Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MANAGING AID FOR TRADE AND
DEVELOPMENT RESULTS
Ghana Case Study
MANAGING AID FOR TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT RESULTS
GHANA CASE STUDY
By
Bernardin Senadza, PhD
A.D. Amarquaye Laryea, PhD
November 2012
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors wish thank staff of MoFEP, MoTI and MoFA who provided valuable insights for the
preparation of this paper. Our thanks, in particularly, goes to Mr. Lambert Abusah of MoFA for
providing us with many sector related documents and data. We also wish to thank development
partners for providing information on various issues. Our interactions with Mr. Claude Maerten, EU
Ambassador/ Head of Delegation to Ghana also proved useful. Mr. Masato Hayashikawa of the
OECD provided useful comments on an earlier draft. We acknowledge very good research assistance
from Louis Hodey, Godson Korbla Aloryito and Theophilus Eyram Kwami. Any errors and omissions
are ours.
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 2
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 4
LIST OF BOXES .................................................................................................................................... 5
LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 8
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10
1.1 Background to the Economy of Ghana ................................................................................. 10
1.2 Rationale for Aid-for-Trade .................................................................................................. 10
1.3 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................... 11
1.4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 11
1.5 Outline of Report .................................................................................................................. 11
2 Role of Trade in Development ...................................................................................................... 11
3 Ghana‟s Past and Present Trade Policies and Current Development Framework ........................ 12
3.1 Past and Present Trade Policies ............................................................................................ 12
3.2 The Current Development Policy Framework ...................................................................... 14
4 Agricultural Trade, Development Cooperation and Aid Flows .................................................... 16
4.1 Agricultural Trade Performance ........................................................................................... 16
4.2 Development Cooperation .................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Aid-for-Trade Flows ............................................................................................................. 18
4.4 Donor Activities in the Agriculture Sector ........................................................................... 19
5 Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Programmes ........................................................... 22
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 22
5.2 Indicators for Measuring Outcomes of Agriculture Sector Programmes .............................. 22
5.3 The Monitoring and Evaluation Framework ......................................................................... 24
5.3.1 National Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements ..................................................... 24
5.3.2 Sectoral Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements ...................................................... 25
5.3.3 Decentralised System of Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................... 26
5.4 Donor Monitoring & Evaluation and Coordination between Donors and MoFA ................. 27
5.5 Challenges and Constraints of the M&E System .................................................................. 29
5.6 Managing Aid for Trade for Results ..................................................................................... 29
6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 31
References ............................................................................................................................................. 32
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
3
Annex A: On-going Donor Projects in Agriculture .............................................................................. 33
Annex B: Key Indicators for Measuring Results in Agriculture Sector ............................................... 40
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Sector shares in GDP (%) ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 2 Export and import shares of GDP (%) ....................................................................... 16
Figure 3 Export destination shares (%) .................................................................................... 16
Figure 4 Agriculture export revenues (US$ m) ........................................................................ 16
Figure 5 Export earnings shares (%) ........................................................................................ 17
Figure 6 Export concentration and diversification indices ....................................................... 17
Figure 7 Gross AfT commitments (2010 US$ m) ..................................................................... 18
Figure 8 Agriculture share of productive capacity AfT commitments (%) .............................. 18
Figure 9 Top 10 ODA donors, all sectors 2001-2010 (2010 US$ m) ...................................... 19
Figure 10 Top 10 ODA donors, agriculture 2001-2010 (2010 US$ m) ..................................... 19
Figure 11 National monitoring and evaluation framework ......................................................... 25
Figure 12 Sector monitoring and evaluation framework ............................................................. 25
Figure 13 Decentralised monitoring and evaluation framework ................................................ 26
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
5
LIST OF BOXES
Box 1 USAID Agriculture Activity in Ghana .................................................................................... 20
Box 2 German Development Cooperation in Agriculture ................................................................. 21
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
6
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADVANCE Agriculture Development Value Chain Enhancement Programme
ACP African Caribbean Pacific
AfT Aid-for-trade
AfDB African Development Bank
AFD Agence Francais dѐ Development
AGI Association of Ghanaian Industries
AGRA Alliance for Green Revolution for Africa
APR Annual Progress Report
ASWG Agricultural Sector Working Group
BUSAC Business Sector Advocacy Challenge
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CEPS Customs, Excise and Preventive Service
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
COCOBOD Cocoa Board
CRS Creditor Reporting System
CSOs Civil Society Organisations
CSP Country Strategy Paper
CSPGs Cross Sectoral Planning Groups
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DPCUs District Planning Coordinating Units
DPs Development Partners
EC European Commission
EDF European Development Fund
EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária
ERP Economic Reforms Programme
EU European Union
EWB Engineers without Borders
FAGE Federation of Associations of Ghanaian Exporters
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FASDEP ΙΙ Food and Agriculture Sector Development Programme II
FC Financial Cooperation
FtF Feed the Future
GCAP Ghana Commercial Agriculture project
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIZ Gesellschaft fϋr Internationale Zusammenarbeit GoG Government of Ghana
GPRS I Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy
GPRS II Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy
GSGDA Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda
GSS Ghana Statistical Service
GSSP Ghana Strategic Support Programme
ICFG Integrated Coastal and Fisheries Governance
IDA International Development Association
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IMF International Monetary Fund
IWMI International Water Management Institute
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
JIRCAS Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Science JSR Joint Sector Review
KfW Kreditanstallt fϋr Wiederaufbau
MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
7
METASIP Medium-Term Agricultural Sector Investment Plan
METSS Monitoring, Evaluation, and Technical Support Service
MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies
MDBS Multi-Donor Budgetary Support
MOAP Market Oriented Agricultural Programme
MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture
MoFEP Ministry Finance and Economic Planning
MoTI Ministry of Trade and Industry
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
Mt Metric tonnes
NDPC National Development Planning Commission
NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations
NIP National Indicative Programme
NTEs Non-traditional Exports
ODA Official Development Assistance
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OVCF Outgrower and Value Chain Fund
PEF Private Enterprise Foundation
PPMEDs Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Divisions
PTB German Institute of Metrology
RCC Regional Coordinating Council
RPCUs Regional Planning Coordinating Units
RSD Regional Sector Department
SAP Structural Adjustment Programme
TC Technical Cooperation
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WB World Bank
WFP World Food Programme
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
8
Executive Summary Ghana‟s long term development goal is to achieve a per capita income of at least US$3,000 by 2020.
The agriculture sector is expected to play a major role in this regard. However, productive capacity
constraints, arising largely from human, institutional and other bottlenecks pose a major challenge to
the attainment of this goal. Aid-for-trade, particularly, into the agriculture sector can propel the
achievement of this development objective.
This report sets out to examine the mechanisms for tracking the outcomes of AfT interventions in the
agricultural sector and recommend ways of improving on existing frameworks to enable the
measurement of the performance of AfT interventions towards quantifiable targets and objectives.
The current development policy framework is the Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda
(GSGDA 2010-2013). Within the framework, trade features prominently, and emphasises improving
export competitiveness, diversifying and increasing exports and markets. The GSGDA policy
document also emphasises the importance of the agriculture sector, and more directly related to trade
is the objective of achieving increased competitiveness. The agriculture sector objectives are to be
pursued based on the FASDEP II document and its accompanying investment plan, the METASP.
Ghana‟s main agricultural exports are cocoa and non-traditional agriculture products. Non-traditional
exports have been promoted as part of the ERP/SAP. In spite of efforts at diversifying the export base,
however, the country‟s exports continue to be dominated by a few products. As at 2011, export
earnings from agriculture amounted to just a little over 30 percent. Clearly, there is need to intensify
efforts at increasing the share of agriculture in Ghana‟s trade.
Ghana receives a significant amount of aid by African standards. Data on ODA commitments as
captured by the OECD CRS indicates that most AfT goes into economic infrastructure and the
building of productive capacities of the real sectors of the economy. These receipts into the
agriculture sector can go a long way in improving productive capacity of the sector for it to be able to
achieve both domestic and international market objectives of the sector. Improving export
competitiveness, diversifying and increasing exports and markets is one such international market
objectives. Thus trade is mainstreamed in development policy. Trade features prominently in the
GSGDA and aspects of Ghana‟s trade policy are embedded in it but the country currently does not
have coherent aid-for-trade strategy in place to ensure that aid flows into the agriculture sector have
the desired impact on Ghana‟s agricultural trade and that the impacts and outcomes can be adequately
ascertained. And while there is a significant donor presence in the agriculture sector of Ghana and
many of the projects and programmes seem to be aligned to the country‟s development objectives in
agriculture as contained in the GSGDA/FASDEP documents, examination of these activities however
indicates that only a few donors focus explicitly on activities with a trade element. While the GSGDA
and FASDEP II have some agriculture trade related indicators, the problem though is the lack of
harmonization between the indicators for the two sets of documents.
Apart from the national M&E framework that also applies to the agriculture sector to enable the
measurement of outcomes based on pre-determined agriculture sector indicators, a lot of coordination
also goes on between MoFA and development partners. Coordination takes place largely within the
annual joint sector reviews. However, what is missing from the JSRs is the lack of discussions on the
impact of donor support on agriculture trade outcomes. While there are a lot of donor activities
ongoing in the agriculture sector, most of them lack direct trade objectives. Apart from the fact that
trade impacts of aid may not be a direct objective of many donors, MoFA‟s indicators as derived from
agriculture sector policy objectives tend to focus more on domestic outcomes. For instance, increasing
food production and ensuring food security is one often highlighted objective and many donors,
including CIDA, are increasingly involved in helping the country achieve such objectives. Another
reason for low discussions on the impact of donor assistance on trade is that MoFA‟s objectives have
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
9
also focused more on reducing the importation of agriculture products (for example, rice) rather than
pursuing an export agenda.
Against the backdrop of the substantial AfT flows into the agriculture sector of Ghana, it is imperative
for the country to adopt a framework that enables the measurement of the trade impacts of aid based
on some identified trade-related indicators and the development of a workable M&E system to
measure results.
In 2011 Ghana introduced an aid policy, titled Ghana Aid Policy and Strategy, which spans the period
2011 and 2015. The aid policy was developed in „response to available evidence showing that
recipient country policies and procedures, human capacity, economic management and institutional
arrangements determine to a large extent the optimal allocation of aid and its impact on growth and
poverty reduction‟. The policy was fashioned out of the objectives of the Paris Declaration on Aid
Effectiveness, 2005 and the Accra Agenda for Action, 2008. The aim of the aid policy is to ensure
that aid is managed and monitored properly, i.e. to ensure effectiveness and coordination by aligning
external aid to national development priorities.
The aid policy spells out some measures to ensure effective monitoring and evaluation of aid in
general, and can thus serve as minimal framework for introducing trade objectives and indicators to
measure the impact of AfT. The ingredients that must go into this should include Ghana‟s own targets
as defined in its development policies. Indicators could include increase in the diversification of
agriculture exports, increase in export earnings and the number of export markets, and increase in the
proportion of processed (value-added) agriculture products. Also important is finding targets that can
be monitored without expending too many resources – both human and financial. The mechanism
should also reflect donors‟ views on mutual accountability.
For an aid-for-trade strategy in agriculture to work, there would be the need to strengthen the intra-
sectoral and inter-ministerial coordination through a platform for joint planning. Thus there would be
the need for a review in the development and implementation of a communication strategy to improve
institutional coordination as well as create and strengthen the framework for coordinating activities
among all stakeholders in the sector. This must include each ministry identifying an agricultural
content in its strategic policy. The strategy should thus create effective internal coordination linkages
among three key stakeholders, namely, MoFA, MoFEP and MoTI on one hand and between these
ministries and DPs on the other to ensure effective monitoring and evaluation for results. Mutual
accountability in terms of resource flow and achievement of results makes it imperative to strengthen
existing M&E systems for trade results. Mainstreaming aid-for-trade into the country‟s development
agenda would improve monitoring and evaluation.
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
10
1 Introduction
1.1 Background to the Economy of Ghana
Ghana gained political independence from Great Britain on March 6, 1957. With an estimated
population of 24 million in 2010, the economy of Ghana has a diverse and rich resource base, and has
one of the highest GDP per capita in Africa. The country however remains somewhat dependent on
international financial and technical assistance as well as remittances from an extensive Ghanaian
diaspora. Gold, cocoa, timber, diamonds, bauxite, and manganese continue to be the country‟s main
exports and major sources of foreign exchange. Subsistence agriculture is still pronounced and
accounts for 35 percent of GDP and employs 55 percent of the work force. In 2007, Ghana discovered
oil in commercial quantities and this has raised hopes but has also generated some fears about the
resource curse.
Ghana‟s post-independence growth record has been one of unevenness. GDP growth was reasonably
high in the 1950s and early 1960s. However, the economy‟s growth began to slow down in 1964 due
mainly to policy failure. By 1983, the economy was almost on the brink of a collapse.
Economic reforms (ERP/SAP) supported by the IMF and the World Bank were instituted to stabilise
the economy and correct a number of structural imbalances in order to spur growth. The economy
responded positively to the ERP/SAP and the favourable trend has continued since that time, with
growth settling around 5 percent for most parts of the almost three decades following the reforms. In
the past six years much higher growth rates have been recorded and with the onset of the production
of oil in commercial quantities in 2010, an exceptionally high real GDP growth of 14 percent was
recorded in 2011.
Ghana‟s long term development goal as contained in the Ghana Shared Growth and Development
Agenda (GSGDA) is to achieve a per capita income of at least US$3,000 by 2020.
1.2 Rationale for Aid-for-Trade
It has long been recognised that low-income countries cannot integrate into the international trading
system on the same terms and conditions as their high-income counterparts. Various concessions such
as trade preferences have been introduced to help low-income countries fully benefit from the
international trading system. However due to productive capacity constraints, arising largely from
human, institutional and other bottlenecks, the challenges low-income economies face in exploiting
market access opportunities continue to persist. Market access - which has assumed centre stage in
multilateral trade negotiations - is thus a necessary but insufficient condition for harnessing the
opportunities trade presents for development in low-income countries.
Aid-for-trade (AfT) is development assistance to bolster trade capacity and reduce trade costs in low
income countries. For it to be effective, however, AfT must address national trade-related priorities
identified through domestic policy formulation processes. Much of the focus of AfT is on agriculture
because of its importance to the economy. Equally important is the need to have a monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) mechanism for assessing the impacts of AfT, particularly in the context of the
country‟s development goals and/or trade policy objectives.
This report sets out to examine the mechanisms for tracking the outcomes of AfT interventions in the
agricultural sector and/ or recommend ways of improving on existing frameworks to enable the
measurement of the performance of AfT interventions towards quantifiable targets and objectives.
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
11
1.3 Terms of Reference
In line with the terms of reference, the report provides:
1. a concise but comprehensive survey of existing mechanisms used in Ghana to manage aid for
trade and development results (including targets and performance indicators);
2. an assessment of the targets and indicators donors use to monitor progress with their aid for
trade-related projects and programmes; and
3. an assessment of the main challenges and constraints -as well as the way they have been
addressed or should be addressed- regarding the introducing of a country-managed aid-for-
trade results framework, which would contribute to fulfilling mutual accountability
requirements.
1.4 Methodology
The approach to the assignment involved an assessment of the existing national monitoring and
evaluation framework for development plans, as well as agriculture sector-specific and donor M&E
systems. It also involved a review of existing national and sectoral development policies, trade policy,
aid policy, and the analyses of data on aid-for-trade flows and donor activities in the agriculture
sector.
Interviews with key state actors and development partners within the national landscape of trade-
related assistance were conducted. Three key MDAs were consulted, namely, the Ministry of Finance
and Economic Planning (MoFEP), whose responsibilities include national aid management and
coordination; the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MoTI), responsible for trade policy formulation and
the development of domestic and international trade; and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture
(MoFA), responsible for developing and executing policies and strategies for the agriculture sector
within the context of a coordinated national socio-economic growth and development agenda.
Interviews were conducted with and data obtained from some development partners active in Ghana‟s
agriculture sector.
1.5 Outline of Report
The rest of the report is structured as follows. Section 2 gives a theoretical background and outlines
some empirical results on the role of trade in development. Ghana‟s past and present trade policies
and the current development framework is discussed in Section 3. Section 4 gives an overview of
Ghana‟s agriculture trade, development cooperation, aid-for-trade flows, and donor activities in the
agriculture sector. Chapter 5 discusses the institutional framework for monitoring and evaluating
development programmes and project, the role of donors, the indicators used for monitoring
agriculture sector objectives, and an assessment of the challenges and constraints in the M&E system.
Concluding remarks on how to manage AfT for results are offered in chapter 6.
2 Role of Trade in Development
The importance of trade to development and growth is well grounded in theory. The rationale for
gains from trade is provided by comparative advantage theory which says all countries gain when
each concentrates on and exports goods that they can produce at lower opportunity cost than their
trading partners. Different explanations have been given for the basis of comparative advantage but
the most dominant one is the Hecksher-Ohlin Model. This says that a country can produce a product
at lower opportunity cost if that product requires intensive use of inputs the country has in relative
abundance. Thus a country well endowed with arable land will tend to have an advantage in
producing agricultural commodities. So long as its trading partners also adhere to the same principle
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
12
they will also gain. The recommendation for countries then is to follow the dictates of comparative
advantage and allow the free interplay of market forces.
The gains derived however are only static. Dynamic gains and growth come in when „resource
allocation according to comparative advantage, higher capacity utilisation and the exploitation of
economies of scale under an outward oriented development strategy improve investment efficiency
where the resulting savings in capital may be used to increase output and employment elsewhere in
the economy.i Other dynamic gains that can lead to growth include the ability of a developing
country especially to acquire the vital inputs such as technology to aid in the development process.
Learning effects are also achieved from the development of new product technologies and information
sources.
However, it has been observed that the transmission of economic growth from the export sector to the
rest of the economy will depend on the capital intensity of the production process, the economies of
scale in export production, the transportation requirements of exports, the availability of underutilised
factors in the rest of the economy, the level of entrepreneurial skills among others. This then hinges
on policies that can be put in place. Studies have shown that this is important. For instance time series
analysis involving 27 developing countries in the 1970s led to the conclusion that the country‟s own
policies rather than external factors dominated export growth in the developing countries. According
to the authors „the results are consistent with the hypothesis that export success is related to
favourable internal factors influencing a country‟s ability to compete and diversify‟.ii
The weight of evidence both theoretical and empirical then points to the fact that trade presents an
opportunity for growth but does not guarantee it. Consequently the onus lies with government to
adopt policies that will create the necessary environment that will ensure positive benefits from trade.
The kinds of policies that matter in this respect involve the building and enhancement of economic
infrastructure and institutions, the building of productive capacity, the kind of trade policies and
regulations undertaken and trade related infrastructure. Since developing countries typically lack
adequate resources to undertake the policies mentioned external resources especially aid are needed.
This is where the question of aid for trade comes in. The need is to create a more competitive
economy.
3 Ghana’s Past and Present Trade Policies and Current Development Framework
3.1 Past and Present Trade Policies
Before Ghana gained political independence in 1957 the trade regime was generally a liberal one with
few restrictions. There was no deliberate effort to promote exports or generally to interfere with the
trading process. This all changed with the coming of independence as Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the first
president, had ambitious plans to accelerate the pace of development of the country.
Nkrumah‟s policies were modelled on those of the former Soviet Union and other socialist states that
required the heavy hand of government in economic activity. The motivation for Nkrumah‟s policies
were reinforced by the ideas of standard development economics of the day which believed that
serious market failure in economies such as Ghana‟s required a lot of government intervention in
economic activity. The level of entrepreneurship was perceived to be low, the kind of investment that
needed to be made required saving levels far in excess of what was forthcoming, the financial system
was undeveloped and markets generally did not work well.iii
To make up for these shortcomings the government established numerous state enterprises in the
agricultural, manufacturing and the services sectors. Massive infrastructural projects such as the
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
13
Akosombo Hydro Electric Dam, the artificial harbour at Tema and the Accra-Tema Motorway were
built. In this kind of strategy, market forces had to take a back seat. With respect to trade and
industrial policy the import substitution strategy was pursued. This required state support for
industries based more on „national interest‟ than economics. The exchange rate was kept overvalued
to let in cheap inputs for the industries but heavy restrictions were placed on final good imports to
curtail competition for the industries created. The result of such a policy was to penalise exports as
foreign exchange earnings exchanged for relatively fewer local currency units. The policy thus led to
a shrinking trade sector to which the government responded with more interventions, restrictions and
controls. Even after the overthrow of the Nkrumah regime in 1966 such policies were largely pursued
with disastrous results
Given the poor state of the Ghanaian economy by the early 1980s, there was obviously the need for
economic reforms. Increasing globalisation and the need to respond to it also made reforms
imperative. Ghana thus launched the Economic Recovery and Structural Adjustment Programmes
(ERP/SAP) in 1983 with the support of the IMF and the World Bank. The main goal of Ghana‟s
ERP/SAP was to shift the trade regime towards more liberal, market oriented and outward oriented
policies. The objectives for the external sector were to restore incentives for the production of exports
and increase the overall availability of foreign exchange, and to improve the foreign exchange
allocation and channel it into selected high priority areas. Trade policy under the Programme included
tariff reductions, removal of quantitative restrictions on imports, liberalisation of foreign exchange,
deregulation of domestic market prices and controls and institutional reforms that particularly affected
revenue-generating bodies such as the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS). Performance
improved and both exports and imports have been growing since 1984.
These policies were further reinforced in 2005 when a new trade policy was adopted. This policy was
set within the context of Ghana‟s long-term strategic vision of achieving middle-income status by
2012 and becoming a leading agro-industrial country in Africa. The policy provides clear and
transparent guidelines for the implementation of Government‟s domestic and international trade
agenda. It is also designed to ensure a consistent and stable policy environment within which the
private sector and consumers can operate effectively and with certainty.
This policy emphasised two parallel strategies: an export led industrialisation strategy and a domestic
market led industrialisation on import competition. These new strategies are supported through the
promotion of increased competitiveness of local producers in domestic and international markets
based on fair and equal competition and by introducing an import and domestic trade regime which
promotes and protects consumer interests.
Apart from the realisation that it was necessary to encourage the full interplay of market forces it was
also recognised that the business environment mattered to the private sector and that infrastructure,
both institutional and economic mattered. Additional policies that specifically targeted the export
sector were also adopted. While the bias against exports was largely removed by the adoption of a
market determined exchange rate more specific measures were taken to support the sector. For cocoa,
Ghana‟s main agricultural export, the aim was to increase foreign exchange earnings and to maintain
Ghana‟s distinctive position as the supplier of the finest and most consistent quality cocoa in addition
to retaining the traditional premium obtained by Ghana‟s cocoa on world markets. While subsidies on
inputs were removed, the distribution of inputs to farmers was privatised and credit was made
available to farmers to purchase inputs. The most important measure though was the increase in the
producer price paid to farmers. By the start of the reforms the percentage of the world price received
by farmers had fallen to as low as 25%. It was even in single digits if assessed at parallel market
rates.iv This percentage was thus gradually increased and was 76.04% in 2011.
v Since 2001 the
government has also intensified the mass spraying of cocoa farms. The operations of Ghana Cocoa
Board (COCOBOD) were also streamlined in order to reduce overhead costs and to intensify research
on diseases and pest controls.
Other traditional exports benefited from reforms as seen from Section 4. One of the principal aims of
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
14
the reform programme was the diversification of exports and right from the beginning non-traditional
exports were targeted. Duty free imports of machinery were allowed and income tax rebates were
given to exporters. A foreign exchange retention scheme for non-traditional exports was gradually
liberalised and eventually the policy whereby exporters were to surrender their foreign exchange
earnings to the central bank was abolished. Currently, non-traditional exporters pay a company tax
rate of 8 percent instead of 35 percent. All these incentives led to a big increase in the agricultural
sector as seen in Section 4.
3.2 The Current Development Policy Framework
Since 1957, several policies and programmes to accelerate the growth of the economy and raise the
living standards of citizens have been pursued with varying degrees of success. Policies pursued over
the past two decades include Ghana Vision 2020: The First Step (1996-2000); the First Medium-Term
Plan (1997- 2000); Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (2003-2005); and the Growth and Poverty
Reduction Strategy (2006-2009). The overall policy framework being used now is the Ghana Shared
Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA 2010-2013). This is what guides overall policy and is
quite comprehensive.
The GSGDA is anchored on the following themes:
i. Ensuring and sustaining macroeconomic stability;
ii. Enhanced competitiveness of Ghana‟s private sector;
iii. Accelerated agricultural modernisation and natural resource management;
iv. Oil and gas development;
v. Infrastructure, energy and human settlements development;
vi. Human development, employment and productivity; and
vii. Transparent and accountable governance.
The overarching goal of this medium-term economic development policy is to achieve and sustain
economic stability while placing the economy on a path of higher growth in order to attain a per
capita income of at least US$3,000 by 2020. The macroeconomic framework emphasises
interventions in the following policy areas:
1. Monetary and financial sectors;
2. Fiscal policy management;
3. Economic policy management;
4. International trade management ; and
5. Employment, unemployment and wage policies.
Thus within the framework, trade features prominently and aspects of Ghana‟s Trade Policy
document are firmly embedded within it. International trade management under the policy emphasises
on improving export competitiveness and diversifying and increasing exports and markets. The
chapter of the GSGDA on „Enhancing the Competitiveness of the private sector‟ stresses on removing
barriers to trade and investment, reducing the cost of doing business by removing internal value chain
and institutional constraints. Also recognised in the document is the need to invest in modern
infrastructure and to enhance institutions to reduce the cost of doing business. Thus trade policy is
mainstreamed and is recognised as an integral part of overall policy.
The GSGDA policy document also emphasises clearly the importance of the agriculture sector.
Ghana‟s agriculture is dominated by subsistence small holder production units with weak linkages to
industry and the services sectors. The sector is also characterised by low level of technology and
productivity, low income and uncompetitiveness in production, processing and distribution. The main
focus of agriculture development, over the medium-term, will be to accelerate the modernisation of
agriculture through the implementation of sector-specific policy programmes, namely, the Food and
Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP II) and the corresponding investment plan as
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
15
detailed in the Medium-Term Agricultural Sector Investment Plan (METASIP) and ensure an effective
linkage between agriculture and industry.
FASDEP II has six objectives which are
1. Food Security and Emergency Preparedness
2. Increased growth in incomes
3. Increased competitiveness and enhanced integration into domestic and international markets
4. Sustainable management of Land and the Environment
5. Science and Technology for Food and Agricultural Development
6. Institutional co-ordination
These are envisaged to have a high degree of synergy and they all contribute to the attainment of the
overall objective of modernised agriculture, a structurally transformed economy, food security,
employment and reduced poverty. Thus under the second objective rural infrastructure is to be
enhanced but this will also enhance the third objective. Overall the aim is to enhance learning and
innovation which will provide the basis for high technology adoption and subsequent high
productivity and income growth.
More directly related to trade is the third objective which talks about increased competitiveness. Here
FASDEP II identifies the global food crisis as an opportunity, which Ghana can take advantage of,
given our resource endowment in agriculture. The overarching goal then is to enhance Ghana‟s
comparative advantage with measures that will complement the resource endowment. Three main
areas are identified for more attention. These are expanding production for the growing internal
market, further development of agricultural exports and post-production management. Within each
area constraints are identified and appropriate policy interventions proposed. For domestic marketing
the main proposal is to „encourage partnership between private sector and District Assemblies to
develop trade in local and regional markets with improved market infrastructure and sanitary
conditions, and enforce standard of good agricultural practices‟ (FASDEP II). To complement this it
is proposed to build capacity within the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to provide marketing
extension. For expanding exports the main strategy is to „provide comprehensive support of improved
access of operators to market information and intelligence, technology, relevant market infrastructure
and financing to enable operators to respond to the changing needs of market‟ (ditto). For post-
production management the main strategy is to „improve supply chain management with emphasis on
developing clusters of small to medium-scale farmers and processors to enhance access to technical
advice and logistics‟ (ditto).
FASDEP II is being implemented through METASIP and there is a consistency between the
objectives of the two. There is however a slight disconnect between the objectives specified under
FASDEP II and the GSGDA even though GSGDA talks about achieving its objectives through the
implementation of FASDEP II. In the GSGDA document the main components of the agriculture
modernization strategy are
a) Improving Agricultural Productivity
b) Increasing Agricultural Competitiveness and Enhanced Integration into Domestic and
International Markets
c) Reducing Production and Distribution Risks/Bottlenecks in Agriculture and Industry
d) Selected Crops Development
e) Livestock and Poultry Development
f) Promotion of Fisheries Development
g) Improving Institutional Coordination (GSGDA, 2010)
While some of these might overlap the differences suggest some challenges with co-ordination that
will need to be rectified. The result of this disconnect is that the indicators used to assess progress in
the various documents are different.
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
16
It is expected that implementation of these agricultural and other complementary strategies would
enhance the competitiveness of the agricultural sector to promote exports. These sector specific plans
have M&E systems based on a national M&E framework with clearly defined targets and indicators
for measuring outcomes. This M&E framework is discussed in Section 5.
4 Agricultural Trade, Development Cooperation and Aid Flows
4.1 Agricultural Trade Performance
The economy of Ghana is largely agrarian. The agriculture sector has been the largest contributor to
the country‟s GDP until recently when the services sector took over (Figure 1). The economy is quite
open to trade with exports constituting about 20 percent of GDP and imports hovering around 32
percent on average over the past 10 years (Figure 2) but these values remain below the Sub-African
average. Exports in particularly have exhibited stronger positive growth than imports over the past 10
years. Europe imports the bulk of Ghana‟s exports. The Netherlands has been the single largest
destination of Ghana‟s exports, consistently recording above a share of 11 percent over the 10 year
period 2000-2010 (Figure 3). The dominance of cocoa in Ghana‟s agriculture trade is obvious from
Figure 4. Export revenues from cocoa have exhibited remarkable increases due to both price and
output increases in the last few years. Revenues from the export of non-traditional agricultural
products have remained largely stagnant over the last 10 years (Figure 4).
Figure 1 Sector shares in GDP (%) Figure 2 Exports and imports shares of GDP (%)
Figure 3 Export destination shares (%) Figure 4 Agriculture export revenues (US$ m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Agriculture Services Industry
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Exports/GDP Imports/GDP
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
UK USA Netherlands France Belgium
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Cocoa Timber Non-traditional Agriculture
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
17
Figure 5 Export earnings shares (%) Figure 6 Export concentration and diversification
indices
Figure 5 shows that non-agriculture products (mainly gold)vi and cocoa remain the country‟s two
major commodity export earners. Cocoa and gold account for more than 70 percent of total export
earnings with minerals having a slight edge. Cocoa exports displaced minerals as the major export
earner in 2004, the first time in over a decade. Non-traditional exports (NTEs) have been promoted as
part of the ERP/SAP. Figure 5 shows that agricultural NTEs contribute less than 10 percent of export
earnings and this share has been declining in recent years. In spite of efforts at diversifying the export
base, however, the country‟s exports continue to be dominated by a few products as revealed by the
export concentrationvii
and diversification indices in Figure 6.
As at 2011, export earnings from agriculture amounted to just a little over 30 percent. Clearly, there is
need to intensify efforts at increasing the share of agriculture in Ghana‟s trade. Aid-for-trade can be a
catalyst in this regard.
4.2 Development Cooperation
Ghana has been involved in development cooperation agreements and arrangements with both
industrialized and developing countries for many years. Development cooperation is both bilateral and
multilateral in nature. The most important development cooperation is with the European Union. The
Ghana-EU development cooperation dates back to more than 35 years. Development cooperation
between the EU and Ghana began with the first Lome Convention in 1975. Since 1975 the European
Commission (EC) has provided an estimated amount of 1.2 billion Euros in terms of development aid
to Ghana. This has over the years been allocated to sectors such as transport and infrastructure,
agriculture and rural development, macro-economic and budget support, governance and social
sectors, environment and natural resources, trade and private sector development, and other activities
such as technical cooperation, support activities etc. At present, between 40-50 percent of all Official
Development Assistance (ODA) received by Ghana is financed by the EU (both European
Commission and EU Member States). Unlike the World Bank, African Development Bank and some
other major donors, the overwhelming majority of the ODA that stems from the EU is provided in the
form of grants.
As a member of the ACP group of countries, the main source for EC funding to Ghana is the five year
European Development Fund (EDF), which at present is in its 10th edition (2008-2013). For all ACP
countries together a total amount of 21,966 billion Euros is available in the 10th EDF. Throughout the
years, subsequent EDF‟s have funded in Ghana a multitude of projects and programmes in the
following sectors: rural development, infrastructure, water and sanitation, governance, private sector
development and macroeconomic support. The selection of focal sectors (applying the principle of
complementarity between development partners and thus concentrating EC assistance in a limited
number of sectors) is done once every five years jointly between the European Commission and the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Cocoa Timber
Non-traditional agriculture Non-agriculture
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Export Diversification Index
Export Concentration Index
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
18
Government of Ghana in a Country Strategy Paper (CSP) and an ensuing multi-year National
Indicative Programme (NIP).
Other stakeholders, such as civil society, Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and
development partners are systematically consulted during the preparation process. In this whole
process, the EU is committed to the principle of „ownership‟, meaning that partner countries are
expected to set the priorities of the strategies and programmes which affect them. The European
Commission also aligns its CSP and NIP to the national development strategy of the country. In
Ghana this was the case with the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS) for the period
2003-2009. The current development framework, the Ghana Shared Growth and Development
Agenda (GSGDA) also provides the framework in which development partners will operate in Ghana
between 2010 and 2013.
A renewed EU development policy framework in support of inclusive growth and sustainable
development and aimed at increasing the impact of EU development policy underpins the 11th EDF
programmed for 2014-2020. There are three main priority areas for the 11th EDF, namely,
1. Good Governance (democracy, human resource, gender, public financial management, public
sector management, civil society, natural resources management).
2. Sustainable Growth (key sectors are private sector development, trade, regional integration,
agriculture and energy).
3. Social Inclusiveness (social and human development, i.e., health, education, social
protection).
According to the EU, national development strategy provides a sufficient basis for implementing the
programme. The GoG-DP Compact for Ghana‟s transition until 2022, based on GSGDA 2010-2013
and the Ghana Aid Policy and Strategy 2011-2015 are therefore to serve as strategy documents.
4.3 Aid-for-Trade Flows
Ghana receives a significant amount of aid by African standards. Figure 7 shows ODA commitments
as captured by the OECD CRS into three sectors often associated with aid-for-trade for the period
1995-2010. The bulk of AfT goes into economic infrastructure and the building of productive
capacities of the real sectors of the economy (such as agriculture). Except for the years 1995, 1998,
2002, 2003 and 2005 the agriculture sector received at least 50 percent of aid into building productive
capacity (Figure 8). It received a high of 93.6 percent of the total flows into building productive
capacity in 2007.
Figure 7 Gross ODA commitments, Figure 8 Agriculture share of productive capacity
2010 US$ m AfT commitments (%)
0 200 400 600 800 1000
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Economic infrastructure Building productive capacity Trade policy
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Building productive capacity
Agriculture capacity
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
19
Figure 9 Top 10 donors -all sectors, 2001-2010 Figure 10 Top 10 donors -agriculture, 2001-2010
(2010 US$ m) (2010 US$ m)
Figure 9 shows the 10 top donors, both bilateral and multilateral over the ten year period 2001-2010.
The 10 major sources of AfT flows into agriculture over the past 10 years are the United States,
Canada, IDA, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, IFAD, the EU and the Netherlands (Figure
10).
4.4 Donor Activities in the Agriculture Sector
There is significant donor presence in the agriculture sector of Ghana. Both bilateral and multilateral
are involved. The United Kingdom, the United States, Denmark, Canada, Germany France,
Netherlands, and Japan are among Ghana‟s most important bilateral donors. Multilateral assistance
comes from institutions like the World Bank, the EU, the African Development Bank and United
Nations agencies like IFAD, WFP and FAO as well as international NGOs.
Most of the projects and programmes by donors are aligned with the country‟s development
objectives in agriculture as contained in the GSGDA/FASDEP documents. However examination of
their activities shows that only a few of them focus explicitly on activities with a trade element. For
example, the German GIZ is engaged in what is called the Market Oriented Agriculture Programme
(MOAP), which is aimed at agricultural producers and other actors in the agriculture sector involved
in processing and trade. The project‟s objective is to improve their ability to compete in national,
regional and international markets. Components of the programme are a) promotion of selected value
chains; b) strengthening of private sector organisations; and c) improving service delivery of public
sector institutions. Similarly, the USAID‟s Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement
(ADVANCE) programme, which aims to transform Ghana‟s agricultural sector through increased
competitiveness in domestic, regional and international markets. The ADVANCE has as its
components a) value chain competitiveness; b) market access and development; and c) access to
financial services. The AfDB is also engaged in the Export Marketing and Quality Awareness Project.
The project has the goal of increasing export earnings of non-traditional agricultural products.
Targeted products are pineapple, mango, pawpaw, and vegetables. It is expected that the incomes of
horticultural crop farmers and exporters of cassava products will be increased. Components of the
project are a) production and productivity enhancement; b) export marketing promotion and
infrastructure improvement; c) capacity building; and d) project management and coordination.
Boxes 1 and 2 present some exemplary donor activities by the US and German governments in
Ghana‟s agriculture sector.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
20
Box 1: USAID Agriculture Activity in Ghana
Ghana is a „focus‟ country for a US Government-wide initiative Feed the Future (FtF).The USAID 2011-2015
multi-year FtF strategy is aligned with the Government of Ghana‟s Medium Term Agricultural Strategic
Implementation Plan (METASIP) and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP)
compact.
The strategic focus is on commercializing staple crop systems, such as rice, maize and soya, and improving
management of coastal resources such as marine fisheries. The approach includes closing the yield gaps and
reducing pre- and post-harvest losses, improving the efficiency of value chains, and strengthening the regulatory
system and policy frameworks to support regional trade. Investments in rural infrastructure and attention to
improving access to financing are central to the strategy.
Current Activities
Agriculture Development Value Chain Enhancement Program (ADVANCE) is a $32M; four-year program
(2009-2013) designed to improve the competitiveness of key agricultural commodity value chains in domestic
and regional markets, with a significant focus on the three northern regions.
Ghana Strategic Support Program (GSSP) has $17M to focus on agricultural research and policy platforms
that will ultimately modernize the agriculture sector, particularly staple crops, through 2013.
Integrated Coastal and Fisheries Governance (ICFG) is a four-year, $10M program designed to assist Ghana
to sustainably manage its coastal and marine ecosystems and improve the livelihoods and food security of
coastal communities through 2013.
Peace Corps volunteers will support agricultural production of maize, rice, and soybean, improve farmer
business and marketing skills, ensure a greater role for women, build bankable credit-worthy programs, test
alternative on-farm or processing energy options, and extend new technologies in the three northern regions of
Ghana through 2013.
Business Sector Advocacy Challenge (BUSAC), a challenge fund with pooled funding from Danida and the
EU is receiving $4M from USAID to work on improving the business environment in Ghana to facilitate private
sector growth, including in the agricultural sector, through 2014.
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Technical Support Services (METSS) is a 3 year program implemented by
USDA ending in 2013. METSS supports USAID/Ghana in the design and oversight of new programs under FtF,
provides direct technical support to the implementation of Ghana‟s Medium Term Agriculture Sector
Investment Plan (METASIP), and provides monitoring and evaluation services for both FtF and METASIP.
Box 2: German Development Cooperation in Agriculture
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
21
Overall context and objectives of the German Development Cooperation Agriculture is one of the three focal sectors of the German Development Cooperation. The overall objective of
German involvement in the agricultural sector is to improve the income of the rural population by supporting
value chain approaches and to strengthen small-scale commercial farmers to be able to compete in national,
regional and international markets.
Key issues
1. Improve productivity along agricultural value chains to increase competitiveness
2. Increase compliance with international quality and standard demands
3. Recognize the role of the private sector as a main driver of development
4. Adapt capacities of the civil service to the changing role of government
5. Improve the access to finance of the actors in the value chain
GDC Strategic areas of focus The German Government support to the agriculture sector has two components: Financial Cooperation (FC) and
Technical Cooperation (TC).
The FC component provides innovative agricultural financing under the Programme for the Promotion of
Perennial Crops and the Outgrower and Value Chain Fund (OVCF). The objectives of OVCF are to:
1. Improve access to medium to long-term finance using market mechanisms in cooperation with the
banking sector.
2. Promote outgrowers, outgrowers‟ schemes and integration of smallholders into commercial agriculture.
The TC component, under the Market Oriented Agricultural Programme (MOAP), provides support in three key
areas:
1. Support to specific value chains development and value addition.
2. Institutional and policy support to government.
3. Support to private sector organisation and development.
Institutions of the German Development Cooperation in Ghana are Kreditanstallt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) for
Financial Cooperation, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) for Technical
Cooperation and the German Institute of Metrology (PTB).
To date, nine value chains have been supported (rubber, mango, pineapple, citrus, chili pepper, maize, guinea
fowl, grass cutter and fish) in five regions of Ghana. 5800 farmers have been directly supported in addition to
processing companies.
Key achievements include increased income and gender participation, improved access to finance/markets and
job creation.
Some Specific activities supported FC: KfW access to finance (2004-2013) - Promotion of Perennial Crops Programme (6 million €, co-financed
with AFD) and Outgrower and Value Chain Fund (11 million €)
TC: GIZ Market Oriented Agriculture Programme (25 million € for 9 years 2004 – 2013)
Future support areas 24 more million € are committed to the Outgrower and Value Chain Fund, 3 million € for supporting climate
adaptation of agricultural ecosystems.
Currently many other donors both bilateral and multilateral including CIDA, USAID, GIZ, AFD,
JICA, the World Bank, IFAD, amongst others are engaged in various programmes and projects to
support to the agriculture sector to meet both domestic and international objectives, such as food
security, poverty reduction, and ability to compete in national, regional and international markets.
Annex A summarizes some selected ongoing activities of donors in the agriculture sector.
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
22
5 Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Programmes
5.1 Introduction
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) has served as an essential management tool under previous
development strategies such as GPRS I and GPRS II. This M&E framework has provided an
additional impetus both in the pursuit of policy, programme and project effectiveness, as well as
ensuring accountability, responsiveness and transparency in the allocation of resources. The M&E
system for the GSGDA is based on that of GPRS II and has been designed to ensure the availability of
reliable and comparable information at the national, regional and district levels for policy makers and
planners. Institutional arrangements for coordinating the system, including analyses and mode of
reporting on impacts and outcomes of the GSGDA to different stakeholders, including the
Government of Ghana, private sector, and civil society as well as development partners, have been set
up..
The remainder of this section discusses the indicators for measuring outcomes of agriculture sector
programmes, institutional arrangements for monitoring and evaluating projects and programmes,
particularly into the agriculture sector, how the M&E system is functioning, the extent of involvement
of development partners and an assessment of the challenges and constraints of the M&E system.
5.2 Indicators for Measuring Outcomes of Agriculture Sector Programmes
The focus of the agricultural development strategy under the GSGDA is to enhance the modernisation
of agriculture to substantially contribute to the structural transformation of the economy. There are a
set of indicators for the assessment of progress made over time in relation to the agriculture sector
objectives. While only a couple of indicators might be considered as having direct focus on
agriculture trade, achievement of other indicators may also have an indirect impact on trade. Thus
some indicators that might have an indirect effect on trade outcomes are also discussed. However, due
to some differences between GSGDA and FASDEP II, indicators from both documents are presented.
Under the GSGDA strategies for the agriculture sector that have a direct trade element are:
1. Improving agricultural productivity;
2. Increasing agricultural competitiveness and enhanced integration into domestic and
international markets; and
3. Promotion of selected (export) crops development
Specific indicators to achieve the objectives are
- Percentage change in output of production of selected crops.
- Percentage change in output /yield per unit area (Mt/ha).
- Total volume and value of agricultural commodities exported.
- Total volume of cocoa produced (Mt).
- Share of cocoa output processed locally.
- Tonnage of shea butter exported annually.
Other GSGDA strategies that do not explicitly have trade objectives but might impact trade outcomes
indirectly include:
a) Reduction of production and distribution risks/bottlenecks in agriculture and industry
b) Improved institutional coordination
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
23
Indicators to measure progress on these fronts include the following:
- Percentage change in number of outlets and sales points of agro-inputs.
- Percentage change in agro-chemical imports.
- Production of foundation seeds (Mt):
- Fertilizer imports (Mt).
- Tractor-farmer ratio.
- Number of agricultural mechanization services centres established.
- Total number of famers trained in the proper use and handling of farm machinery.
- Extension officer-farmer ratio.
- Total number of beneficiaries with access to various agriculture technologies.
- Percentage of cultivated lands under irrigation.
- Share of credit to agriculture, forestry and fishing by deposit money banks (excluding cocoa).
- Percentage change in post-harvest losses.
- Percentage of agriculture sector budget allocated to support extension services.
- Number of intra-sectoral and inter-ministerial coordination activities undertaken.
Annex B provides a summary of specific indicators, their definitions and progress made in achieving
these targets as at 2010.
There is another extensive set of indicators under the objectives of FASDEP II, which while similar in
some cases to that of GSGDA are different for the most part. As was done above, indicators with both
expect direct and indirect trade impacts are discussed.
The main trade strategy under FASDEP II is increased competitiveness and enhanced integration into
domestic and international markets, which is similar to the GSGDA. Indicators are however quite
from the GSGSA and include,
- Export of non-traditional agricultural commodities by men and women smallholders
increased by 50% by 2015.
- Grading and standardization systems of agricultural commodities (crops, livestock and fish)
made functional and effective by 2012.
Other FASDEP strategies that might have an indirect effect on trade and/or meet other broader
development goals of the country such wealth creation and poverty reduction include, Application of
science and technology in food and agriculture development, improved institutional coordination
(same as GSGDA) and increased growth in incomes.
The indicators under these strategies are quite many and include the following:
- Adoption of improved technologies by men and women along the value chain increased by
25%. - Laws and regulations to enhance the application of biotechnology in agriculture in place by
2011 and assessment of the country‟s biotechnology research potential by 2012. - Increased number of agricultural technologies developed. - Research extension linkage strengthened and made functional. - Capacity for planning, policy analysis and M&E at national, regional and district level
developed by 2015. - A communications strategy within MOFA is developed and implemented by 2012. - All cost centres within MOFA and relevant MDAs are adequately resourced and capacities
for electronic financial data capture and reporting and asset management are built by 2011. - The human, material, logistics and skills resource capacity of all directorates of MOFA and
relevant MDAs are built by 2012. - A joint platform for collaboration between MOFA and other MDAs established by end of
2011.
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
24
- A platform for private sector and civil society engagement with MDAs established by end of
2011. - Income from cash crop production by men and women increased by 20% and 30%
respectively by 2015.
- Efficient pilot value chains developed for two selected commodities in each agro-ecological
zone.
- Development of out-grower schemes and FBOs intensified and three-tier FBO structure
achieved in all districts by 2015.
- Cost of transportation of agriculture produce in rural areas reduced by at least 5% in areas
where infrastructure has been improved.
While the FASDEP II is the main agriculture sector strategy and is expected to feed into the national
framework, which is the GSGDA, the problem though is the lack of harmonization between the
indicators for the two sets of documents. Only two of the components match somewhat. Under
GSGDA, the second component is „Increasing Agricultural Competitiveness and Enhance Integration
into Domestic and International Markets‟ while under FASDEP II the third component is „Increased
Competitiveness and Integration into Markets‟. The problem though is that even here the indicators
are different as shown above. The last component for each of them is “Improved Institutional
coordination”. Here also there is a difference in the indicators.
5.3 The Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
5.3.1 National Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements
The institutional arrangements for monitoring and evaluation of government policies and programmes
are derived primarily from the country‟s political and administrative system, which in itself is
anchored on the country‟s constitution. Key institutions involved in the M&E system include: Office
of the President, Parliament, National Development Planning Commission (NDPC), MoFEP, Ghana
Statistical Service, Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Divisions (PPMEDs) of MDAs, Cross
Sectoral Planning Groups (CSPGs), Regional Monitoring Groups, District Monitoring Groups and
Civil Society Organisations. The National Development Planning Commission is expected to provide
technical coordination of the system in collaboration with MoFEP and the Ghana Statistical Service
(GSS).
To ensure improved implementation of the M&E plan the institutional arrangements currently in place
give greater responsibility to the PPMEDs of MDAs and the Regional and District Monitoring groups.
These institutions are required to monitor the key indicators and prepare annual reports on their
performance. The NDPC will then collate, synthesise and harmonise these reports into a national
Annual Progress Report (APR).
Figure 11 shows the institutional arrangements in place to monitor and evaluate the implementation of
national development policy.
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
25
Figure 11 National monitoring and evaluation framework
NDPC
MDAsCSOs
Think-
Tanks
Cross
Sectoral
Planning
Groups
(CSPGs) (4
District Monitoring
Groups (DMGs)
EBPM Technical
Committee
Ministry of Finance and
Economic Planning
Office of the PresidentParliament/Parliamentary
Sub-Committees on Finance
& Poverty Reduction
Ghana Statistical Service
Regional
Monitoring
Groups
(RMG)
The MoFEP, NDPC and GSS are the key government institution responsible for ensuring proper
functioning of the national M&E system. The success of the M&E system therefore hinges on how
effectively these institutions play their coordination roles. Apart from these key institutions, there is
the Cross Sectoral Planning Group (CSPGs) which comprises stakeholders from MDAs, DPs, Private
Sector and NGOs/CSOs at the national level. It is the framework within which Annual Progress
Reports are prepared.
5.3.2 Sectoral Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements
Apart from the national M&E system, there is the sectoral M&E system. Key stakeholders involved in
M&E at the sectoral level include MDAs (at regional and district levels), Regional Planning
Coordinating Units and the District Planning Coordinating Units. Development Partners and Civil
Society Organizations (CSOs) are integral part of all the groups operating at all levels, particularly
with the advent of sector dialogues under the MDBS arrangement. Figure 12 illustrates the structure
for the sector M&E system.
Figure 12 Sector monitoring and evaluation framework
District SectorDepartment
DPCU
Regional SectorDepartment
RPCU
PPMED NDPC
The responsibilities for M&E are different at each level of the structure. The PPMED has oversight
and support responsibilities at the sector level. The Regional Sector Department (RSD) has an
important function in providing the link between the districts and the national level. RSDs act as a
major clearinghouse that validate and verify information on projects and indicator achievements from
the district level, before they are received at the Regional Planning Coordinating Units (RPCU) and
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
26
PPMED. The District Sector Department has direct responsibility for the development and
implementation of the District Sector M&E Work Plan and collating and coordinating feedback from
the sub-district levels for onward transmission to the RSD.
5.3.3 Decentralised System of Monitoring and Evaluation
Another important component of the national M&E system is the District M&E system. It comprises
the regional and district planning coordinating units.
5.3.3.1 Monitoring and Evaluation Functions of RPCU
The Regional Planning Coordinating Unit serves as a secretariat for the Regional Coordinating
Council (RCC) to perform its coordination, monitoring, evaluation, and harmonization functions
specified under Section 8 of the National Development Planning (Systems) Act, 1994, Act 480. The
RPCU is mandated to co-opt other sector agency heads, persons from the private sector and civil
society organizations who have special expertise in a given field.
5.3.3.2 Monitoring and Evaluation Functions of DPCU
The District Planning Coordinating Unit (DPCU) assists the District Assembly to execute designated
development planning functions. The National Development Planning (Systems) Act, 1994, Act 480
defines the DPCU‟s planning, programming, monitoring, evaluation and co-ordinating functions. The
DPCU is mandated to co-opt representatives from other sector agencies, persons from the private
sector and civil society organizations with relevant expertise in a given area.
The responsibilities of the DPCU amongst others are to liaise with RPCU to agree on goals and
targets, and to collect and collate feedback from the sub-district levels for preparation of the District
APR.
The decentralized M&E institutional and reporting framework is summarised in Figure 13.
Figure 13 Decentralised monitoring and evaluation framework
Roles
DPCU
• Prepare Guidelines, Training
Manuals and Build M&E capacity
•Assist to create the necessary
supporting conditions for M&E,
etc.
•Guide districts to develop and
implement M&E Plans
•Conduct review workshops
•Prepare Regional APRs, etc.
RPCU
NDPC
Key Actors
•Develop & implement M&E
Plans
•Collect, Collate & Analyse Data
•Prepare District APRs, etc.
• NDPC
•Cross-Sectoral Planning
Group
•RPCU
•Other sector agencies
•Representatives of CSOs
•Private sector actors
•DPCU
•Other sector agencies
•Representatives of TAs and
CSOs
•Private sector actors
Information Flow and
Feedback
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
27
In order to strengthen the capacities of the sectors, regions, and districts to respond to the current
M&E needs at the national level, M&E guidelines have been developed for the sectors and Districts to
develop their respective M&E plans. The objective of this is to ensure that all sectors and districts
prepare Annual Progress Reports on the implementation of their sector and district plans respectively,
based on agreed set of indicators.
Thus MoFA monitoring and evaluation of agriculture sector programmes and projects follows the
above three-tier framework. Actual outcomes of various agriculture sector indicators are collated at
the district level by district statisticians and forward to the regional level for aggregation. The regional
values are then aggregated to obtain the national level outcomes. The national level outcomes form
the basis for the preparation of the Annual Performance Reports of MoFA which also feeds into the
preparation of the GSGDA Annual Progres Reports.
5.4 Donor Monitoring & Evaluation and Coordination between Donors and MoFA
Donor monitoring and evaluation of agriculture sector projects and programmes occurs through three
main channels.
Project reports
MoFA Annual Performance Reports
Joint Sector Reviews (JSR)
The JSR is an annual platform agreed in 2007 for key agriculture sector stakeholders to assess the
extent of implementation of the METASIP and ascertain progress towards the achievement of
expected outputs, outcomes and challenges of the agricultural sector. It also serves as a forum to
make recommendations to feed into the medium-term planning and budgeting exercises, build a
consensus on sector priorities, and to inform future plans and budgets for MoFA and sector-related
MDAs and also provide the focus for Development Partners (DP) support and private sector
participation. The JSR was formed so as to aid in the harmonization and alignment of development
aid and the Agriculture Sector Wide Approach (SWAp) Agenda. Main actors in the JSR include
MoFA (Ministers, Chief Director, National and Regional Directors and other staff), Development
Partners (DPs), other Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), private sector and civil society.
The first JSR was carried out in 2008, and to date five of such reviews have been conducted. The JSR
reviews performance of the agriculture sector based on MoFA‟s Annual Performance Review report.
Under the JSR, four working groups are constituted each year to deal with specific but revolving
priority areas. For instance, 2012 had the following priority areas, namely, a) sector performance in
2011 and achievement of policy/programme objectives and performance benchmarks, b) review of
recommendations of MoFA policy initiatives, including fertilizer subsidy, NAFCO, AMSEC and
block farm programme, c) review of policies/concepts to improve agricultural research and
environmental sustainability, and d) agricultural finance and financial management. Discussions
during the JSR centre on progress made in achieving targets set on agreed priority areas, what
constraints and challenges were encountered and recommendations for dealing with these constraints.
Thus the reviews highlight areas in which significant achievements have been made and areas where
problems still persist.
From the above it can be argued that by and large donors use country systems for monitoring and
evaluation and this takes place within the JSR. In spite of this joint review system, however, some
donors continue to use their own systems of monitoring and evaluation. For instance, in the areas of
projects, CIDA uses a blend of its own and GoG M&E systems.
There is also the Agricultural Sector Working Group (ASWG), which is a policy dialogue platform
for engaging Government of Ghana (GoG) and Development Partners (DPs) on delivering on the
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
28
agriculture sector objectives of GSGDA (2010-2013). The ASWG is smaller in membership than the
JSR and meetings are held monthly and quarterly compared to the JSR which is an annual forum. The
ASWG implements the recommendations from the JSR. Presently 11 OECD-DAC members are
engaged in the Agriculture Sector Working Group. There are also a number of development partners
from philanthropic foundations, NGOs and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) who participate in the
dialogue process of the Sector Group.
Development partners who are members of the Agriculture Sector working Group are:
African Development Bank (AfDB)
Agence Français de Développement (AFD – France)
Alliance for Green Revolution for Africa (AGRA)
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Engineers Without Borders (EWB)
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA)
Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN (FAO)
German Development Cooperation (GIZ-KfW)
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
Japan International Corporation Agency (JICA)
Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Science (JIRCAS)
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
World Bank (WB)
World Food Programme (WFP)
The structure of the dialogue process is as follows:
Multi Donor Budgetary Support (MDBS) consultations and negotiations are coordinated
by MoFEP and the MDBS Core Group based on prior consultation at the sector level.
There are monthly meetings of the DPs Agriculture Sector Group, jointly chaired by rotating
DP representatives and MoFA.
There are three thematic MoFA - DP sub-groups chaired jointly by a MoFA Director and a
DP for;
a) Policy, harmonization and Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) issues;
b) Human Resource, Development & Management; and
c) Public Finance and Administration.
These groups meet irregularly on demand, mandated by the dynamics of the issues at stake.
Apart from the above joint engagements there are exchanges and dialogues between the individual
DPs and MoFA on a broad variety of issues from policy to implementation issues and administrative
requirements of individual DPs and their project implementation arrangements.
The ASWG platform offers the opportunity to jointly discuss the implementation of agriculture sector
objectives and priorities, and ascertain progress towards the achievement of expected outputs,
outcomes and challenges of the agricultural sector and make clear and operationally-focused
recommendations of priority reforms/ measures to feed into the medium-term planning and budgeting
exercises. Achievement of consensus on priorities is to inform future plans and budgets for MOFA
and sector-related MDAs and also provide the focus for Development Partners (DP) support and
private sector participation. Coordination issues between DP programmes and between MDAs are
also discussed. Thus it helps in avoiding duplication of efforts by DPs and MDAs and narrow gaps in
coordination and development efforts.
While stakeholders of the JSR generally agree that the forum offers the opportunity for harmonising
donor and government programmes for the agriculture sector, very often, recommendations arising
from the reviews have been observed to be repetitions from previous years. This development may be
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
29
read as an indication of weak follow-up on and/or implementation of recommendations from the JSR,
which might imply weak human and institutional capacities. It may also be an indication that some of
the problems are structural in nature and cannot be overcome quickly and easily.
5.5 Challenges and Constraints of the M&E System
Measuring aid-for-trade impacts is not an easy task. Any M&E system put in place to measure
impacts and outcomes must therefore be well coordinated to function effectively. While the
measurement of agriculture sector targets derive from well structured national and sectoral M&E
systems, there seems to be weak coordination among the three key ministries, namely, MoFEP,
MoFA and MoTI. Interactions with some officials from these three ministries do not point to the
existence of a well coordinated system for the three ministries in terms of aid-for-trade in agriculture.
Thus there is a lack of appreciation of critical linkages between these ministries.
One key challenge to M&E from the perspective of MoFA is human and financial capacity
constraints. Very often there is inadequate provision of GoG budget to cover critical costs not eligible
for financing by DPs. The inadequacy of the agricultural data collection process and the unreliability
of available data has been a serious challenge to M&E for the agriculture sector.
On the part of donors challenges of the M&E system include the following:
Lack of data analysis
Over- ambitious targets
National M&E systems putting little emphasis on evaluation
National M&E systems not linking performance results and budgeting
The Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the government ministry in charge of agriculture sector
policies and programmes does not seem to have a firm focus on AfT. In the same vein some donors
do not explicitly focus on AfT in their programmes. However the Ministry of Trade and Industry is
very much in the picture on AfT. It will be useful therefore for MoTI to collaborate more effectively
with MoFA if Ghana is to achieve desired results from AfT.
According to MoFA, there is currently a matrix of 58 indicators for measuring the objectives of the
FASDEP II/METASIP. These indicators are not only many and therefore make monitoring and
evaluation difficult but also for adequate measurement of the impact of AfT, there would be need to
develop more focused indicators to measure trade impacts of aid-for-trade. Worse still there seems to
be a lack of harmonization between the indicators for the agriculture strategies for GSGDA and
FASDEP II.
5.6 Managing Aid for Trade for Results
Ghana receives substantial amounts of aid into the agriculture sector which can go a long way in
improving productive capacity of the sector in order to be able to achieve both domestic and
international market objectives of the sector. Improving export competitiveness and diversifying and
increasing exports and markets is one such international market objectives. Thus trade is
mainstreamed in development policy. While trade features prominently in the GSGDA and aspects of
Ghana‟s trade policy are embedded in it, the country currently does not have coherent aid-for-trade
strategy in place to ensure that aid flows into the agriculture sector have the desired impact on
Ghana‟s agricultural trade and that the impacts and outcomes can be adequately ascertained.And
while there is a significant donor presence in the agriculture sector of Ghana and many of the projects
and programmes seem to be aligned to the country‟s development objectives in agriculture as
contained in the GSGDA/FASDEP documents, examination of these activities however indicates that
only a few donors focus explicitly on activities with a trade element. While the GSGDA and FASDEP
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
30
II have some agriculture trade related indicators, the problem though is the lack of harmonization
between the indicators for the two sets of documents.
Apart from the national M&E framework that also applies to the agriculture sector to enable the
measurement of outcomes based on pre-determined agriculture sector indicators, a lot of coordination
is also going on between MoFA and development partners. Coordination takes place largely within
the annual joint sector reviews. However, what is missing from the five JSRs held to date is the lack
of discussions on the impact of donor support on agriculture trade outcomes. While there are a lot of
donor activities ongoing in the agriculture sector, most of them lack direct trade objectives (see
Appendix A). Apart from the fact that trade impacts of aid may not be a direct objective of many
donors1, MoFA‟s indicators as derived from agriculture sector policy objectives tend to focus more on
domestic outcomes. For instance, increasing food production and ensuring food security is one often
highlighted objective and many donors, including CIDA, are increasingly involved in helping the
country achieve such objectives. Another reason for low discussions on the impact of donor assistance
on trade is that MoFA‟s objectives have also focused more on reducing the importation of agriculture
products (for example, rice) rather than pursuing an export agenda.
Against the backdrop of the substantial AfT flows into the agriculture sector of Ghana, it is imperative
for the country to adopt a framework that enables the measurement of the trade impacts of aid based
on some identified trade-related indicators and the development of a workable M&E system to
measure results.
In 2011 Ghana introduced an aid policy, titled Ghana Aid Policy and Strategy, which spans the period
2011 and 2015. The aid policy was developed in „response to available evidence showing that
recipient country policies and procedures, human capacity, economic management and institutional
arrangements determine to a large extent the optimal allocation of aid and its impact on growth and
poverty reduction‟viii
. The policy was fashioned out of the objectives of the Paris Declaration on Aid
Effectiveness, 2005 and the Accra Agenda for Action, 2008. The aim of the aid policy is to ensure
that aid is managed and monitored properly, i.e. to ensure effectiveness and coordination by aligning
external aid to national development priorities.
The aid policy spells out some measures to ensure effective monitoring and evaluation of aid in
general, and can thus serve as minimal framework for introducing trade objectives and indicators to
measure the impact of AfT. The ingredients that must go into this should include Ghana‟s own targets
as defined in its policies and the nature of AfT flows. Also important is finding targets that can be
monitored without expending too many resources – both human and financial. The mechanism should
also reflect donors‟ views on mutual accountability.
For an aid-for-trade strategy in agriculture to work, there would be the need to strengthen the intra-
sectoral and inter-ministerial coordination through a platform for joint planning. Thus there would be
the need for a review in the development and implementation of a communication strategy to improve
institutional coordination as well as create and strengthen the framework for coordinating activities
among all stakeholders in the sector. This must include each ministry identifying an agricultural
content in its strategic policy. The strategy should thus create effective internal coordination linkages
among three key stakeholders, namely, MoFA, MoFEP and MoTI on one hand and between these
ministries and DPs on the other to ensure effective monitoring and evaluation for results. Lastly, it
would also be important to develop more focused indicators to measure the trade impacts of aid.
Indicators could include increase in the diversification of agriculture exports, increase in export
earnings and the number of export markets, and increase in the proportion of processed (value-added)
agriculture products.
1 CIDA for instance has observed that aid for trade is not their area of focus.
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
31
6 Conclusion
This report has assessed the mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating outcomes of aid flows into the
agriculture sector of Ghana. Given that substantial flows of aid flow into productive sectors, including
agriculture and the political demand for results of such interventions, it is important that adequate
structures are put in place to ensure that adequate measurement of impacts and outcomes. For this to
happen there is the need for coherent aid-for-trade strategy to ensure that aid flows into the agriculture
sector have the desired impact on Ghana‟s agricultural trade and outcomes are adequately measured.
The existing M&E system shows weak coordination among the three key ministries, namely, MoFEP,
MoFA and MoTI. Interactions with some officials from these three ministries do not point to the
existence of a well coordinated system for the three ministries in terms of aid-for-trade in agriculture.
In other words, there is a lack of appreciation of critical linkages between these ministries. Mutual
accountability in terms of resource flow and achievement of results makes it imperative to strengthen
existing M&E systems for trade results. Mainstreaming aid-for-trade into the country‟s development
agenda would improve monitoring and evaluation.
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
32
References
Aryeetey, E., Laryea, A.D.A., Antwi-Asare, T. O. 2007. „An Evaluation of Ghana‟s Trade and
Investment Policy Reforms: Towards Further Commitments to Reforms‟, African Economic Research
Consortium (AERC)
Balassa, Bela. 1989. „Outward Orientation‟ in H. Chenery and T. N. Srinivasan (Ed) Handbook of
Development Economics, Volume II, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,
Caves, R. E. 1965. „Export-led growth and the new economic history‟, in J.N. Bhagwati, et. al., (Ed)
Trade, balance and payments, and growth. Amsterdam: North-Holland
Government of Ghana. 2004. Ghana Trade Policy and Strategy. Ministry of Trade and Industry,
Accra, Ghana.
Government of Ghana. 2010. Ghana Aid Policy and Strategy: 2011-2015. Ministry of Finance and
Economic Planning, Accra, Ghana.
Government of Ghana. 2010. Ghana Shared Growth and Development Strategy: 2010-2013. Volume
I: Policy Framework. National Development Planning Commission, Accra, Ghana.
Government of Ghana, 2010. Aid Coordination under the Ghana Aid Policy and Strategy 2011 -2015:
Towards Middle –Income Status (Phase One), Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, 2010,
Accra, Ghana.
Government of Ghana, 2011. Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project (GCAP): Pest Management
Plan, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Accra, Ghana.
Government of Ghana, 2007, Guidelines for the Preparation of the District Monitoring and Evaluation
Plan under the GPRS II (2006 -2009), National Development Planning Commission, Accra, Ghana.
Government of Ghana National Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (2006 -2009), National Development
Planning Commission. Accra, Ghana.
Government of Ghana, 2011, The Implementation of the Ghana Shared Growth and Development
Agenda (GSGDA) 2010 -2013, Annual Progress Report, National Development Planning
Commission Accra, Ghana.
Hoekman, Bernard and Njinkeu, Dominique. 2007. “Aid for Trade Competitiveness: New
Opportunities for Africa” AERC Framework Paper on Export Supply Response Capacity Constraints
in Africa.
Jebuni C. D., Oduro A., Tutu K. A. 1994. Trade, Payments Liberalization and Economic Performance in
Ghana, AERC research Paper 27, African Economic Research Consortium
OECD. 2006. Aid for Trade: Making it Effective. The Development Dimension. OECD Publishing
OECD. 2011. Strengthening Accountability in Aid for Trade. The Development Dimension. OECD
Publishing
Prowse, Susan. 2006. “Aid for Trade: Increasing Support for Trade Adjustment and Integration - A
Proposal,” in S. Evenett and B. Hoekman (eds.), Economic Development and Multilateral
Cooperation (Palgrave-McMillan).
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
33
Annex A: On-going Donor Projects in Agriculture
DP Title Category Main O bjectives Components Total
budget
Currency Type of
funding
grant=0
loan=1
Runtime
GDC(Jan-12)
GTZ/DED 1
Market Oriented Agriculture Programme
(MOAP)
Value Chain Agricultural producers and other actors in the agricultural sector
involved in processing and trade improve their ability to compete
in national, regional and international markets
1. Promotion of selected
value chains
2. Strengthening of private
sector organisations
3. Improve service delivery
of public sector institutions
23.2 Eur 0 2004 - 2013
GDC(Jan-12)
KfW 2
Outgrower and value chain fund
(Successor of "Promotion of Perennial
Crops")
Value Chain 1. Poverty Reduction
2. Integration of Smallholders into commercial agric.
3. Improve access to Agri-Finance
Outgrower 10
1
Eur 1
0
2010 - 2014
USAID(Jan-
12)
USAID 1
Agicultural Development & Value Chain
Enhancement (ADVANCE)
Value Chain
[Value Chain
Competitiveness,
Market Access and
Development,
Financial Services]
To transform Ghana‟s agricultural sector through increased
competitiveness in domestic, regional and international market.
Value Chain
Competitiveness; Market
Access and Development;
Access to Financial Services
32 US$ 0 2009 - 2013
USAID(Jan-
12)
USAID 2
Integrated Coastal Fisheries Governance
Management (ICFG) Program
Fishery
[Governance,
fisheries
management, food
security, biodiversity
conservation, spatial
planning]
Support the government of Ghana in achieving its development
objectives of poverty reduction, food security, sustainable fisheries
management and biodiversity conservation
Develop a Nested
Governance Systems for
Fisheries and Landscape
Governance and Co-
Management from the
community to the District
and Regional Levels.
Landscape Governance (with
a focus on conservation and
managed areas and species
with possibilities , climate
change adaptation planning
and alternative livelihoods
that enhance food security
and poverty reduction in the
region). Seascape
Governance (with an
emphasis on fisheries
management and planning
and a preparing for a marine
protected areas network
).Capacity building within
regional institutions and civil
society organizations as well
as national universities.
10 US$ 0 2009 - 2013
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
35
DP Title Category Main O bjectives Components Total
budget
Currency Type of
funding
grant=0
loan=1
Runtime
USAID(Jan-
12)
USAID 3
Ghana Strategice Support Program (GSSP) Policy Research
[Agricultural
Research and policy]
Agricultural research and policy programs designed to help Ghana
develop an informed policy agenda that promotes agricultural
modernization.
Increase the availability of
information and knowledge,
strategy design and policy
formulation
17 US$ 0 2005 - 2013
USAID(Jan-
12)
USAID 5
Business Sector Advocacy Challenge Fund
(BUSAC II)
Other
[Advocacy, Private
Sector, Agricultural
Sector]
A grant mechanism for the Ghanaian private sector to advocate at
the local, regional and national levels for changes in the legal and
regulatory framework.
4 US$ 0 2011 - 2014
USAID(Jan-
12)
USAID 6
Development Credit Authority Agricultural Finance To increase short, medium, and long-term financing to SME‟s,
group-lending loan product targeting rural farmers, guarantee key
credit enhancement for new rural loan products.
9.3 US$ 0 2009 - 2013
USAID(Jan-
12)
USAID 8
Feed the Future Initiative Partnership Other
[Increased
Agriculture
Productivity, 2.
Accelerate
Participation of the
Ultra Poor in Rural
Growth, 3.
Improving
Nutrition, Cross-
Cutting Theme:
Engaging Women ]
1. Assist increased food production in Ghana, in amount and
nutritional value, and the capacity of communities to sustain higher
production in the long term. 2. Facilitate agricultural producers‟
increased technical expertise and access to the resources needed for
professional development. 3. Raise communities‟ ability to
generate income by enhancing the value of agricultural goods. 4.
Improve communities‟ capacity to insulate themselves from food
price and production fluctuations through improved organization,
planning and coordination. 5. Increase communities‟ capacity to
reduce malnutrition through improved agricultural and agroforestry
practices and dietary education.
Intervention at the grass-
roots level, this program
aims to increase the capacity
of partner communities to
address their food security
needs.
0.91 US$ 0 2010 - 2013
AFD(Jan-12)
AFD 2
Programme for the Promotion of Perennial
Crops
Non Food Crops
[Rubber, Oil palm]
Increase the areas planted in perennial crops, within outgrowers
schemes and public-private partnerships
Outgowers plantations :
7000 ha rubber, 3000 ha oil
palm
Support to FBOs
Research
Roads
Institutional support to
MOFA
Miscellaneous
40.65 EUR 0 (2.0 mill
DP)
1 (17.4
mill DP)
2006 - 2012
AFD(Jan-12)
AFD 4
Rubber Outgrower phase IV Non Food Crops
[Rubber]
To promote rubber plantations at village level (10500ha) 17.7 EUR 1=14 2010 - tbd
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
36
DP Title Category Main O bjectives Components Total
budget
Currency Type of
funding
grant=0
loan=1
Runtime
AFD(Jan-12)
AFD 5
Rice Sector Support Project (RSSP) Food Crops
[Rice]
Develop rice production in the four Northern regions of the
country
Support for development of
lowlands;Support for MoFA
decentralised entities and
Coordination Unit;External
technical assistant;Support
for structuring stakeholders
of the rice sector (other
than GRIB grant);Support
for
Research/Development;Supp
ort for development of rural
credit and partner
institutions
17.31 EUR 1,3=0 /
12,5=1
2009 - 2012
AfDB(Jan-12)
AfDB 6
Export Marketing and Quality Awareness
Project
Agriculture Export
Marketing
[Pineapple, Mango,
Pawpaw, Vegetables]
Contribute towards the goal of increasing export earnings of non-
traditional agricultural projects. It is expected that the incomes of
horticultural crop farmers and exporters of cassava products will be
increased
Production and Productivity
Enhancement
Export Marketing
Promotion and
Infrastructure Improvement
Capacity Building
Project Management and
Coordination
17 UA 1 2006 - 2013
AfDB(Jan-12)
AfDB 8
Afram Plain Agricultural Development
Project
The Sector goal is to contribute to the reduction of poverty and the
improvement of the welfare of the rural population. Specific
objective: to increase the agricultural output and incomes of the
beneficiaries and contribute to the well being of the peop
Production Development
Infrastructure Devpt.
Institutional capacity
Building
Project Management
19.97 UA 1 2007 - 2012
AfDB(Jan-12)
AfDB 9
Northern Rural Growth Program Agriculture and Agro-
Industry
[Different value
chains; food crops,
livestock, irrigation,
private sector
development]
Contribute to an equitable and sustainable poverty reduction and
food security among rural households, Specific objective: to
increase northern Ghana area rural households‟ income on a
sustainable basis
capacity bulding and
development of commodity
chain (small producers,
processors, exporters,
traders, transporters and
institutional buyers)
Provision of production and
marketing infrustructure
Improve access to rural
financial services
Program management
40 UA 1 2008 - 2015
CIDA(Jan-12)
CIDA 2
SFASDEP Other Implementation of the Food and Agriculture Sector Development
Policy
Sector Budget Support 110 CAD 0 2009 - 2013
CIDA(Jan-12)
CIDA 4
Food Security Advisory Services Capacity Building Support to Government of Ghana's Food and Agriculture Sector
Program (FASDEP)
Technical Assistance 4.99 CAD 0 2002 - 2015
CIDA(Jan-12)
CIDA 7
Ghana Environment Management Project
(GEMP)
Natural Resource
Management
To strengthen Ghanaian institutions and rural communities to
enable them to reverse land degradation and desertification trends
in three regions of northern Ghana
Capacity Development 7.25 CAD 0 2007 - 2012
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
37
DP Title Category Main O bjectives Components Total
budget
Currency Type of
funding
grant=0
loan=1
Runtime
CIDA(Jan-12)
CIDA 8
Food Security and Environment Facility Natural Resource
Management
To deliver and disseminate innovative food security and sustainable
agricultural programming in the three northern regions of Ghana.
Support to innovative food
security initiatives
14.3 CAD 0 2008 - 2016
FAO (Jan-12)
FAO 4
EP/GLO/802/GEF Conservation and
management of pollinators for sustainable
agriculture through an ecosystem approach:
FULL-SIZED PROJECT: Follow on from
EP/GLO/301/GEF: PDF-B)
To develop and implement tools, methodologies, strategies and best
management practices for pollinator conservation and sustainable
use;
7.810682 US$ 0 2009 - 2013
FAO (Jan-12)
FAO 18
UNJP/GHA/032/UNO Enchancing Human
Security through developing local capacity for
hollistic community-based conflict prevention
in Northern Ghana
Capacity building To empower local institutions, communities and individuals to
manage and prevent conflict in Northern Ghana as a means to
ensuring sustainable human security in the area
0.5564 US$ 0 2009 - 2012
IFAD(Jan-12)
IFAD 1
Root and Tuber Improvement and Marketing
Programme (RTIMP)
Food Crops
[Root and Tuber-
based food crop
production and value
chain]
To enhance the food security and incomes of poor rural HH in GH,
with special emphasis on women and other vulnerable groups
support to increased
commodity chain linkages
support to R&T production
upgrading of R&T
processing and marketing
programme coordination and
M&E
27.7, 1.0
Euro grant
US$ 0, 1 2006 - 2014
IFAD(Jan-12)
IFAD 2
Northern Rural Growth Programme (NRGP) Value chain
[Value chain
development to link
northern agricultural
producers to
domestic and export
markets]
Achieve sustainable agricultural and rural livelihoods and food
security for the rural poor particularly those dependent on marginal
lands, rural women and vulnerable groups in Northern Ghana.
food and commodity chain
development
natural resources
management & rural
infrastructure
Access to rural finance
Programme Management,
M&E
103.6 US$ 0, 1 2008 - 2016
IFAD(Jan-12)
IFAD 4
Rural Enterprises Project Phase II Capacity building
[Micro- and small
food and non-food
rural enterprises
development]
Reduce poverty and improve the living conditions and incomes of
the rural poor, with emphasis on women and vulnerable groups,
through increased self- and wage-employment.
business development
services
technology promotion and
transfer
rural financial services
support to rural MSE
organizations and
partnership-building
project management
29.3 US$ 1 2003 - 2012
IFAD(Jan-12)
IFAD 7
Rural and Agricultural Finance Programme
(RAFiP)
Agricultural finance
[Rural finance,
capacity building and
extension]
To support improved and sustainable livelihoods of the rural poor,
particularly women and vulnerable groups.
Strengthening of rural
financial systems
Strengthening financial and
agricultural linkages and
support systems
Programme administration
41.866 US$ 1 2010 - 2016
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
38
DP Title Category Main O bjectives Components Total
budget
Currenc
y
Type of
funding
grant=0
loan=1
Runtime
IFAD(Jan-12)
IFAD 9
Rural Enterprises Programme Capacity building
[Micro- and small
food and non-food
rural enterprises
development]
Reduce poverty and improve the living conditions and incomes of
the rural poor, with emphasis on women and vulnerable groups,
through increased self- and wage-employment.
business development
services
technology promotion and
transfer
rural financial services
support to rural MSE
organizations and
partnership-building
project management
185 US$ 1 2012 - 2019
WFP(Jan-12)
WFP 4
Purchase for Progress (P4P) Value Chain
[Improve
smallholder farmers
income through the
use of appropriate
agricultural
technologies and
access to market.]
Improve the livelihoods of participating smallholder/low-income
farmers through market based interventions.
Support to small/low-income
farmers
5.4 US$ earmarked 2010 - 2015
WFP(Jan-12)
WFP 7
Nutrition Support for Vulnerable Groups Capacity Building
[Capacity building
of Government
Partners in meeting
the nutrition needs
of vulnerable groups
and promotion of
Infant and Young
Child Feeding
Practices.]
Prioritise interventions targeting children, pregnant and lactating
women during the critical 1000-day window of opportunity from
the womb to 2 years of age and improve government capacity to
manage effective and sustainable nutrition safety nets.
THR for malnourished
children under 2 years and
undernourished
pregnant/lactaing women
and on-site wet feeding for
children 2 - 5 years in the
lean season in 5 districts in
northern Ghana
18.5 US$ earmarked 2012 - 2016
WFP(Jan-12)
WFP 8
Support for Primary Education and Girls'
Education
Capacity Building
[Assistance to
Government in
implementing
School Feeding and
encourage girls to
complete education.]
Improved attendance and completion rates for school children in
grades P1 to P6 and JHS 1 to JHS 3, promotion of local food
production and the use of local food.
School feeding, Take-Home
ration
19.6 US$ earmarked 2012 - 2016
WFP(Jan-12)
WFP 9
Resilience to Climatic Shocks and Support
for Livelihoods
Capacity Building
[Asiisting vulnerable
groups to recover
their livelihood and
improve their
income generation
capabilities.]
Increase physical and economic resilience to extreme weather
events through targeted reconstruction/rehabilitation interventions,
diversification of livelihood opportunities and reduction of poverty
among communities
Food for Work
Food for Training
6.65 US$ earmarked 2012 - 2016
WFP(Jan-12)
WFP 10
Assistance to food-insecure households
vulnerable to droughts and floods
Capacity Building
[Asiisting vulnerable
groups to recover
their livelihood and
improve their health
and nutritional
status.]
Improved food and nutritional security of food-insecure households
affected by the combination of natural disasters
Food for Work
Food for Training
Supplementary Feeding
Support to food-insecure
PLHIVs
Emergency response
22 US$ earmarked 2010 - 2012
WFP(Jan-12)
WFP 11
Purchase for Progress (P4P) Value Chain
[Improve
smallholder farmers
income through the
use of appropriate
agricultural
technologies and
access to market.]
Improve the livelihoods of participating smallholder/low-income
farmers through market based interventions.
Support to small/low-income
farmers
5.4 US$ earmarked 2010 - 2015
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
39
DP Title Category Main O bjectives Components Total
budget
Currency Type of
funding
grant=0
loan=1
Runtime
WFP(Jan-12)
WFP 12
Human Security Project in Northern Ghana Capacity Building
[Improve Human
security in conflict
areas]
The Human Security Programme seeks to empower local
institutions, communities and individuals to manage and prevent
conflict as a means to ensuring sustainable human security in the
area.
Scale up in Milling and
fortification
Targeted supplementary
feeding in project
communities
Improved Health and
Nutrition education
Value addition to marketed
products
Sentinel site data collection
Rainfall monitoring
Market price analysis
0.429 US$ Trust Fund 2009 - 2012
WB(Jan-12)
WB 1
Agric DPO 3-4 Policy
[Other]
suport FASDEP and METASIP implementation FASDEP and METASIP
support
150 1 2011 - 2014
WB(Jan-12)
WB 2
Commercial Agriculture Program Value chain
[PPP,
water/irrigation,
investment
promotion]
support relevant components of METASIP FASDEP and METASIP
support
100 1 2011 - 2016
WB(Jan-12)
WB 3
Risk Management TA Program Value chain
[Risk management
in agriculture]
support METASIP component on value chain development 0.2 0 2010 - 2013
WB(Jan-12)
WB 4
West Africa Agriculture Productivity
Program
Research
[West Africa
regional plant
technology
development]
Technology develoment and dissemination 15 1 2007 - 2012
JICA(Jan-12)
JICA 3
Project for Sustainable Development Rain-
fed Lowland Rice Production
Food Crops
[Rice]
Development of the model for Sustainable Rain-fed Lowland Rice
Development and its dissemination within the Project areas
(1)Development of the
technical package of
improved rain-fed lowland
rice production practices
500 JPY 0 2009 - 2014
JICA(Jan-12)
JICA 5
Dispatch of the technical cooperation
expert for plant breeder (rice) to the West
Africa Centre for Crop Improvement
(WACCI), University of Ghana
Research To strengthen the research capacity on rice breeding Dispatch of the technical
cooperation expert for plant
breeder (rice) to WACCI.
65 JPY 0 2010 - 2014
JICA(Jan-12)
JICA 6
Dispatch of Technical Cooperation Expert
to the School of Veterinary Medicine, UoG
Research To strengthen the research capacity of SVM, UoG Dispatch of the Technical
Cooperation Expert to SVM,
UoG
N/A JPY 0 2010 - 2013
Annex B: Key Indicators for Measuring Results in Agriculture Sector Table A.1: Percentage Change in the Level of Production of Selected Staples, 2009 -2010 (%)
Indicator Definition of
Indicator
2009
Baseline
2010
Target
2010
Indicator
Level
Progress towards
Target
Percentage change in
output of production of
selected staple crops (%):
-Maize -Rice (milled)
-Millet
-Sorghum -Cassava
-Yam
-Cocoyam -Plantain
-Groundnut
-Cowpea -Soyabean
-Cocoa
Total volume of all agricultural produce including crops, livestock
etc, expressed as a percentage.
9.2 22.9
21.1
5.6 7.4
15.3
-12.3 6.3
12.3
33.7 8.5
-11.1
11.19 32.62
NA
NA 8.81
18.22
NA NA
NA
NA NA
34
15.6 25.6
-10.8
-7.4 10.1
3.2
-9.9 -0.7
7.0
28.4 6.0
16.3
Target not achieved.
Only one crop target achieved
whiles four staple
crops recorded decline in output
compared to only
one crop in 2009.
Source: MOFA, 2010
Table A.2: Percentage Change in Output /Yield per Unit Area (Mt/ha) Indicator Definition of
Indicator
2009
Baseline
2010
Target
2010
Indicator
Level
Progress towards
Target
Percentage change in
output /yield per unit
area (Mt/ha):
-Maize -Rice (milled)
-Millet
-Sorghum -Cassava
-Yam
-Cocoyam -Plantain
-Groundnut
-Cowpea -Soybean
-Cocoa
The ratio of total output to the area of cultivated land
expressed as a percentage
-2.3 6.2
24.5
9.2 2.4
8.4
0.0 2.5
14.9
13.5 10.7
NA
10.0 9.96
NA
NA 9.97
0.97
NA 1.04
NA
NA NA
NA
11.23 12.51
-5.73
-2.08 11.50
1.50
-1.48 -1.63
-2.17
4.28 30.44
NA
Significant progress. Only one of the
staple crops did not
achieve its target.
Source: MOFA, 2010
Table A.3: Access to Production Inputs Indicator Definition of
Indicator
2009
Baseline
2010
Target
2010 Indicator
Level
Progress towards
Target
Production of
foundation seeds (Mt):
-Maize
-Sorghum
-Rice -Cowpea
-Soybean
Production of certified seed for selected
staple crops for onward multiplication
by certified seed growers
70.0
2.0
25.0 33.3
20.0
90.0
10.0
40.0 40.0
40.0
82.5
2.0
23.5 10.0
20.0
Target not achieved.
On the other hand, a
total of 522 registered
seed growers cultivated
6,832 hectares and
produced a total of
8,767 metric tonnes of
seed
Percentage change in
number of outlets and
sales points of agro –
inputs.
The change in the total number of
outlets and sales points, either
permanent or temporary structures where farmers can obtain their agro-
input requirement, expressed in
percentage.
3.4% NA 11% Significant progress.
Fertilizer Imports (Mt) Total amount of fertilizer imported into
this country excluding those imported
by other companies including COCOBOD and not captured by the
Directorate of Crops Services.
3,409,77
4.2
NA 19,756,232 Significant progress.
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
41
Percentage change in
Agro–chemical
Imports:
-Insecticides
-Herbicides
-Fungicides
The change in total amount of
agrochemicals imported into this country, expressed in percentage.
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
-33.7%(liquid) -10.6%(solid)
46.6% (liquid) -57.6% (solid)
-26.4%(liquid) -33.8% (solid)
Lack of data
Source: MOFA, 2010
Table A.4: Agricultural Mechanization
Indicator Definition of
Indicator
2010
Target
2010
Target
2010
Indicator
Level
Progress towards Target
Tractor –Farmer ratio The ratio of the total tractors to total
farmer population
NA NA NA Lack of data 125 tractors and
matching implements, 2
combine harvesters, 10 rice
mills, 35 rice threshers, 35
rice reapers and 40 irrigation pumps were acquired in 2010
Number of
Agricultural
Mechanization services
centres Established
The total number of
Agricultural mechanization services centres established by Agriculture
Engineering Services Directorate of
the Ministry of Food and Agriculture
67
Centres
NA 84 Centres
(20% increase)
Significant progress
Total Number of
Famers trained in the
proper use and
handling of farm
machinery
Total number of farmers and tractor
operators trained in proper operations,
handling and maintenance techniques of tractors, combine harvesters and
agro-chemical equipments.
NA NA 137
Farmers
and tractor operators
trained.
Lack of data
Source: MOFA, 2010
Table A.5: Access to Agriculture Research Technology and Extension Services
Indicator Definition of
Indicator
Definition
of
Indicator
2010
Target
2010
Indicator
Level
Progress towards Target
Extension Officer-
farmer ratio
The ratio of the total
extension officers to total farmer population
1:1500 1:1000 1:1500 Steady progress.
Total number of
beneficiaries
with access to
various
agriculture
technologies
Total no. of beneficiaries
(farmers, processors, and marketers of agricultural
commodities) accessed
various technologies in crop production,
livestock, fisheries and
other technologies related to agriculture.
1,143,752 NA 1,279,456
(11.9% increase)
Steady progress
Female
(%)
Male
(%)
Total
Crop 27 73 882,103
Livestock 29.1 67.5 272,518
Fisheries:
-Fish processing -Fingerling prod.
29
86.1 65
71 8,316
Total 28.5 71.6 1,162,937
Source: MOFA, 2010
Table A.6: Cultivated Areas under Irrigation and Access to Credit
Indicator Definition of
Indicator
2009
Baseline
2010
Target
2010 Indicator
Level
Progress
towards
Target
Percentage of cultivated lands
under irrigation (Area developed
For irrigation/ha)
The ratio of arable lands under
irrigation to total arable land, expressed in percentage
0.70 (10,065 ha)
NA
0.87 (10,242.5 ha)
Steady
progress.
The Share of Credit to
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
by Deposit Money Banks (excluding
Cocoa)
The ratio of credit to Agriculture,
Forestry and Fishing to total
credit by Deposit Money Banks expressed in percentage
4.74%
≥ 10%
5.51%
(GH¢ 4,768,902)
Significant
progress
Source: MOFA, 2010
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
42
Table A.7: Post Harvest Losses Management and Food Security Indicator Definition of
Indicator
2009
Baseline
2010
Target
2010
Indicator
Level
Progress
towards
Target
Percentage change in
Post-Harvest Losses:
-Maize
-Cassava
-Rice -Yam
The quantitative or qualitative losses in storage, transport, harvest and market to agricultural
produce (crop, livestock, fisheries) incurred after
harvest as a percentage of total production.
35.10%
34.60%
6.90% 24.40%
31.59%
31.14%
6.21% 21.96%
NA
NA
NA NA
Lack of data.
Size of national buffer
stock (metric tonnes):
-Maize
-Rice
Total quantity of key staple food purchased and
stored The National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO)
900
NA
NA
NA
416
6,949
Slow
progress.
Lack of data.
Source: MOFA, 2010
Table A.8: Promote Selected Crops Development.
Indicator Definition of
Indicator
2009
Baseline
2010
Target
2010
Indicator
Level
Progress
towards Target
Total volume of Cocoa
produced (metric
tonnes)
The quantity in tonnes of cocoa
produced in a given year.
632,037 950,000 735,000 Target not
achieved.
Share of Cocoa output
processed locally
The total quantity of cocoa processed
in Ghana as a percentage of total output of cocoa produced
632,037 26.32% 11.10% Target not
achieved.
Quantity of Shea
Butter exported
annually (Mt)
The total volume in metric tonnes of
Shea Butter exported annually.
67.826 NA 41.219 Target not
achieved.
Source: MOFA, 2010
Table A.9: Promotion of Livestock and Poultry Development
Indicator Definition of
Indicator 2009
Baseline
2010
Target
2010
Indicator
Level
Progress
towards
Target
Contribution of the livestock sub-sector to
GDP (%)
Total annual receipts
from livestock and
poultry expressed as a
percentage of GDP.
2% NA 2% Steady
progress.
The rate of growth in the production of the
various species of livestock and poultry (%):
- Cattle - Sheep
- Goat
- Pig - Poultry
The change in total
production of the
various species of livestock and poultry.
1.1 3.2
5.0
-3.0 8.8
NA 3.4
5.3
Na 9.2
1.1 3.2
5.0
3.0 8.8
Target
not achieved.
Percentage change in meat and other
livestock products imported (%):
- Beef
- Chicken
- Buffalo - Duck
- Mutton (Sheep meet)
- Pork
- Turkey
- Milk Product
The change in total
amount of meat and
other livestock products imported into
the country (%)
Mt (%)
12,338 (-6.1%)
67,069 (-23.7%)
4,454(-39.5%) 31 (92.5%)
6,153 (3.2%)
3,150 (-42.6%)
1,980 (-40.9%)
11,406 (319.5%
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lack of
data.
Source: MOFA, 2010
Managing AfT for Results in Ghana Final Draft Report
43
Table A.10: Improved Institutional Coordination. Indicator Definition of
Indicator
2009
Baseline
2010
Target
2010 Indicator
Level
Progress
towards
Target
Percentage of GoG budgetary
resources released to
Agriculture Sector.
The ratio of budgetary release to agricultural
development to total discretionary budget,
expressed in percentage
1.2% (GH¢68.09
m)
NA 1.3%
(GH¢77.20m)
Steady
progress.
Percentage of Agriculture
Sector Budget released to
support extension services
Total amount of Agricultural Sector budget
released for extension services at the district
level
7% (GH¢1018,558.8)
NA 7.6% (GH¢5,882,487)
Significant
progress.
Implementation efficiency
ratio
Ratio of activities implemented on scheduled to activities approved with budget at the
district planning level.
0.69
NA 0.69
Steady progress.
No. of intra-sectoral and
inter-ministerial coordination
activities undertaken
The total number of intra sectoral and inter-ministerial Coordination activities on the
annual work programme of MOFA
undertaken.
NA NA NA Lack of data
Source: MOFA, 2010
NOTES
i Balassa (1989)
ii Love (1984)
iii See Killick (1978)
iv See Harris and Shams (1991)
v Government of Ghana Budget Statement 2012
vi Gold accounts for about 98 percent of total mineral export earnings.
vii Measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index
viii Government of Ghana (2011)