEPART

MEN

T

PLANNING,

MONITORINGAND

EVALU

ATION

DEPART

MEN

T

PLANNING,

MONITORINGAND

EVALU

ATION

DEPART

MEN

T

PLANNING,

MONITORINGAND

EVALU

ATION

DEPART

MEN

T

PLANNING,

MONITORINGAND

EVALU

ATION

DEPART

MEN

T

PROJECT

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T

PROJECT

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T

PROJECT

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T

PROJECT

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T

PROJECT

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T

PROJECT

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T

PROJECT

OPERA

TIONS

DEPART

MEN

TPR

OJECT

OPERA

TIONS

DEPART

MEN

TPR

OJECT

OPERA

TIONS

DEPART

MEN

TPR

OJECT

OPERA

TIONS

DEPART

MEN

TPR

OJECT

OPERA

TIONS

DEPART

MEN

TPR

OJECT

OPERA

TIONS

DEPART

MEN

T

FINANCE

AND

ADMINISTR

ATION

DIREC

TORA

TE

FINANCE

AND

ADMINISTR

ATION

DIREC

TORA

TE

FINANCE

AND

ADMINISTR

ATION

DIREC

TORA

TE

FINANCE

AND

ADMINISTR

ATION

DIREC

TORA

TE

FINANCE

AND

ADMINISTR

ATION

DIREC

TORA

TE

FINANCE

AND

ADMINISTR

ATION

DIREC

TORA

TE

IRRIGATION

TECH

NOLO

GY

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T

IRRIGATION

TECH

NOLO

GY

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T

IRRIGATION

TECH

NOLO

GY

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T

IRRIGATION

TECH

NOLO

GY

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T

IRRIGATION

TECH

NOLO

GY

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T

IRRIGATION

TECH

NOLO

GY

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

DEPART

MEN

T(Jan.201

0‐)

(Jan.201

0‐)

PROJECT

SPR

OJECT

SPR

OJECT

SPR

OJECT

SPR

OJECT

PLANNING&

CO‐ORD

INATION

PROJECT

PLANNING&

CO‐ORD

INATION

PROJECT

PLANNING&

CO‐ORD

INATION

PROJECT

PLANNING&

CO‐ORD

INATION

SURV

EYSU

RVEY

SURV

EYSU

RVEY

ENVIRO

NMEN

TAL

MANAG

EMEN

TEN

VIRO

NMEN

TAL

MANAG

EMEN

TEN

VIRO

NMEN

TAL

MANAG

EMEN

TEN

VIRO

NMEN

TAL

MANAG

EMEN

TFINANCE

FINANCE

FINANCE

FINANCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

PROJECT

SPR

OJECT

SPR

OJECT

SPR

OJECT

SPR

OJECT

PLANNING&

CO‐ORD

INATION

PROJECT

PLANNING&

CO‐ORD

INATION

PROJECT

PLANNING&

CO‐ORD

INATION

PROJECT

PLANNING&

CO‐ORD

INATION

SURV

EYSU

RVEY

SURV

EYSU

RVEY

ENVIRO

NMEN

TAL

MANAG

EMEN

TEN

VIRO

NMEN

TAL

MANAG

EMEN

TEN

VIRO

NMEN

TAL

MANAG

EMEN

TEN

VIRO

NMEN

TAL

MANAG

EMEN

TFINANCE

FINANCE

FINANCE

FINANCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

QUALITYASSURA

NCE

BUDGET

BUDGET

BUDGET

BUDGET

DESIGN&

QUANTITIES

DESIGN&

QUANTITIES

DESIGN&

QUANTITIES

DESIGN&

QUANTITIES

TECH

NOLO

GY

TRANSFER

TECH

NOLO

GY

TRANSFER

TECH

NOLO

GY

TRANSFER

TECH

NOLO

GY

TRANSFER

PUBLIC

RELATIONS

PUBLIC

RELATIONS

PUBLIC

RELATIONS

PUBLIC

RELATIONS

RESEARC

H&

INNOVA

TION

RESEARC

H&

INNOVA

TION

RESEARC

H&

INNOVA

TION

RESEARC

H&

INNOVA

TION

BUDGET

BUDGET

BUDGET

BUDGET

DESIGN&

QUANTITIES

DESIGN&

QUANTITIES

DESIGN&

QUANTITIES

DESIGN&

QUANTITIES

TECH

NOLO

GY

TRANSFER

TECH

NOLO

GY

TRANSFER

TECH

NOLO

GY

TRANSFER

TECH

NOLO

GY

TRANSFER

PUBLIC

RELATIONS

PUBLIC

RELATIONS

PUBLIC

RELATIONS

PUBLIC

RELATIONS

RESEARC

H&

INNOVA

TION

RESEARC

H&

INNOVA

TION

RESEARC

H&

INNOVA

TION

RESEARC

H&

INNOVA

TION

(IDC)

(IDC)

M&E

M&E

M&E

M&E

PLANT&

EQUIPMEN

TPLANT&

EQUIPMEN

TPLANT&

EQUIPMEN

TPLANT&

EQUIPMEN

T

SOIL&W

ATER

MANAG

EMEN

TPA

RTICIPANT

SOIL&W

ATER

MANAG

EMEN

TPA

RTICIPANT

SOIL&W

ATER

MANAG

EMEN

TPA

RTICIPANT

SOIL&W

ATER

MANAG

EMEN

TPA

RTICIPANT

ADMINISTR

ATION

ADMINISTR

ATION

ADMINISTR

ATION

ADMINISTR

ATION

M&E

M&E

M&E

M&E

PLANT&

EQUIPMEN

TPLANT&

EQUIPMEN

TPLANT&

EQUIPMEN

TPLANT&

EQUIPMEN

T

SOIL&W

ATER

MANAG

EMEN

TPA

RTICIPANT

SOIL&W

ATER

MANAG

EMEN

TPA

RTICIPANT

SOIL&W

ATER

MANAG

EMEN

TPA

RTICIPANT

SOIL&W

ATER

MANAG

EMEN

TPA

RTICIPANT

ADMINISTR

ATION

ADMINISTR

ATION

ADMINISTR

ATION

ADMINISTR

ATION

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

CONSTRU

CTION

&

MAINTENANCE

CONSTRU

CTION

&

MAINTENANCE

CONSTRU

CTION

&

MAINTENANCE

CONSTRU

CTION

&

MAINTENANCE

POSTHARV

EST

&M

ARK

ETING

POSTHARV

EST

&M

ARK

ETING

POSTHARV

EST

&M

ARK

ETING

POSTHARV

EST

&M

ARK

ETING

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

TRAINING&

MANPO

WER

DEV

ELOPM

ENT

CONSTRU

CTION

&

MAINTENANCE

CONSTRU

CTION

&

MAINTENANCE

CONSTRU

CTION

&

MAINTENANCE

CONSTRU

CTION

&

MAINTENANCE

POSTHARV

EST

&M

ARK

ETING

POSTHARV

EST

&M

ARK

ETING

POSTHARV

EST

&M

ARK

ETING

POSTHARV

EST

&M

ARK

ETING

FARM

MANAG

EMEN

TFARM

MANAG

EMEN

TFARM

MANAG

EMEN

TFARM

MANAG

EMEN

TFARM

MANAG

EMEN

TFARM

MANAG

EMEN

TFARM

MANAG

EMEN

TFARM

MANAG

EMEN

T

[32]

Appendix F (cont.): Organisational hierarchy of Ghana Irrigation Development Authority and the Irrigation Development Centre

Organisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentreOrganisa.onalhierarchyoftheIrriga.onDevelopmentCentre

DirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirectorDirector

AdministraPonAdministraPonAdministraPon FinanceFinanceFinanceAdministraPonAdministraPonAdministraPon FinanceFinanceFinance

WaterManagementUnit

WaterManagementUnit

FarmingUnitFarmingUnit CulPvaPonUnitCulPvaPonUnitCulPvaPonUnitCulPvaPonUnitCulPvaPonUnitCulPvaPonUnit FarmersOrganizaPonUnit

FarmersOrganizaPonUnit

EnvironmentUnitEnvironmentUnit

RiceUnitRiceUnitRiceUnit VegetableUnit

VegetableUnit

VegetableUnit

[33]

Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty

The concept of Food Sovereignty is new and fascinating. It offers the farmers perspective in matter of food production and distribution, in line with ecological principles and more equitable social distribution. However, the Nyéléni, chart and other documents produced under the principles of Food Sovereignty offer only rather general guidelines for the practical application of the paradigm. Basing the whole analysis on them seemed to be dangerous and would probably have limited the scope of our research. For this reason, we developed a supporting framework which would have helped us to identify areas to study (civil society, natural and built environment, policy support and financial issues).

Having the findings organised in this way, it was possible to assess the performances of these conceptual areas under the principles of food sovereignty as developed in the table on page 8 and 9. In chapter 3, we organised our findings according to particular issues we found critical, leaving the underlying analytical process hidden. Here we make it explicit, providing the link between findings and the Food Sovereignty principia.Below are presented the criteria with a synthetic judgment and a brief explanation of the reasons why we assigned a given rating according to our findings.

[34]

Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty (cont.)

EnvironmentalsphereEnvironmentalsphereEnvironmentalsphereCriteria Judgement ReasoningUrbanizaPonandencroachmentsarenotathreattoUPA

Theimpactsofencroachmentareindirect,

throughtheeffectsonthewatersupplyand

threatstothewholesystem

TradiPonalpracPcesareusedinUPA Farmersareencouragedtousemodern

techniques;thereishoweveralackof

machineryavailable

ThesourceofwaterisnotcontaminatedandsuitableforUA.

IrrigaPonmethodsreducehealthriskandcontaminaPon

ThewaterusedforirrigaPondoesnotposeanythreattofarmersorconsumers

ThecleanlinessofwaterusedforirrigaPonis

underthreatforthefuture,butiscurrently

suitableforfarming

IntercroppingispracPsed

FoodgrownrespectsthelocalvegetaPon

Farmersimplementclosedloopfarming

RotaPoncroppingisgenerallypreferredover

intercropping,respecPngnaturalecosystemsto

acertainextent

Closed‐looppracPcesarenotusedSoilhasagoodstructure(notcompacted)andissuitableforagriculturalpurposes

Soilqualityisprotectedfromtoxicityandsalinitycausedbythe(over‐)useofchemicalinputs(ferPlisers,herbicides,pesPcides,etc)

Farmersuseahighamountofchemicalinputs

Farmers’pracPcesendorse: MinimizaPon Reusing Recycling ComposPng

TheareasoffoodproducPonarefreefromwaste

ComposPngisperceivedasoverlylabour‐,Pme‐

andcost‐intensive

Thefarmlandiscleanbutthesurroundingareas

havebuild‐upofwaste

Thesurroundingareaisclean

ThesurroundingareaisservedbyadequategarbagecollecPon

Thesurroundingareaisnotservedbywaste

collecPonorsewageservices

[35]

PolicyspherePolicyspherePolicysphereCriteria Judgement ReasoningPoliciessupportsecurityoftenureand/orcontroloverlandforUPAfarmers

YouthareencouragedandsupportedinUPA

OfficialmediaadequatelyreflecttheimportanceofUPAandsmall‐holderfarms

Whilethereareplanstoinvolvemore

youth,thesearenotcurrently

realised

PoliciessupporttheexpansionoflocalmarketsforUPAproduce

Importedcropsaresubjecttotariffs

LocalconsumpPonisprioriPzedoverexport

Amongmanystakeholdersthereisa

mindsettowardsthevalueofcrop

exports

Importedgoodsmaybecheaperthan

domesPcproducePublicandprivatesectorownershipormanagementislimitedinUPAbydecentralisedpolicies

ThecontrolandresponsibiliPesarewelltransferredtothemunicipallevelandrolesarewelldefined

Ghanaoperatesadecentralisedlocal

governmentsystem

Landownershipfollowsboth

customaryandofficiallinesPoliciesdonotsupportuseofgenePcallymodifiedcropsandlimitunderminingtechnologies

EducaPononandexperimentaPonwithtradiPonalpracPcestakesplace

TheIDCisexperimenPngwith

NERICArice

Workshopsonmodernfarming

techniquesareheldAppropriatepoliciesfavourcomposPng

AppropriateregulaPonsencourageandfacilitatecomposPngplants

RegulaPonslimittheexcessiveuseofchemicalsanddestrucPvefarmingtechnologies

MonitoringofthequalityandnutriPonofUPAproductstakesplaces

ThereislislepracPcalsupportfor

organiccompostuseandfewlimits

ontheuseonchemicalinputs


[36]

EconomicsphereEconomicsphereEconomicsphereCriteria Judgement ReasoningFoodisaffordable,healthyandnutriPous ? Insufficientdatagatheredtomakea

judgementEconomicpoliciesarenotbiasedtoindustrialorGreenRevoluPon‐inspiredfarmingbutputvalueonandprovideopportuniPesforurbanfarmers

Farmershaveaccesstoloansandcreditwithsuitablepaymenttermsandinterestrates

FarmershavedifficulPesaccessing

creditthroughofficialavenues

Interestratesaretoohighmaking

themunsuitableforurbanfarmers

Accesstolocalmarketasasourceofincomeisguaranteed

Farmersarenotdependentonmiddlemenforsellingcrops

Farmersaredependentonmarket

womenforsaleoftheirproduceand

havelislechoiceinthecropsgrown

AdequatestateandinternaPonalfundsareallocatedtoeducaPononenvironmentallyfriendlyfarmingmethods

Environmentallyfriendlyfarmingdid

notcomeacrossasapriority


[37]

SocialsphereSocialsphereSocialsphereCriteria Judgement ReasoningMigrantshaveashareinUPApracPcestoprovidesufficientfood

IndigenouspeopleareinvolvedinUPA

WomenareinvolvedinUPA

Farmersaremostlyimmigrantstothe

area

ThereisasupportfromtheStoolfor

moreindigenouspeopletobe

involvedinfarming

Almost20%offarmersarewomenMediaadequatelyreflecttheimportanceofUPAandsmall‐holderfarms

TherehasbeensomenegaPve

coverageofUPAinthemedia;

however,farmersandGIDAhavealso

usedthemediatopresenttheir

viewsConsumerschooselocalproducts

Farmersarenotintegratedintoglobaltradeanddependentonexportersbutsellcropstothelocalmarket

Thereisevidenceofaconsumerbias

againstlocallygrownproduce

Saleismostlylocal,nomulPnaPonals

areinvolvedLocalurban/per‐urbanfarmershaveavoiceandcandecidethemethodsandproductstheygrow.

Farmers’associaPonshelpfarmerstogainmanagementknowledge

AssociaPonsoperateinatransparentandaccountablemanner

Farmers’voiceouengoesunheard;

theycannotdecideindependently

theirmethodsandproducts

Whenraised,theissueof

transparencyandpotenPal

mismanagementledto

disagreementsamongthefarmers

Farmers’associaPonsarelinkedtoenhanceandexchangeindigenousknowledgeandskills

Thelinksbetweenfarmersdonot

servetobuildorvalueindigenous

knowledgeandskills

Thereisconsumerpressurefororganicproduce Noevidenceforanorganicmarket

wasfound

Organiclabellinghasbeenasempted

withlislesuccess


[38]

Appendix H: Strategies

Strategy 1. Land control: drawing the lineThe first strategy is aimed at solving the main problem and the biggest threat to the survival of the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) scheme at present. The growth of the city is reaching a point where the new buildings are only few metres from the farmed land and the reservoir’s banks, while in Roman Down, houses are built on land that used to be farmed. When the site was planned, a wide buffer zone was set aside to protect the source of water, the land to be farmed and the flooding areas (land to be kept undeveloped to allow the excess water to flood during the rainy season). Encroachments create problems not only in terms of land lost for agriculture, but also in terms of pollution to the reservoir and waterways; new houses do not have access to sewage systems or waste collection, so all their refuse is dumped into the water. The encroachments on Roman Down could ultimately result in damage for the scheme (the water would reflux into the canals rather than flowing out of the site when the capacity limit of the dam is reached) and poses a risk to residents of the area.

Interviews with the local administration and with the traditional councils have shown that the root cause of this problem is the unclear definition of the agreement for the leasing of the site. The Stool is now selling land which should be left empty in the flooding areas, while on the reservoir’s bank, houses are progressively expanding beyond the land allocated by the Stool in the past.

To solve the problem it is necessary thus to find an agreement between the residents, the Stool and the technical requirements. The first sub-strategy is proposed to address the necessities and the reasons for the residential developments; it should be lead by the Land Allocation Committee and should produce a common proposal to address the issue. At the same time, the Town and Country Planning Department (TCPD) should produce a State of the Environment Report (being a wide piece of research, this could be outsourced to local masters or PhD students) while working together with GIDA on a technical reassessment of the buffer zone necessary to protect the scheme and the reservoir. Once technical and ‘civil’ necessities have been defined, the TCPD should integrate the two and include them in a new masterplan. Once the area has been defined on paper, farmers could be actively involved to create natural (e.g., trees) and /or artificial (fences) barriers to separate the scheme from the city. The new boundaries would be secured also through new agreements (if necessary) with the Stool.

Strategy 2. Development of the right bank: right bank rehab

The strategies proposed for the right bank are aimed at creating a transparent process for future developments and to introduce more ecological methods of biodegradable waste disposal. For the first part, we suggest to direct the efforts of the Right Bank Committee (RBC) towards the promotion of more sustainable farming techniques, described more in detail in APPENDIX B. To reach this target, it would be expedient to establish a dialogue with the Fisheries Department and with the other farmers located near the dam, as they are already applying integrated farming techniques. To overcome the lack of funds, we suggest that the committee should be actively involved in the search of resources, especially in the private sector. Contributions from farmers should have priority but their economic situation will probably not allow this level of investment. The integrated farms could provide the necessary inputs for a progressive implementation of a canals’ system on the right bank, which should be less extensive than the one currently in place, owing to the limitation highlighted by GIDA, that the reservoir capacity is not sufficient to irrigate the entire right and left banks. The introduction of animals would also reduce the amount of water required.

Financial contributions to the integrated farms could come also from an agreement with Zoom Lion for the realisation of a composting site. Although it may be risky to lease the land to an external actor, at the moment this seems to be the only stakeholder that could provide the expertise and money for completing this action. The fact that the site is close to the city centre (meaning that it is less expensive to bring biodegradable waste from the city) and that farmers are the purchasers of the final output (economies of proximity) should allow GIDA to impose advantageous conditions on the contract. Of course, this action should be modelled on the needs of the farmers, as the costs associated with compost are perceived as one of the main barriers to its widespread use.

[39]

Appendix H: Strategies (cont.)

Strategy 3. Farmers’ association: unity & strength The actions suggested to “Strengthen Internal organisation” are proposed because the findings regarding the association highlighted the fact that the structure currently in place does not appear to be effective in producing a real improvement in farmers’ production. The first sub-strategy is aimed at providing the Executive with basic managerial competences; from the meetings with the Irrigation Development Centre (IDC) we discovered that farmers receive training in several areas, from watering techniques to crop selection, but it seems that this external contribution is slowing more proactive behaviour of the farmers and creating an expectation in them that improvements can come only from outside. The second action derives from the consideration that the more farmers are involved in collective responsibilities, the more effective is the implementation of association’s plans. The association already has five dedicated committees and we suggest creating further committees; a new committee would, for example, deal with patrolling (farmers live some distance away and, during the night, stealing is fairly frequent), marketing (farmers now sell individually) and monitoring (the association lacks an internal monitoring unit). Increasing transparency inside the association would be pursued also with audio-recorded reports and a half-yearly plenary session in which the budget would be presented and approved by the plenary (sub-strategy 2). While the first two sub-strategies are of exclusive competence of the association, the third one would see the involvement of the Federation of The Urban Poor. This strategy is proposed because of the importance of the funding issue as described by farmers. Past attempts to implement a revolving fund have shown poor results with high rates of default, while the model of saving groups of the FUP has

had growing success in similar environment. Therefore, we suggest a pilot saving group on voluntary basis, which would be limited to a maximum of 20 people.

The role of the association is also limited by external circumstances; therefore, we suggest the contribution of the local administration, Ashaiman Municipal Assembly (AshMA) and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) to create a conducive environment for urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) in Ashaiman through a series of initiatives. The first action would be the establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group, along the model of the Accra Working Group for Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (AWGUPA), possibly including some of the people directly involved in AWGUPA. The promotion of UPA and of the farmers’ interests should also pursue a wide networking strategy, which we suggest should be both vertical and horizontal. By a vertical strategy we mean that farmers should be part of national and international associations of farmers, while horizontally we refer to other local stakeholder groups. For example, starting a dialogue with the catering or tourist industry could help farmers to bypass the market-mummies (who at the moment have too high a contractual power over the farmers) and produce to demand. A necessary partnership, for which dialogue has already begun, is with the farmers of Roman Down. MoFA could provide assistance for the first part of the networking strategy (provide information or facilitate communication with other associations), while AshMA could be actively involved on promoting the second one.

[40]

REPORT BY

Veronica Cheng

Hauwa Usman

Sa’adatu Abatemi-Usman

Andrea Demurtas

Sara Guy

Ai Kaibu

Cassidi Kunvipusilkul

Robin Pratap

Salman Rassouli

Course Name: Environment & Sustainable Development

University: University College London (UCL)

Department: Developing Planning Unit (DPU)

Module Code: BENVGES3

Module Name: Environment & Sustainable Development in Practice

DPU Field Work 2010

Rita Valencia (Supervisor)

Documents

GIDA Ashaiman Report