September 2014 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We acknowledge the contribution and support of all stakeholders who consented to speak with us despite their busy schedules. Our special appreciation goes to Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) staff, particularly those at the Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate (PPMED), the Medium-Term Agricultural Sector Investment Plan Steering Committee (METASIP SC) members, development partners, academia, and private sector operators. We are also grateful to Manson Nwafor of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the review team for their inputs. Finally, we are grateful for inputs made by development partners on the chapters on policy and institutional review, which were used in preparing the Ghana New Alliance report. Samuel Asuming-Brempong Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Ghana Stephen Frimpong United Nations University, Institute for Natural Resources in Africa, University of Ghana 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................1 Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................................2 List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................4 List of Figures .....................................................................................................................................4 Acronyms ..........................................................................................................................................5 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................8 Status and Quality of the JSR Process ................................................................................................... 8 Policy Review ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Institutional Review .............................................................................................................................. 9 Review of Key Financial and Nonfinancial Commitments .................................................................... 9 Agriculture Sector Performance Baselines ........................................................................................... 9 Main Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 10 1. Introduction and Background .................................................................................................... 12 1.1. Background .................................................................................................................................. 12 1.2. Approach Used for the Study and Limitations of the Report ...................................................... 12 1.3. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 13 2. Status and quality of the JSR process in Ghana .............................................................................. 14 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 14 2.2. The JSR Consultative Process in Ghana ........................................................................................ 14 2.3. Key Questions, Areas, and Sectors Covered by the JSR ............................................................... 17 2.4. Key Decisions and Commitments Arising from the JSR and Responsible Actors ......................... 19 2.5. Gaps in the JSR Process ................................................................................................................ 23 2.6. Action Plan to Bridge the Gaps and Best Practices in Implementing JSR ................................... 26 2.7. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 27 3. Policy Review ............................................................................................................................ 28 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 28 3.2. Inventory of Existing and Emerging Policies ................................................................................ 29 3.3. Quality of Policy Planning and Execution..................................................................................... 30 3.4. Consistency of Policy Mix ............................................................................................................. 31 3.5. Alignment of Emerging Policies with Ghana’s NAIP (METASIP)................................................... 31 3.6. Policy Implementation Status ...................................................................................................... 32 3.7. Meeting Policy Commitment under the New Alliance (NA) Cooperation Framework ................ 33 3 3.8. Adequacy of Policy Coverage ....................................................................................................... 37 3.9. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 37 4. Institutional Review ..................................................................................................................... 39 4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 39 4.2. Institutional Landscape of NAIP (METASIP) ................................................................................. 39 4.3. Coordination within Institutions .................................................................................................. 40 4.4. Participation of Nonstate Actors in Policy and Program Formulation ........................................ 41 4.5. Participation of Nonstate Actors in Policy and Program Implementation ................................. 42 4.6. Institutional Alignment with NAIP and Institutional Gaps ........................................................... 42 4.7. Institutional Implementation Capacity ........................................................................................ 42 4.8. Coordination among Development Partners ............................................................................... 44 4.9. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 44 5. Review of Key Financial and Nonfinancial Commitments ............................................................... 46 5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 46 5.2. Key Financial and Nonfinancial Commitments by the Government ............................................ 46 5.2.1. Inventory of Government Budget and Other Financial Commitments .............................. 46 5.2.2. Inventory of Government Nonfinancial and Policy Commitments .................................... 47 5.3. Commitments by Nonstate Actors (NSAs) ................................................................................... 48 5.3.1. Commitments by Development Partners (DPs) ................................................................... 50 5.4. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 50 6. Agriculture Sector Performance Baselines ..................................................................................... 52 6.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 52 6.2. Agriculture Expenditure, Inputs, and Services ............................................................................. 52 6.3. Agriculture Output ....................................................................................................................... 53 6.4. Agricultural Trade ........................................................................................................................ 54 6.5. Poverty and Food Security ........................................................................................................... 55 6.6. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 56 7. Conclusions, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations .................................................................. 57 References ....................................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix 1: Stakeholder Summaries on JSR Process ......................................................................... 61 4 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Ghana joint sector review participants, composition, and duration ......................................... 16 Table 2.2: Key objectives of the joint sector review ................................................................................... 17 Table 2.3: Key areas covered by the joint sector review ............................................................................ 18 Table 2.4: Summary of key decisions or commitments .............................................................................. 20 Table 2.5: Staffing in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture’s agricultural policy research outfit ............... 26 Table 3.1: Update on the government’s policy commitments ................................................................... 35 Table 3.2: Summary of assessment of policy dimensions in Ghana ........................................................... 38 Table 3.3: Summary of ratings on progress on institutional and policy actions ......................................... 23 Table 4.1: Summary of ratings of institutional dimensions in Ghana ......................................................... 45 Table 5.1: Government METASIP funding commitment and expenditure (GHC million) ........................... 46 Table 5.2: Government METASIP nonfinancial commitments .................................................................... 48 Table 5.3: Update on development partners’ commitments (in US$ million)............................................ 51 Table 6.1: Agriculture expenditure, inputs, and services ........................................................................... 52 Table 6.2: Agriculture output ...................................................................................................................... 53 Table 6.3: Agricultural trade ....................................................................................................................... 55 Table 6.4: Trends in Ghanaian welfare, 2010–2015 ................................................................................... 56 Table A1.1: Summary of stakeholders’ views on key aspects of the JSR process ....................................... 61 Table A1.2: List of key people interviewed ................................................................................................. 63 Table A1.3: Total stakeholders interviewed, by group ............................................................................... 64 Table A1.4: Study Inception Meeting attendance list ................................................................................. 64 Table A1.5: Study Validation Meeting attendance list................................................................................ 65 Table A1.6: Update on METASIP expenditure ............................................................................................ 66 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Joint sector review consultative process in Ghana ................................................................... 15 Figure 2.2: Number of joint sector review participants for various years .................................................. 24 Figure 2.3: Extent of representation of sector stakeholders in 2013 joint sector review .......................... 25 Figure 3.1: Pre- and post-METASIP programs and other initiatives ........................................................... 30 Figure 3.2: Trends in national development implementation efficiency ratio ........................................... 32 Figure 4.1: Key institutions involved in formulation and implementation of Ghana’s NAIP ...................... 40 Figure 4.2: Domestic training of staff ......................................................................................................... 44 5 ACRONYMS AAGDS Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Development Strategy ADC Agricultural Development Corporation ADVANCE Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement AEA Agricultural Extension Agent agGDP agriculture gross domestic product AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa AgriServ New Agricultural Services Limited AgSSIP Agriculture Services Sector Investment Programme AMSEC Agricultural Mechanization Service Center APPDF Agricultural Public Private Dialogue Forum APR annual progress report ASAC Agricultural Sector Adjustment Credit ASIP Agricultural Subsector Investment Project ASWG Agricultural Sector Working Group AU African Union CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CAADP PP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme Partnership Platform CIDA Canadian International Development Agency COCOBOD Ghana Cocoa Board CSOs civil society organizations CSD Central Securities Depository CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research DADU district agricultural development unit DPs development partners ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States FABS Food and Agriculture Budgetary Support FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FBO faith-based organization FASDEP Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy FBOs farmer-based organizations 6 FINSAP Financial Sector Investment Programme GASIP Ghana Agricultural Sector Investment Programme GCAP Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project GDP gross domestic product GHC Ghanaian cedis GIDA Ghana Irrigation Development Authority GIPC Ghana Investment Promotion Centre GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GoG government of Ghana GPRS Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy GSDA Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda GSS Ghana Statistical Service ha hectare ICT information and communications technology IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IGO intergovernmental organization IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture JSR joint sector review M&E monitoring and evaluation MDAs ministries, departments, and agencies MDG Millennium Development Goal METASIP Medium-Term Agricultural Sector Investment Plan MMDAs metropolitan, municipal, and district assemblies MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture MoFEP Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning MoU memorandum of understanding MoYS Ministry of Youth and Sports MSA Meteorological Services Authority MSC METASIP Steering Committee mt metric tonnes MTADP Medium Term Agricultural Development Programme 7 NAEP National Agricultural Extension Project NAFCO National Buffer Stock Company NAIP National Agricultural Investment Plan NARP National Agricultural Research Project NDPC National Development Planning Commission NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGOs nongovernmental organizations NLSP National Livestock Services Project NRC National Redemption Council NSA nonstate actor PEF Private Enterprise Foundation PIM Project Implementation Manual PPMED Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate PPRSD Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate RADU regional agricultural development unit RCBs rural and community banks RELC Research-Extension Linkage Committee ReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System RTIMP Root and Tuber Improvement and Marketing Program SADA Savannah Accelerated Development Agency SAKSS Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System SAP Structural Adjustment Programme SC Steering Committee SMS short message service SRID Statistics, Research and Information Department SWAp sector-wide approach ToRs terms of reference USAID United States Agency for International Development 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In any sector, policy dialogue is a critical component to efficient and harmonious policymaking and implementation. A joint sector review (JSR) is an annual review of the sector to identify where challenges are preventing coherent dialogue. In Ghana, the first agriculture JSR was instituted in 2008 with the goal of reaching a common point-of-view among key sector stakeholders on important achievements in the preceding year. Stakeholders include the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA); development partners (DPs); other ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs), the private sector, and civil society. In addition, the JSR seeks to review key remaining implementation challenges in the sector; assesses progress against strategic reform priorities and toward expected outputs and outcomes; and develop clear recommendations to prioritize reforms that feed into medium-term planning and budgeting exercises. This can be achieved through a sector-wide stakeholder meeting and consultation. This stocktaking assessment was conducted to provide an overview of the JSR process, explain sectoral progress as a baseline for subsequent JSRs, and assess progress in policymaking and institutional strengthening, which are key components of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) framework. The study uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative methods used secondary data from MoFA, Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), and other sources. Qualitative approaches are mainly key informant discussions, informal interviews, and reviews of existing documents. Status and Quality of the JSR Process While the Ghana JSR process has been successfully sustained over the past five years, there is a need to adjust some aspect of the process including two key challenges: (1) poor participation by invitees and (2) ineffective implementation and monitoring of courses of action. For the former, participation could be increased through short communications and briefings of participants prior to the JSR as well as informing participants of their specific tasks and groups. More important, effective participation can be increased by having a wider representation of stakeholders—namely, the Medium-Term Agricultural Sector Investment Plan Steering Committee (MSC)—lead the JSR process with the support of the JSR secretariat. For the latter, ensuring how the output of the JSR affects change, current data as well as verification of implementation through random field visits, “ground truthing,” or random surveys of key informants would help. Policy Review Ghana’s policy process has seen improvements in recent years. Despite an emphasis on evidence-based planning, however, the lack of current data proves a challenge. The review also shows that financing as well as human resource constraints impede effective implementation of the policies. Thus, while most dimensions of the policy process are adequate and require minimal attention, the quality of policy planning and execution requires serious attention to improve the situation. As the lead ministry, MoFA is therefore expected to take appropriate action to address the challenge. 9 Beginning in 2014, encouraging activities have already been launched to encourage improvements in the agriculture policy environment. One is completion of Ghana Agricultural Sector Investment Programme (GASIP), which may be the new agricultural strategic framework following the end of the METASIP in 2015. GASIP should be more focused and have a better alignment between planning, resource allocation, and implementation than the METASIP and thereby address some of the concerns raised about the METASIP. The second encouraging development is a commitment to operationalize a single comprehensive national agricultural policy framework that is monitored closely and reported on a quarterly basis to everyone in the country. Institutional Review A wide range of stakeholders participated in the formulation of the country’s current investment plan— METASIP—and continue to be involved in the sector’s activities in varying capacities and intensities. At the governmental level, coordination between ministries was found to be weak. Although civil society and other nonstate actors are members of the METASIP Steering Committee, the effectiveness of their use of this platform is low due to some organizational challenges in both the ministry and stakeholders’ institutions. This and the absence of other strong platforms have also led to weak nonstate actors participating in the policy process. Several aspects of the shortcomings have been recognized over the years, and there appears to be more willingness and support now to address the issues. Institutionalizing post-JSR action plans and formalizing the process of implementing them—thereby holding everyone accountable for achievements—is a good example of how improvements can be made moving forward. The current effort to strengthen the Agricultural Public Private Dialogue Forum (APPDF) will also strengthen institutional linkages. In addition, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is providing assistance to boost the capacity of the METASIP Steering Committee, its Secretariat, and committee members. Review of Key Financial and Nonfinancial Commitments As committed stakeholders, the government, DPs, and other nonstate actors (NSAs) have important roles to play to ensure successful implementation of sector policies and programs as well as effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E). From the study, it is clear that while some commitments have been progressively fulfilled, others have not. The key observation is that while government has tried to fulfill its financial commitments, its nonfinancial commitments remain moderately achieved. This suggests that perhaps some of the targets under the METASIP are unrealistic. Alternatively, it could mean that implementation has been poor and M&E has been weak. The DPs are on track to meet their financial commitments under the New Alliance framework and are also making progress in related nonfinancial areas. The low rate of achievement of the government’s financial commitments contrasts with the on-track performance of the DPs and suggests that there is scope for more METASIP funding. Agriculture Sector Performance Baselines The contribution of the agriculture sector to poverty reduction has been declining in recent years, with key indicators of progress such as sectoral growth experiencing a decline recently. Fortunately, pre-2010 growth and poverty reduction achievements allowed the country to achieve key Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 10 early. In recent years, the country also had to depend on the nonagriculture sectors to drive per capita GDP growth. In order to reduce the geographical poverty gaps between urban and rural areas and between northern and other regions, the agriculture sector will need to drive growth more in coming years. This will require improvements in the volume and quality of spending; accessibility of services and inputs; and improved policy and project planning, implementation, and evaluation in general. Main Conclusions and Recommendations In terms of leading the JSR process, the METASIP Steering Committee should play a key role with the support of the JSR Secretariat. The Steering Committee should lead the process of developing the JSR agenda and terms of reference with input from stakeholders. As it currently exists, the JSR elicited poor participation by some stakeholders, which was due not only to low attendance levels but also to ineffective contributions to discussions. This may stem from certain stakeholders not seeing the issues being discussed as their top priorities, a lack of confidence in the process, a lack of capacity to effectively participate, fear of victimization for criticizing the government or leaders (particularly the political appointees), and domination of the meetings by MoFA and DPs. To avoid repeating this setback, the terms of reference production process for the JSR should be improved by increasing the participation of nonstate actors via the METASIP Steering Committee. Participants should also be informed of their group and the agenda prior to the JSR to allow for preparation and follow-up discussions. Farmers’ organizations and associations need a lot of capacity building in good governance and better appreciation of sector policies. Implementation and monitoring of action plans from the JSR was inadequate. Clearly, there is a lack of follow- through on recommendations and action plans. One way to improve this might be to make clearer the membership and roles of the JSR Secretariat as well as of other groups tasked with follow-up actions that arise from the JSR. We recommend that the various implementing agencies are also tasked to report their progress. This will instill much more commitment to the implementation the JSR commitments. In terms of preparing background reports and evidence for the JSR, the Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate (PPMED), Statistics, Research and Information Department (SRID), and the Ghana- Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) should be tasked with carrying out evaluations to contribute to the JSR. This will aid in institutionalizing the culture of policy-oriented research and support the current practice of knowledge sharing that takes place in the JSR. It is also important to assess the progress of different stakeholders—in terms of the commitments made (within and outside the JSR) in the MoFA Annual Progress Report (APR), which serves as the basis for the JSR. In terms of timing, there needs to be many months of preparation prior to the JSR, which would allow adequate time to identify issues, collate information, and assemble available technical and financial resources in a more consultative way. Additionally, the timing of the JSR is often after the sectoral budget has been finalized. Thus, the additional implementation cost that might arise from the JSR recommendations is unbudgeted. Instead, resource mobilization to implement the JSR recommendations should be a priority. The timing of the JSR (in May) should be moved to August, and its implementation cost should be included in the sector budget. Otherwise, a contingency fund should be established for implementation of the JSR’s recommendations. 11 Policy planning and implementation have not been adequate due to capacity and financial constraints, delays, and institutional lapses. MoFA as the lead agency lacks technical capacity to implement some aspects of METASIP. Again there is poor and inconsistent funding of agricultural policy research and analysis institutions and organizations as well as logistics that will allow them to undertake investment planning with minimum stress. The government and all sector stakeholders should honor their financial and other commitments to make financial and other resources available for implementation. Also, availability of reliable data and evidence-based information is another major constraint that needs to be addressed to improve the design and implementation of sector plans. The GSS and SRID of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture in particular will need further support to be able to collect the data and information required to support an evidence-based policy process. 12 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1. Background To accelerate growth through agriculture-led development while reducing poverty, hunger, and malnutrition, Ghana signed a CAADP Compact in 2009. The Compact is an agreement that states individual African governments will achieve two key targets: (1) allocate 10 percent of their national budgets to the agriculture sector and (2) achieve economic growth in the agriculture sector by 6 percent annually. The focus of the CAADP process in Ghana is to strengthen and add value to the Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy II (FASDEP II) and the National Development Programme METASIP (Medium-Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan). Specifically, the CAADP process in Ghana is to support strategic planning in Ghana’s agricultural sector by: (1) helping define a coherent long-term framework to guide the planning and implementation of current and future FASDEP II programs; and (2) developing synergies and complementarities between existing and new SAKSS to facilitate peer review, dialogue, and evidence-based planning and implementation of agricultural sector policies and strategies. Since Ghana’s independence, governments have attempted to modernize agriculture. Despite the policies variously pursued by different governments, agricultural growth and modernization have been slow, and a large number of production techniques have remained the same. But with the introduction of new policies, strategies, and programs over the past decade or so, improvement is expected to occur in a sector that employs almost 42 percent of the population and contributes 23 percent to GDP (GSS 2012). This JSR stocktaking contributes to the sector’s effort at tracking performance as a means to harmonize and align sector policies, institutions, and commitments for overall agricultural growth. It also serves as a benchmark for tracking progress over the years. 1.2. Approach Used for the Study and Limitations of the Report In the study, respondents were first screened based on their knowledge of policies, cooperation agreement programs, and institutional structure within the agricultural sector. Respondents with no sector knowledge or very poor knowledge were not included. The study employed a number of approaches in soliciting information from stakeholders in the agricultural sector, which included:  Structured interviews with stakeholders at the inception meeting for the study;  Consultation with MoFA to obtain relevant documents;  Review of documents to identify various policies and existing data;  Scanning through websites of organizations for current data;  Stakeholder interviews;  Informal discussions;  Consultation with DPs and other NSAs; and  Consultation with academia. 13 Ultimately, a total of 37 people from different state and nonstate institutions were interviewed. Issues discussed broadly covered the JSR process, including the extent of consultations and actors involved; gaps and relevant action plans to fill them; policy issues such as existing and emerging policies, quality of planning and execution, and consistency and alignment of policies; institutional issues such as alignment for successful METASIP and other cooperation, implementation, and capacity; financial and nonfinancial commitments by stakeholders in the sector; and agricultural performance indicators such as food availability, food security, income, poverty reduction, and agricultural GDP growth and growth rates. A major limitation of this study is the inability to contact a larger number of stakeholders due to time limitations. However, attempts were made to get a cross-section of stakeholders in the sector. The authors based their assessments on the perspectives of stakeholders interviewed, a literature review, and data obtained from various sources. 1.3. Summary The stocktaking study for the JSR complements efforts at tracking the progress of agricultural sector policy implementation. In undertaking the stocktaking study, both quantitative as well as qualitative approaches have been employed. Quantitative methods involved use of secondary data from MoFA, GSS, and other sources. Qualitative approaches used key informant discussions, informal interviews, and a review of existing documents. This report is organized into seven sections. Section 1 covers the introduction, background, and research approaches of the study. Section 2 focuses on the status and quality of the JSR process in Ghana by looking into the consultative process, areas and sectors covered by the JSR, key decisions and commitments arising out of the JSR, and gaps and action plans to implement the JSR. The third section looks at the policy environment with specific focus on the inventory of existing and emerging policies, quality of planning and execution, consistency of policy mix, policy consistency gaps, and implementation status. Section 4 provides a review of institutions and implementation capacity while Section 5 details the financial and nonfinancial commitments of stakeholders. Sections 6 and 7 are dedicated to agricultural performance baselines and conclusions, respectively. 14 2. STATUS AND QUALITY OF THE JSR PROCESS IN GHANA 2.1. Introduction Since 2008, the Joint Sector Review (JSR) of Ghana’s agriculture sector has been carried out annually as a key instrument for supporting mutual accountability and engendering consensus among the sector’s major stakeholders. Essentially, the JSR serves as a foundation for evidence-based policy planning and implementation as well as a means for assessing the effectiveness of policies and institutions and the extent to which intended results and outcomes in the sector are being realized. Thus, the JSR is a management and policy support tool for inclusive stakeholder planning, programming, budget preparation and execution, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and overall development of the agriculture sector. However, since the JSR was first initiated, no study has been undertaken to critically assess its process in an effort to assess its effectiveness. This section performs such an assessment by detailing the consultative process followed in Ghana, including who is involved and their roles in the process; areas and sectors covered by the reviews; key decisions and commitments arising out of the JSR and the responsible actors; gaps in the process; and measures to bridge the gaps. 2.2. The JSR Consultative Process in Ghana Since the start of the JSR in 2008, the consultative process remains invariably the same with only slight modifications and improvement in participation in some years. Usually, the JSR process begins with an initiation stage by MoFA and the DPs through the agriculture sector working group and ends with development of deliverable reports, or an aide memoire (see Figure 2.1). Prior to an inaugural meeting, a planning committee composed of MoFA and DP representatives with PPMED as secretariat prepares the terms of reference (ToRs) agrees on the timing and goals of the review, and communicates information to participants. MoFA and the DPs then initiate the inaugural or inception meeting, which often lasts one day and forms the basis for the agreement of the ToRs, the composition of thematic groups or clusters based on priority areas, endorsement of leadership for the review, and a series of presentations related to the agricultural sector. The JSR process is co-led by a representative from both MoFA and the DPs. At the inaugural or inception meetings, four thematic groups or clusters are usually formed based on participants’ knowledge of the priority areas. Each group usually comprises six people representing MDAs and DPs. Each group then selects a leader and a secretary (or rapporteur). These groups undertake about one week of intensive training by reviewing existing documents or scholarships; participating in meetings, consultations, and field visits; and concluding with reports on key finding and recommendations. Finally, the documents are compiled and presented as a draft aide memoire. After a wrap- up meeting with review leaders, the aide memoir is finalized. The directorate of the MoFA co-leader provides administrative support for the review process with assistance from PPMED, which is expected to track progress of implementation of recommendations (MoFA 2009b). It should be noted that the entire duration for the JSR from inception to wrap-up meeting is often not longer than two weeks. 15 FIGURE 2.1: JOINT SECTOR REVIEW CONSULTATIVE PROCESS IN GHANA Source: Authors. Since 2011, however, instead of an inception and wrap-up meeting being held separately, one meeting lasting three days was held. Instead of the intensive two weeks of fieldwork, group work was usually done during these three days at the workshop venue. Again, about four groups formed in most of the JSRs and would then present group reports after their discussions. After the third day of meetings, an aide memoire is prepared. It seems that since 2011, studies commissioned by task teams or consultants were relied on to generate reports for the JSR. Useful analytical work is also considered for presentation and discussion, even if it was not initiated directly as a result of the JSR. In the planning of many of the JSRs, the annual progress report of the ministry is referred to as the basis of the JSR. However, its contents have not always reflected a sectoral approach to reviewing performance. Recently, its contents are more of a program review of the METASIP. While a review of the METASIP is crucial, such an approach leaves little room to coherently x-ray factors underpinning the performance of the METASIP implementation and the performance of the sector as a whole. Such factors include Wrap-up Meeting and Final Aide Memoire Production Group leaders and the Joint Sector Review team leaders Submission of Deliverables Groups submit their reports and prepare a draft aide memoire Desk Review, Field Visits , Group Work, and Drafting of Team Reports Documentation review by the groups with administrative support from MoFA & logistical support from DPs Formation of Working Groups Co-leaders compose the groups Endorsement of review leaders by group members Group discussions Inception and Inaugral Session Launching by Minister, MoFA staff, & DPs Initiation Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) & development partners (DPs) 16 agriculture funding and the economic and agriculture policy environment. Clearly, an examination of the trends in these areas can shed light on underpinning factors that need to be addressed or managed. From the start of the JSR process in 2008–2009, participants for the inaugural or inception meetings were mainly MoFA staff and DPs. However, from 2010–2013, the scope of the participants was widened to include MDAs, METASIP Steering Committee (MSC) members, the private sector, farmer-based organizations (FBOs), and civil society organizations (CSOs). For instance, whereas in 2009 the participants were mainly MoFA staff and ten DPs, the number of participants had increased substantially in 2011 to 100 and included more stakeholder groups (See Table 2.1). TABLE 2.1: GHANA JOINT SECTOR REVIEW PARTICIPANTS, COMPOSITION, AND DURATION (BY YEAR) Year Theme/Title No. of Participants Composition of Participants Duration 2008 MoFA staff + 10 DPs MoFA, DPs NA 2009 Government of Ghana/development partners’ joint agricultural sector performance review 54 MoFA (31); GoG (8); DPs (10); GIDA, SASH, and others (5) 22 May–3 June (13 days) 2010 Agricultural sector performance review NA MoFA, DPs, private sector, civil society, nontraditional actors, technical review team from the ECOWAS Secretariat, Chair of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Agriculture 19–31May (13 days) 2011 Agricultural sector performance review 100 MoFA (45), DPs (17), METASIP Steering Committee (12), MDAs and other nonstate actors (26) 22–24 June (3 days) 2012 Joint Performance Review of the Agriculture Sector 115 MoFA (45), private sector (12), DPs (22), MSC (13), other MDAs (23) 8–10 May (3 days) 2013 Joint Agriculture Sector Review 118 MoFA (45), the private sector (12), DPs (22), MSC (13), other MDAs (23) 28–30 May (3 days) Source: Compiled by author from JSR aide memoirs for various years (2009–2013). Notes: In order to avoid inadvertently counting people twice, the number of participants is limited to invitees of the JSR inaugural three-day meeting. Members are often drawn from this list of invitees (the aggregate) for the initial phase for (1) analytical or background documents preparation phase; (2) field visits and validation phase; and (3) possibly drafting of aide memoir phase. Assuming attendees that were not invited equal absentee invitees, the number of participants shown in the table is true. MoFA=Ministry of Food and Agriculture; DPs=development partners; GoG=government of Ghana; GIDA=Ghana Irrigation Development Authority; ECOWAS=Economic Community of West African States; METASIP= Medium-Term Agricultural Sector Investment Plan Steering Committee; MDAs=ministries, departments, and agencies; MSC=METASIP Steering Committee. The participants were narrowly drawn across the regions in Ghana. For instance, in 2013, a total of 118 participants were selected with a majority of them stationed in Accra. This raises two major issues worth confronting. First, it suggests that probably current financial and logistical support for the JSR is not adequate, such that involving more participants from outside Accra could perhaps substantially increase the cost of organizing the 17 JSR meetings. Second, it could also be due to limited time and high workloads of the initiation team members, which limits their ability to make an inclusive search for other possible stakeholders outside Accra. Possibly this might stem from the lack of a permanent JSR planning committee. (The JSR planning committee is drawn from the agriculture sector working group, but membership of the JSR committee is not permanent and the committee is formed prior to each JSR. Some members of the previous year’s JSR often retain their membership, however.) The results also indicate that a decentralized JSR at the regional or district level may help. 2.3. Key Questions, Areas, and Sectors Covered by the JSR Throughout the JSR, a number of key questions, areas, and sectors appear common and recurrent over the years, although there are few additions or changes. From Table 2.2, four objectives appear apparent for all the JSRs, which may be based on the formation of their four working groups. However, three of these objectives run across the years. New objectives or questions are raised based on emerging issues. For instance, considering the need for the development of the National Agricultural Investment Plan (NAIP), the 2009 and 2010 JSRs also focused on NAIP and CAADP. Similarly, with METASIP in place, it was necessary to evaluate progress in its implementation. Therefore, the 2013 JSR paid special attention to the METASIP. TABLE 2.2: KEY OBJECTIVES OF THE JOINT SECTOR REVIEW YEAR OBJECTIVES/AREAS To assess the extent of implementation of work programs and ascertain progress toward the achievement of expected outputs and outcomes of the agricultural sector (MoFA performance). To assess major policy initiatives of MoFA and their effectiveness and an assessment of the two budget support operations (CIDA’s FABS and the World Bank’s AgDPO). To report progress of implementation of the previous year’s JSR recommendation. To appraise the National Agricultural Investment Plan put forward under the CAADP process and contribute to preparations for the CAADP Roundtable scheduled for June 2009. To identify innovations and progress in addressing the challenges farmers and others in the agricultural sector are facing. To evaluate progress of METASIP implementation from 2008 to 2012 and determine the way forward. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Source: Compiled by authors from JSR report, various years. Notes: MoFA=Ministry of Food and Agriculture; CIDA’s FABS=Canadian International Development Agency’s Food and Agriculture Budgetary Support; AgDPO=Agriculture Development Policy Operation; CAADP=Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme; METASIP= Medium-Term Agricultural Sector Investment Plan Steering Committee; Also, although the JSR is a sector review, it does not focus on specific subsectors of agriculture but rather on policies and programs across the subsectors of agriculture. From Table 2.3, 13 broad areas, shown by color 18 variations, have so far been considered in the JSR. The first area, which runs parallel across the years and is therefore shown in different shades of the same color (green), looks at the performance of the agricultural sector and achievements of program or policy objectives. Besides 2013, each year’s JSR looked at four major areas, although some of the areas considered were not distinctly different from the previous years. In 2009 and 2010, JSRs focused on the same areas (see Table 2.3). It is not apparent what determines the choice of focus areas, but it is certain that they might be influenced by the previous year’s areas of focus, recommendations, and emerging issues (as exemplified by the inclusion of the New Alliance as an area of focus in 2013). Useful reports from completed studies, which are deemed important for sector review, also influence the agenda for the JSR. In recent years, the policy subgroup of the agriculture sector working group, in particular, has been tasked with identifying the issues to be discussed or reviewed. These issues are then presented for approval at the larger agriculture sector working group meetings, after which the JSR planning committee adheres to them. TABLE 2.3: KEY AREAS COVERED BY THE JOINT SECTOR REVIEW Year Areas 2009 Area 1: Sector Performance in 2008 and Achievement of Policy/Program Objectives Area 2: Achieving FASDEP II and MoFA’s Delivery Capability Area 5: Budgeting, Planning and Aid Delivery and Monitoring and Evaluation Area 9: Procurement and Financial Management 2010 Sector Performance in 2009 and Achievement of Policy/ Program Objectives Review the Sector’s Capability to Deliver on METASIP Planning and Budgeting, SWAp, and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Procurement and Financial Management 2011 Sector Performance in 2010 including Budgetary Support Program Area 3: Studies on MoFA Program and Extension Area 6: Issues on Irrigation, Fisheries, and Value Chain Development Area 10: Management and Coordination Issues 2012 Sector Performance in 2011 and Achievement of Policy/Program Objectives Review of Recommendations of MoFA Policy Initiatives including Fertilizer Subsidy, NAFCO, AMSEC, and Block Farm Program Area 7: Review of policies/ Concepts to Improve Agric. Research and Environmental Sustainability Area 11: Agricultural Research and Financial Management 2013 Review of Sector Performance in 2012 *Area 4: Report on Progress of Implementation of 2012 JSR Recommendation Area 8: METASIP Review Review of Planning, Budgeting, and Coordination Processes in the Sector Area 12: Status of Policy Actions under New Alliance and Proposed a National Ag. Policy Matrix Area 13: Decentralization Policy in Relation to METASIP Source: Compiled by authors from JSR report, various years. Notes: Cells with the same color imply the areas of focus are similar or the same. See acronym list at beginning of document. *Between 2009 and 2012, Area 4 was executed by four groups, with each reviewing the progress of the joint sector review under the specific area assigned to the particular group. In 2013, however, special emphasis was placed on reviewing the progress of implementation, and it emerged as a unique area of focus. 19 2.4. Key Decisions and Commitments Arising from the JSR and Responsible Actors Since the inception of the JSR in 2008, a number of key decision points and commitments have been variously reached. These decisions and commitments were entrusted to some specific group of actors in the sector. Table 2.4 provides a summary of some of the key decisions and commitments of the JSRs. These decisions are often held as aide memoires, developed into an action plan at the business meetings, and given to the agriculture subsector working groups for implementation. However, the ad-hoc JSR implementation committee is entrusted with monitoring and reporting any implementation progress, which is usually done at the next JSR meeting. 20 TABLE 2.4: SUMMARY OF KEY DECISIONS OR COMMITMENTS 2009 2010 2012 Key Decision Implementers Timelines Key Decision Implementers Timelines Key Decision Implementers Timelines A systematic review of critical MoFA programs. MoFA with technical assistance from DPs All reviews completed to input into 2009 APR Reviews of major programs: A cost benefit and beneficiary analysis should be undertaken for the following major initiatives: (1) Agriculture Mechanization Services Enterprise Centers; (2) Block Farming Programme; (3) Fertilizer Subsidy Programme. A risk analysis of the National Food Company’s (NAFCO’s) operations should be done so that the factors that led to the collapse of the National Food Distribution Company are not repeated. MoFA with support from sector stakeholder s Before 2010 Annual Performan ce Review. Focus APR Report on METASIP and de-emphasize MoFA. MoFA, NDPC, DPs, stakeholders 2013 APR is based on METASIP Clear operational procedures for core MoFA programs to be published, defining (1) roles and responsibilities of MoFA staff (at various levels); (2) any cost- sharing arrangements (if applicable); (3) financing sources (MOFA headquarters, regional agricultural development unit (RADU), district agricultural development unit (DADU)). MoFA, technical directorates Published by end of 2009 Irrigation policy and strategic plans, including a cost/benefit and beneficiary analysis should be developed. Progress reports indicating the percentage of work done on projects and cost elements should be developed. MoFA, GIDA Policy and strategic plan published by end 2010. Create awareness on joint planning and synchronize, harmonize, and prioritize plan and build capacity of stakeholders, including MoFA, MMDAs, CSOs. Do joint strategic planning with DPs & CSOs, and budget with key stakeholders (NDPC, MMDAs, and DPs). MoFA, NDPC End of July of 2012 A concerted effort to revitalize RELCs by (1) improving coordination with CSIR in aligning incentives for researchers, (2) clarifying funding sources for RELC structures within RADU budgets; and (3) using interactions with FBOs as a conduit for improved sensitization of farmers on RELCs and their functioning. MoFA, CSIR, with support from DPs Approach prepared for implement ation during FY2010 Human resource capacity: The ability of the sector to deliver on METASIP programs must be improved by: (1) Ensuring that MoFA has the number of appropriate personnel required; (2) ensuring that personnel have the necessary training; (3) carrying out a functional review by all Directorates to identify their function within MoFA at the national, regional, and district levels; (4) recruiting more female recruits to MoFA, especially at the managerial level. MoFA (1) Ongoing, (2) ongoing, and (3) all reviews to be completed by the end of 2010, and (4) ongoing. Code all agriculture related expenditure by MoFA and MMDAs as a prelude to mapping and tracking agriculture expenditure. MoFA, MMDAs, NDPC End of July 2012 21 Development of comprehensive approach for supporting FBOs (including water user associations) to: (1) reposition MoFA to better support FBO as key institutions within the value chains; (2) take advantage of the FBO registration to classify FBOs by functions and adapt specific support structures according to their needs (recognizing FBOs have different forms and objectives; (3) ensure appropriate legal foundation for FBOs; and (4) collaborate with rural financial institutions and the proposed ADIF to ensure that FBOs can access financial products (including insurance). MoFA, MoFEP, MoYS, RCBs, with DP support Program developed for FY2010 Budgetary Processes: Improve the budgeting process by: (1) Ensuring that all FASDEP policy objectives are captured in the plans of the RADUs and DADUs; (2) ensure that the budget allocations to RADUs and DADUs are based upon workplans submitted and are adequate to allow implementation of plans through the MTEF process; (3) RADUs and DADUs should be trained and provided adequate information on sector policies, including the METASIP; (4) conducting trend analysis (Budgeting Unit of PPMED) to estimate the budget ceilings earlier in the budgeting process; and (5) ensuring continuous strengthening of the policy framework M&E system. MoFA (1) Ongoing, (2) ongoing, (3) all training and informatio n disseminat ion to be completed by the end of 2010, (4) ongoing, and (5) ongoing. Develop modules and guidelines for planning in accordance with METASIP. All district budget officers should be using these modules and guidelines and trained in subsector policies with METASIP. MoFA, NDPC, and stakeholders End of 2012 Source: Compiled by authors from Ghana Joint Sector Review reports. Note: See acronym list at beginning of document. 2009 2011 2012 Key Decision Implemente rs Timelin es Key Decision Implement ers Timelin es Key Decision Implement ers Timelin es Initiate improvement in budgeting. MoFA, MoFEP For 2010 budget preparatio n RELCs Process Continue to improve on the RELCs process by (1) ensuring that RELCs activities are included in MoFA budgets; (2) ensuring long-term planning for continuous funding for research; (3) finalizing, publishing, and implementing an RELC Manual. MoFA, CSIR with support from sector stakeholders (1) Ongoing, (2) ongoing, (3) manual to be finalized, published, and implement ed by end of 2010. Policy and strategy in place by end of 2010. Carry out METASIP orientation in all districts. Draft METASIP implementati on strategies with emphasis on MoFA, DPs, CSOs, and other stakeholders and publicize achievements of the agriculture sector. MoFA, NDPC, DPs End of 2012 22 2009 2011 2012 Key Decision Implementers Timelines Key Decision Implementers Timelines Key Decision Implementers Timelines Functional review of MoFA. Implementation of the communications strategy to improve inter-and intra-Ministerial communication. Completion of HR database. MoFA with technical assistance from DPs Committe e establishe d and functional review underway by the end of 2009 FBOs: There is a need to implement a policy and strategy for FBO development that includes clear guidelines on their formation, registration, and operation. The MoFA FBO Secretariat should be decentralized to regions and districts to increase access for farmers. MoFA Align METASIP Steering Committee membership to that of a Ministerial Advisory Board. MoFA By August 2012 Improved coordination among MDAs on agriculture sector- related interventions. MoFA with other MDAs (in particular Transport, COCOBOD, Science and Education) Initiated during 2010 budget process CAADP process and SAKSS (1) Improve coordination between sector stakeholders through implementation of the CAADP process; (2) ensure that all MoFA Directorates and MoFA staff are aware of and are part of the CAADP process; (3) the CAADP Team should be identified, vetted, and be operationalized; (4) the Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) should be activated to (promote evidence-based strategic decision making; and (5) METASIP programs need to be prioritized. MoFA, all sector stakeholders (1) Ongoing, (2) ongoing, (3) by end of June 2010, (4) by end of 2010, (5) by end of 2010 MoFA management to submit comments in 2012 PPB training report to MoFEP. MoFA Head, Budget Division of PPMED By 31 of May 2012 Improved integration of M&E arrangements of DP projects into MoFA's M&E arrangements and coordination of project reviews with the JSR. DPs, with support from MoFA ongoing Procurement and Financial Management (1) Review overall progress of procurement and financial management, paying particular attention to timely disbursements, monitoring and reporting from National, Regional and District levels; (2) Establish Regional focal persons trained to support Regional and District Officers in procurement and financial management activities; (3) Revive procurement and financial management committees at the Regional and District levels; (4) Provide procurement and financial management staff at headquarters as well as at the Regional and District levels, with adequate accommodation, equipment, logistics and training where appropriate. MoFA and MoFEP (1) Review to be completed by end of 2010, (2) focal persons to be in place by end of 2010, (3) committee s to be in place by end of 2010, (4) ongoing. To improve on the data, SRID is to review and update data in the result framework of METASIP. MoFA-SRID To be completed by end of June 2012 Source: Compiled by authors from Ghana Joint Sector Review reports. Note: See acronym list at beginning of document. 23 2013 Key Decisions Implementer Duration METASIP Review: (1) Collection of quality data and management, (2) improve institutional coordination, (3) bridging gender disparities, (4) improve implementation structures, and (5) document exit strategy for projects. PPMED to coordinate implementation May 2014– present (ongoing) Review of planning, budgeting and coordination processes in the sector: (1) Adequate time and fund allocation for robust planning and realistic budgeting, (2) training of district staffs on program based budgeting. – Private Sector: (1) Coordination among private sector and MoFA, (2) education about opportunities within METASIP, (3) reconstructing link between financial institutions and agriculture value chains, and (4) better engagement of private sector. – Decentralization Policy in Relation to METASIP: (1) Low and aging AEAs, (2) integrate METASIP into district medium-term plans. – Source: Compiled by authors from 2013 Ghana Joint Sector Review report. Note: See acronym list at beginning of document. 2.5. Gaps in the JSR Process The main gaps in the JSR process stem from participation and implementation of the decision points reached at the JSR. Poor participation stems from the organization of the JSR process itself. Participation may be assessed in terms of its scope and depth, where the scope refers to the number of invitees while the depth refers to representation of the various sector stakeholders, contributions, criticisms, or suggestions of the participants. The number of invitees has been increasing steadily (see Figure 2.2). 24 FIGURE 2.2: NUMBER OF JOINT SECTOR REVIEW PARTICIPANTS FOR VARIOUS YEARS Source: Compiled by authors from available data JSR participants’ lists. Although increasing the number of participants is good, the mere presence of individuals with a vague knowledge of the sector is not enough. The depth of participation is therefore paramount for a vibrant JSR process. From Figure 2.3, we group the participants of the JSR into state and nonstate representatives. State representatives include those from MoFA and other ministries, departments, and agencies. Nonstate participants are largely from farmer-based organizations, civil society organizations, the private sector, development partners, and members of academia. Figure 2.3 demonstrates that state institutions have the largest representation (68 percent) in the JSR process. Even the remaining 32 percent of representation by nonstate organizations is flooded by the DPs composing more than half of it. Based on stakeholder interviews, it was clear that stakeholders only come to witness the process (that is, attend the meeting) but do not actively participate in directly addressing issues raised at the review. This may be because invitees are often not tasked with specific areas of focus or specific duties or may not be given enough briefing prior to the JSR. When participants’ backgrounds are not properly checked or not related to the sector and for that reason, the person has limited knowledge in the sector or finds the discussion not touching on his/her area of focus, then you can hardly expect any meaningful participation from the person. Azu (2013) also states that there is low inclusion of nonstate actors in the joint sector review. They are physically present in the JSR but have no input in the TOR of prior reviews/studies to feed into the JSR event nor do they have an input into the agenda of the event. As such their participation is weak and their inputs come under ‘any other business’ for which there is usually little time. This weakens their role in ensuring accountability. 100 115 118 90 100 110 120 2011 2012 2013 N u m b e r o f p ar ti ca n ts Year 25 FIGURE 2.3: EXTENT OF REPRESENTATION OF SECTOR STAKEHOLDERS IN 2013 JOINT SECTOR REVIEW Source: Compiled by authors from 2013 JSR participants’ lists. Note: METASIP Steering Committee is not isolated; instead members are included in their respective institutions. There also seems to be no clearly established permanent committee for monitoring the implementation of the decisions from the JSR. Since the ad-hoc committee is formed prior to the JSR and it is “dissolved” before the next JSR, there is a lack of continuity in the monitoring of the JSR commitments. Another challenging part of the JSR is that the decisions are reached after the budgetary allocation or approval to the sector, thereby leading to limited funding due to the fact that the implementation cost is unbudgeted in the current financial year in which the JSR was undertaken. These could be the main reasons for the limited evidence of actions on the JSR recommendations as noted in the aide memoire of the 2009–2013 JSRs. According to Azu (2013), the JSR appears to be strong in encouraging useful discussions but weak in encouraging action following the discussions. There is little follow-up of the agreements reached in it by the next JSR. There are no sanctions for those who do not meet the commitments they made. As such, the JSR cannot monitor budget compliance. The author stress that it is better to give civil society the mandate. Also Parliamentary oversight is weak due to administrative and political reasons. Again weak dissemination of data (financial, agriculture performance etc.) makes it difficult for NSAs and other stakeholders to do M&E and hold themselves accountable for outcomes. Also there it is difficult to do joint (multi-sectoral) review as joint planning has not yet been achieved. Therefore information availability needs to be institutionalized. There are also repetitions in the observations and recommendations from year to year as noted in the 2009 aide memoire indicating weak follow-up throughout the years, hence only a few of JSR recommendations being implemented. Another challenge is who demands or owns the JSR. Although the strength of the JSR is evidence-based analysis, field trips to ascertain and confirm the reality of the evidence used in the JSR have not been undertaken since 2010. Furthermore, MoFA and other organizations and units of the agriculture sector seem to have limited number of skilled personnel in the technical areas especially in monitoring and evaluation. This suggests that the few staff may be over-stretched due to high workloads, constantly emerging new workloads, and multiple roles assigned to them (see Table 2.5) State 68% Agriculture DP groups 19% Private sector 2% Farmer groups 2% Other nonstate actors 3% Academia 3% Civil society 3% Nonstate 32% 26 TABLE 2.5: STAFFING IN THE MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE’S AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH OUTFIT Institution/ Organization PhD MSc/MPhil BSc Total (2012) Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female SRID 0 0 6 3 1 1 7 4 PPMED of MoFA 0 1 7 4 8 5 15 10 Total 0 1 13 7 9 6 22 14 Source: Modified from Dittoh 2013. 2.6. Action Plan to Bridge the Gaps and Best Practices in Implementing JSR The Ghana JSR initiative is important for tracking the progress of the sector as well as informing policy direction. Therefore the process should be self-sustaining, evidence-based, and useful to stakeholders in the sector and committed to the principles of mutual accountability. While the JSR has been very successful in of being sustained over the years and increased number of participation, there is the need for clear improvement in some areas or inclusion of some missing elements in the process as a means for strengthening the process. The current scope of participation is adequate but it lacks fair representation across the nation. Therefore, more representation should be offered to stakeholders stationed outside Accra with gender fairness also maintained. Invitees should also be given enough briefing through short communications to determine the direction of the JSR discussions. Participants’ specific tasks and groups should be specified in the invitation letter to enable them to prepare adequately and ensure constructive participation. If invitees attend JSR meetings but fail to participate, it is also the mandate of the chairperson(s) to ensure participation. Discussions should be communicative and understandable to most participants, avoiding domination by a few, in-house discussions and excessive use of jargon or acronyms. To further strengthen the underlying evidence-base of the JSR, the process must move beyond “data syndrome” to “confirmation.” Meaning, it should not just be based on what has been said or on outdated data but must be based on current data. Realism can only be attained through verification or confirmation. Therefore, there should be random field visits or ground truthing and opinion surveys to confirm the validity and integrity of the data used. However, the data collection process should also be of high quality in order to avoid inconsistencies and obtain data with high reliability. Again, MoFA should be entrusted with implementation of the JSR decisions in conformity with their mandate, while the development partners provide logistic support. This would also increase ownership and mutual accountability. However, an independent monitoring team could support in the assessment of the progress of implementation of the JSR. Also the quasi ad-hoc committee should be made to serve for a period of years (say three years) to ensure continuity in the monitoring of the JSR decisions and implementation process. There is also the need for capacity building and human resource support. One outcome of the earlier survey by Dittoh (2013) is that the deficit in personnel that MoFA is facing, not only in terms of numbers but also in terms of technical skills and training needs, hinders effective service delivery. 27 To ensure that inclusiveness and the use of evidence are improved upon in the JSR, it would be useful to have a definite timetable for it that would involve early preparations. Civil society organizations, for example, at workshops conducted during the study suggested that the planning for a May JSR should commence in October annually. This would give the organizers eight months to ensure that all necessary processes are completed. Inclusiveness and participation will be improved on if the overall leadership of the JSR is entrusted to a broader representation of stakeholders like the METASIP Steering Committee. This would allow all key stakeholders to jointly design the agenda of the JSR to reflect topical issues they would want to dialogue on and hence keenly participate in their discussion. Joint designing of the agenda would also allow key stakeholders to articulate viewpoints from their constituencies prior to the JSR. 2.7. Summary The Ghana JSR process has been very successful in terms of being sustained over the past five years. However, there is the need to make adjustment to some aspects of the process. From the review, two key challenges stand out. First, the poor participation by invitees, and second the ineffective implementation and monitoring of the agreed-upon courses of action. Appropriately, participation could be increased through short communications and briefing of participants prior to the JSR; and also informing participants of their specific tasks and groups. More importantly, effective participation can be increased by having a wider representation of stakeholders, like the METASIP Steering Committee in particular, lead the JSR process with the support of the JSR secretariat. To ensure effectiveness of the output of the JSR, current data as well as verification of implementation through random field visits, ground trothing, or through random survey of key informants in communities of such intended data sources would help. 28 3. POLICY REVIEW 3.1. Introduction The agricultural policy stance of modern day Ghana can be traced to colonial and post-independent Ghana. The linkage of agricultural polices to political regimes gives a coherent and concise understanding of agricultural policy development in Ghana. When the colonial government took control of the Gold Coast and following the abolition of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, agricultural policy mainly focused on making the Gold Coast a producer of raw materials for export and an importer of manufactured goods for consumption (Rodney 1984). Following Ghana’s independence in 1957, Ghana was faced with the fundamental choice of adopting a unimodal strategy (rapid modernization of the entire agricultural sector) or a bimodal one (accelerated modernization that concentrates resources in a highly commercialized sub-sector, which results in a development pattern on a dualistic size structure of farm units) (Johnston and Kirby 1976). Ghana towed the line of the bimodal dualistic strategy based on modernization development theories that had taken root worldwide. Since then successive government’s agricultural policy have been pinned to the export crops with minimal variation in policy. While all governments undertook agricultural modernization in the end, the only difference was whether this was a capitalist or socialist motive. The Convention People’s Party government, which gained independence for Ghana, introduced the First Five- Year Development Plan (1951 to 1956) and the Second Five-Year Development Plan (1959 to 1964). The thrust of these plans encouraged large scale farming under public control in a mechanized setting, which served as a blow to small-scale farmers (Dapaah 1995). An Agricultural Development Corporation (ADC) was established to oversee the plan and promote agricultural development. By 1962, the ADC had accumulated a large deficit and was liquidated. Although much less than 1 percent of the nation’s local food requirement was produced by these Cooperative Farms, greater part of the Agriculture Budget was allocated to them, perhaps because they offered employment to the strongest supporters of the government. The next six regimes, which took power successively in Ghana between 1966 and 1992—namely the National Liberation Council led by General Ankrah/Afrifa, Progress Party led by Dr. K. A. Busia, the National Redemption Council (NRC) Supreme Military Council I led by Acheampong, Supreme Military Council II led by Fred Akuffo, the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council led by Rawlings, the People’s National Party led by Dr. Hilla Limman, and the People’s National Defense Council and the National Democratic Congress led by Rawlings—all tended to favor large-scale capital intensive production over small-scale production with little consideration for dealing with agricultural surpluses and raw materials. The only exception was the NRC led by Acheampong, which launched “Operation Feed Yourself,” a strategy that promoted local small-scale production even though small-scale farmers were denied access to subsidized farming credit and inputs. During the mid- to late 1990s, agricultural policy in Ghana was characterized by the “project approach” then moved to a sector-wide approach during the 2000s, with FASDEP I and II serving as a framework for agricultural development. This section provides assessments of the inventory of key existing and emerging policies; the quality of policy planning, implementation, consistency, and balance; and the adequacy of policy coverage as a means to improved agricultural policymaking, implementation, and monitoring in Ghana. Using the “traffic light rating” of red, yellow, and green, we assess six key policy dimensions of national policies based on the level of 29 attention needed to improve their effectiveness. A green rating implies that the component is realized to a sufficient degree, and additional attention is not required. A yellow rating means that the conditions required to achieve the component are partially achieved, but additional attention is required. A red rating means that significant attention is needed to ensure the component is achieved. 3.2. Inventory of Existing and Emerging Policies There have been a number of agricultural sector policies or related polices that existed prior to the introduction of Ghana’s METASIP. Some of the major policies that have had some bearing on agriculture include the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) of the 1980s and early 1990s, the Financial Sector Investment Programme (FINSAP) of the early 1990s, the Medium Term Agricultural Development Programme (MTADP) (1991–2000), and the economy-wide Vision 2020 Framework of the mid-1990s. Under the MTADP, a number of agricultural projects were implemented, which included the National Agricultural Research Project (NARP) (1991–1999), National Agricultural Extension Project (NAEP) (1992–2000), Agricultural Sector Adjustment Credit (ASAC) (1992–1999), National Livestock Services Project (NLSP) (1993–1999), and Agricultural Subsector Investment Project (ASIP) (1994–2000). The MTADP was followed with the Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Development Strategy (AAGDS) (1996 to 2000) and the Agriculture Services Sector Investment Programme (AgSSIP) (2002 and 2006) under which the Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP) I and FASDEP II were developed based on a broad consultative process. The objectives of FASDEP II are aligned to the CAADP pillars. FASDEP II objectives were also in line with the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS I) (2003–2005), the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II) (2006–2009) and the most current April 2014 Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda II (GSDA II) (2014–2017), all of which were developed under the watch of Ghana’s National Development Planning Commission (NDPC). A new encouraging, development emerging from the most recent 2014 Joint Sector Review, is that MoFA has agreed to develop a comprehensive national agricultural policy framework to identify and focus on policy and institutional reform actions that enhance the achievement of growth and development results. It will incorporate the above-mentioned strategic national agendas with all existing policy reform initiatives of the development partners (such as the New Alliance), while ensuring adequate input from the private sector and civil society. This agricultural policy framework will be created on three-year rolling basis and the status of reform implementation will be reported on a quarterly basis to senior MoFA management. Another positive change in the policy landscape is that MoFA agreed in June 2014 to expand beyond the New Alliance policy activity and require private sector participation through the MoFA Post-Harvest Committee. This is important because the government has not adequately addressed the private sector’s concerns with minimum price setting and related marketing activities of the national food buffer stock company (NAFCO). The impact of NAFCO will be assessed and efforts made to align its activities and investments with the best market-oriented solutions that contribute to food security (a major FASDEP and METASIP objective), market stabilization, and income protection of smallholder farmers. The aim is to accomplish this on a more market and private-sector friendly basis. Following the development of FASDEP II, NEPAD supported Ghana through the CAADP process (in collaboration with sector development partners) to develop its National Agricultural Investment Plan (NAIP). This was the Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (METASIP) for implementing FASDEP II. 30 However, after the development of the METASIP, some program initiatives have also emerged or been completed; some of these initiatives were being concurrently prepared alongside and, in some cases, in support of the METASIP. These include the Fertilizer and Seed Policy, Information and Communications Technology (ICT) for Accelerated Development Policy, the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, and others.1 In particular, the government initiated the design of the Ghana Agricultural Sector Investment Programme (GASIP) as a way to operationalize the METASIP, together with the DPs and other country partners. In April 2014, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) approved substantial funding to finance a component of GASIP. The government seeks to improve the management of the sector by: (1) enhancing the focus on country priorities through a clear results matrix; (2) further aligning donor-financed programs with these priorities; and (3) improving planning and budgeting by harnessing resources from the government, DPs, and the private sector. (See Figure 3.1.) FIGURE 3.1: PRE- AND POST-METASIP PROGRAMS AND OTHER INITIATIVES Source: Authors’ construction. Note: See acronym list at the beginning of this document. 3.3. Quality of Policy Planning and Execution Policy planning and execution must be evidence-based and involves an in-depth understanding of agricultural systems. Sensitization as well as collaboration among sector stakeholders should also enhance the quality of policy planning and execution. The quality of policy planning and execution has multiple dimensions that should lead to an increased sense of ownership of policies; limited risk associated with project implementation; better and easy strategies of implementation, budgeting, and financing; and limited time overruns in implementation. Stakeholders generally perceived that the quality of policy planning, implementation, and monitoring is good since policy planning and execution follows a consultative and collaborative process. Many of the stakeholders cited the design of FASDEP II as an example of such consultative processes, although some were of the view that there is still opportunity to improve the process. As similarly noted by Azu (2013), stakeholders perceived that the planning and budget process used by MoFA is not “results oriented,” making it difficult to monitor the relationship between expenditure and outputs. 1 While the METASIP anticipated a partnership with the private sector, the initiation of the New Alliance provided an additional avenue to deepen the collaboration between the government and the private sector. Pre-METASIP MTADP, FINSAP, AgSSIP, AADGDS FASDEP I & II, GPRS I & II METASIP Post-METASIP Ghana Irrigation Devt Policy, Ghana Tree Crop Policy, Fertilizer and Seed Policy, ICT4ADP, Fisheries Policy, New Alliance, GASIP 31 Despite the overlapping view on stakeholder involvement in policy design and implementation, there was a general consensus on the extent to which policies define measurable targets that can be tracked. The general view was that policies usually have baselines for benchmarking progress. Therefore the targets are set based on these benchmarks. For example, METASIP has a set of performance measures that are organized according to the framework’s six objectives. Also inherent in the benchmarks are evaluation measures. Thus the benchmarks form the basis for tracking and evaluating progress. Nonetheless, some of the baseline measures are not provided in the METASIP. Additionally, some of the target set appears unrealistic and are not easily measurable (Dittoh 2013; Azu 2013). The policies themselves also do not specify any definitive review approach or mechanisms for reviewing the policy. For instance, although the review of FASDEP I culminated in the development of FASDEP II, the review was mainly prompted by the lack of ownership due to poor participation and consultation—not by any specified review process in the policy itself (MoFA 2006). Also, as noted by MoFA (2013d), 67 percent of indicators had no baseline, 7 percent had no targets, and 42 percent were not stated neutrally. Again, there is not a defined policy reform process in support of METASIP objectives. Lack of accurate and reliable data is another challenge affecting the quality of policy planning and evaluation, which was rated as red in the evaluation. 3.4. Consistency of Policy Mix Existing as well as emerging policies are in harmony with each other (Africa Lead 2013). Usually, emerging policies are intended to support or bridge existing policy gaps, but some, such as the Fertilizer and Seed Policy, do not have supporting implementation plans. This suggests that implementation of such plans may be rooted in the METASIP, which creates challenges in terms of coordination of the programs and duplication of efforts. Also, among METASIP’s objectives is institutional coordination, however, there is limited inter- and intra- ministerial coordination as well decentralization of METASIP implementation programs in the districts (MoFA 2013d). But, overall, policies complement each other in attaining set objectives and targets. Therefore, this aspect of policies in the sector could be rated as Yellow. 3.5. Alignment of Emerging Policies with Ghana’s NAIP (METASIP) Generally, all existing and emerging policies in the agricultural sector and even some that are indirectly related to agriculture (such as the ICT4ADP and Ghana Irrigation Development Policies) are directed to the successful implementation of the METASIP. This is mainly because emerging policies such as the Fertilizer and Seed Policy and even the New Alliance take their roots from gaps in the METASIP or FASDEP II. According to the METASIP Mid-term Review Report, which examined 61 projects using a three-point Likert scale, 24 projects were noted to have a low level of alignment to METASIP, 30 projects a medium level, and seven a high level. These projects are the West Africa Agriculture Productivity Programme, Integrated Coastal Fisheries Management and Governance Programme, Export Marketing and Quality Awareness Programme, Cashew Development Project, AGRA Agricultural Value Chain Mentorship Project, USAID Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement (ADVANCE) Project, and Afram Plains Agricultural Development Project. Stakeholders in the sector also showed similar perception with most generally agreeing that emerging policies are substantially in alignment with METASIP implementation. However, there was emphasis on continuous assessment of emerging policies to ensure alignment. With minimal work required, this could be rated as green. 32 3.6. Policy Implementation Status The policy implementation process is characterized by a limited degree of predictability and transparency due to capacity constraints as well as financial limitations (Dittoh 2013). MoFA and other organizational units in the agriculture sector have limited number of staff especially at the district levels. For instance, in most districts the Agricultural Extension Agent (AEA) to farmer ratio is still as high as 1:1,500 (MoFA 2010a). The ideal rate is one agent for every 400 farmers. Dittoh (2013) pointed out that although MoFA is the lead ministry in the agricultural sector, it does not have the capacity and the required skills to implement some of the METASIP programs, such as Programme 2 (Improved Growth in Incomes), Programme 3 (Increased Competitiveness), and Programme 5 (Science and Technology Applied to Food and Agriculture). This was further confirmed by the stakeholders who were interviewed in this study. Again, using the efficiency of policy implementation benchmark developed by MoFA, the level of efficiency of implementation of the ministry’s policy is declining (see Figure 3.2). According to MoFA (2014), efficiency of the ministry is declining at the rate of 1.22 percent per year, and the ministry cannot afford to be ineffective and inefficient when the order of the day is “value for money.” This further illustrates the need to place red alert on policy implementation. In terms of monitoring the status of implementation, only a few staff members had technical ability in 2009, as articulated in the 2009 MoFA M&E evaluation report (Dittoh 2013). Although MoFA has received some training since then, many stakeholders perceive the M&E system to be largely nonfunctional in terms of significantly influencing strategic planning and modification of policies and programs (Dittoh 2013). According to Azu (2013), some stakeholders believe that agriculture is not a priority for the Finance Ministry, as evidenced by its more visible outputs on road construction and health. This contributes to a late (or nonexistent) release of funds compared to other sectors, which makes it difficult or impossible for MoFA to deliver on set targets. Where funds are provided, political considerations and a lack of policy and budget discipline—that is, the inability to “stick to plan”—is usually the main problem (Azu 2013). There is an ongoing disconnect between sector plans and available resources, with the situation becoming worse when there are cash flow difficulties. In spite of these challenges and with the support of development partners, MoFA (2013d) found that most of the projects completed or ongoing in the life of the METASIP are aligned with its core objectives. This implies that some progress is being made, and the area is therefore given a yellow rating. FIGURE 3.2: TRENDS IN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION EFFICIENCY RATIO Source: Regional agricultural development unit reports (MoFA 2014). 0.79 0.77 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 33 3.7. Meeting Policy Commitment under the New Alliance (NA) Cooperation Framework Under the New Alliance, the government’s policy commitments are broadly aimed at increasing the use of improved inputs and encouraging investment in the sector. The increase in investment is to be encouraged by making the investment climate more secure and making the sector’s policy process more transparent and inclusive. Fifteen policy actions were committed to within seven broad areas. Twelve of these commitments were due by June 2014 while three are at a later date. Of the twelve due in June, only four were completed while some progress has been made in achieving the remaining eight. Some progress has been made in achieving the commitments that are due after June 2014, and the overall area was rated yellow. The seven broad areas are discussed below and highlighted in Table 3.1. 1. Developing regulations to implement the new seed law  Of the three policy actions under the first broad area, one was already in place and did not need to be improved on. This is the action on standards for seed classification. This action is therefore regarded as completed. Some progress has been achieved in the other two policy actions as indicated in Table 3.1. In 2012, the regulations had been completed and presented to Parliament, however, they did not meet the 21-day requirement to become law before Parliament went on recess. The process for making them a law was restarted.  Already, the new select committee has been given the opportunity to review the regulations: their comments have been incorporated and the AGs Department has submitted it for approval by MoFA for laying in Parliament. Progress in this area is also shown by the June 2014 official launch of the new Fertilizer and Seed Policy, which was completed in 2013, and the inauguration of the seed councils. However, the achievement of this action area is behind schedule by one year as it was targeted for completion by June 2013. 2. Developing a new inputs policy for fertilizer and seed  As indicated above, the Fertilizer and Seed Policy was officially launched in June 2014 but completed in 2013. Further work is ongoing to clarify the roles for various stakeholders. This area is noted as having experienced some progress. 3. Creating a database of suitable land for investors  This action area is to be achieved through the Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project (GCAP). However, the project preparation took many years longer than expected. It was finally approved by Parliament on August 16, 2012, and became effective on the April 8, 2013. In 2013, the Project Implementation Manual (PIM) was developed, and sensitization workshops with communities and farmers in northern Ghana on land database were held. Currently, consultants have been engaged to develop a system to establish the land bank, to be completed in September 2014. This action is rated as having experienced some progress compared to last year. 4. Developing a pilot lease model for land  Consultants have also been engaged to develop a system to establish the lease agreement and are to submit their report by September 2014. We note that some progress has occurred on this policy action. 34 5. Establishing clear procedures for channeling investments  A firm (Monitor/Deloitte Group) has been engaged to review, develop, and implement capacity building for the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC) and the Agribusiness Division of PPMED. We also note that some progress has occurred on this policy action. 6. Completing a new Ghana Agricultural Production Survey  This was piloted in two phases: the initial pilot in 2011–2012 and the consolidation in 20 districts in 2012–2013. The pilot data was released October 8, 2012, and the second phase was completed in April 2013. Scaling up from the pilot and actual implementation is the third phase, and up to 60 districts will be reached. The current scaling up will be possible only for the minor season, so it will be completed in the major season of 2015. The plan is then to scale up to 120 districts and finally to the total 260 districts nationwide. 7. Making the post-harvest committee more inclusive  This was to be achieved by appointing private sector representatives of key grain value chains to the MoFA Post-Harvest Committee. This action was completed on September 13, 2012. 35 TABLE 3.1: UPDATE ON THE GOVERNMENT’S POLICY COMMITMENTS Objective Framework Policy Actions Date Due Progress Made Traffic Light Rating A. To establish policy that enables the private sector to develop commercialize and use improved inputs to increase smallholder productivity and incomes 1. Regulations developed to implement the new seed law, specifically: Seed registry system established. June 2013 The law requires that the ministry compile a register of plant varieties. A catalogue is being developed by the Crop Services Division. In the seed regulations, there is also a registry on breeder seed, foundation seed, certified seed, seed producers, and seed distributers. Protocols for variety testing, release and registration, authorization to conduct field inspections, seed sampling, and seed testing developed. June 2013 Protocols are to be established where they were absent and existing ones revised to conform to the ECOWAS harmonized seed regulations. This is ongoing. Standards for seed classification and certification established. June 2013 The standards for seed classification and certification exist as before the law and were not revised because they were considered adequate. 2. New agricultural input policy for fertilizer and certified seed use developed that includes: The fertilizer policy facilitated by PPRSD and the seed policy facilitated by CSD have been completed and approved by the Cabinet in 2013. • An action plan is being developed to support implementation and clarify roles. • The regulatory aspects are being implemented. Activities such as attracting investment and research into those sectors will be supported by the action plan Clearly defined role of government in fertilizer and seed marketing; December 2013 Clearly defined role of government’s CSIR and Grains & Legumes Board December 2013 Defined role of private sector in breeding. December 2013 B. To create a secure investment climate for investors by reducing transaction costs and risks 3. Database of suitable land for investors established (1000 ha registered by 2013): This objective is to be achieved by the Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project (GCAP), which became effective on April 8, 2013. The Project Implementation Manual (PIM) has been developed. Consultants have been engaged to develop a system to establish the land bank. Consultancy to be completed by September 2014. 1,000 ha registered December 2013 4,500 ha registered December 2014 10,000 ha registered December 2015 4. Pilot model lease agreements for 5,000 ha of land in database established. December 2015 Consultants engaged to develop a system to establish the lease agreement. Consultancy to be completed by September. 5. Clear procedures to channel investor interest (including that related to value-added agricultural processing) to appropriate agencies completed. December 2013 A firm (Monitor/Deloitte Group) has been engaged to review and develop capacity building for GIPC and the Agribusiness Division of PPMED to carry out this action to facilitate investor interest. 36 Objective Framework Policy Actions Date Due Progress Made Traffic Light Rating C. To support transparent, inclusive evidence -based policy formulation process based on quality data and sound evidence that leads to increased investment in agriculture 6. New Ghana Agricultural Production Survey (GAPS) stood up Piloted data release July 2012 The pilot data was released October 8, 2012 2nd phase completed September 2013 The second phase was completed April 2013 New national agriculture survey data released May 2014 Planning has commenced for the scaling of activities beyond the geographical coverage of the second phase. 7. Private sector representatives of key grain value chains appointed to the MoFA Post Harvest Committee. December 2013 Policy action met on September 13, 2012. Source: MoFA. 37 3.8. Adequacy of Policy Coverage Ghana has extensive policies that cover multiple aspects of the METASIP (Africa Lead 2013). According to a MoFA study (2013d), there are 43 development issues under FASDEP that need to be addressed in order to achieve the targets set for the sector. These issues are addressed through the 21 METASIP components assessed. The FASDEP II and its implementation plans thus cover all sectors of Ghana’s agriculture and many of the areas under the subsectors. Stakeholders also agreed that the coverage of policy is adequate. However, what may be required is the development of legislative instruments and by-laws to guide, regulate, and operationalize the implementation of some of the sector policies. In 2013, the government initiated the design of the GASIP as a contemporary and more effective way of operationalizing key objectives of the METASIP, together with the DPs and other country partners. Policy coverage is rated as yellow. 3.9. Summary Ghana’s policy process has been evolving and improving. Although there is some level of evidence-based planning, a lack of up-to-date data proves a challenge. The review also showed that financing and human resource constraints impede effective implementation of the policies. Thus, while most dimensions of the policy process are adequate and require minimal attention, the