NAIP_Capacity_Assessment_Report.pdf

NAIP CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

GHANA

IDENTIFYING CAPACITY NEEDS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE

MEDIUM TERM AGRICULTURE INVESTMENT PLAN (METASIP)

2011-2015

JUNE 2011

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by DAI in conjunction with Management Systems International.

NAIP CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

GHANA

IDENTIFYING CAPACITY NEEDS FOR

IMPLEMENTING THE MEDIUM TERM

AGRICULTURE INVESTMENT PLAN (METASIP)

2011-2015

Contracted under EDH-I-00-05-00004/TO. AID-OAA-TO-10-00045

Africa Leadership Training and Capacity Building Program

DISCLAIMER

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Africa LEAD – Report on NAIP Capacity Assessment Ghana i

CONTENTS

Executive Summary

1. The Limited Authority of the CAADP Steering Committee

2. Limited Role of the Private Sector in the METASIP to Date

3. Fragmentation and Parallel Programs and Poor Coordination

4. The Advantages of Building on Strengths and Anchor Capacity Development on Existing Priority Programs

5. Emerging Need to Address the Vast Capacity Gaps Created by Decentralization and the Government’s New Regional Priorities for Agriculture

I. Background

II. Status of METASIP Implementation FASDEP I and II Feed the Future CAADP Strategy and Program Alignments

III. An Overview of the CAADP Country Team (CCT)

IV. MOFA’s role in Managing and Implementing the METASIP and the Capacity Gaps

V. The Role of Non-State Actors (NSA) in METASIP Implementation

VI. Conclusion—Summary of Recommendations

Annex 1: Africa Lead Capacity Assessment List of People and Organizations Interviewed

Annex 2: Interview Protocol

Annex 3.a: Notes on Focus Group Participants

Annex 3.b: Africa Lead Focus Group Questions

Annex 4: Capacities Criteria Framework

Annex 5: The Steering Committee for the implementation of METASIP

TABLES

Table 1: Overview of Alignment of CAADP Pillars to Ghana METASIP Investment

Priorities 10 Table 2: Expected vs. Actual Roles and Responsibilities of the Steering Committee Table 3: Directorates and Directors Table 4: Engagement of Non-State Actors in the METASIP to Date

Africa LEAD – NAIP Capacity Assessment Ghana

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The main capacity issues currently affecting the ability of the CAADP Country Team’s Governance Steering Committee (Steering Committee), the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), and Non State Actors (NSA) in their efforts to effectively apply the CAADP principles to the implementation of the Medium Term Agriculture Investment Plan (METASIP) are largely due to the institutional arrangements in place, which were developed by the CAADP Country Team at its inception, and are now in need of adjustment. These issues are outlined briefly below, followed by proposed recommendations for next steps.

1. The Limited Authority of the CAADP Steering Committee.

While the Steering Committee may be eager to provide policy advice, coordination and oversight for implementing partners of the METASIP, in practice their influence is limited by existing institutional arrangements, and a dearth of resources that together create barriers for moving beyond business as usual. In the current institutional arrangement, which lacks both designated budget and staff, the Steering Committee has not yet been given the authority, or the wherewithal to lead on policy issues, and drive change and reform in support of the METASIP.

Recommendations:

a. MOFA should be commended for its commitment to revitalizing the agriculture sector, and its leadership in pursuing the more transparent, accountable, and evidenced-based approach to policy making in line with CAADP principles.

b. The roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee should be revised in light of all that has been learned since its inception in February 2011, to emphasize its role in oversight, policy advice and coordination.

c. On the basis of its stated priorities within the METASIP, MOFA’s Minister and Chief Director should consider delegating the authority and resources needed for oversight and policy advice to the Steering Committee, using the media to gain public recognition and support for this commitment and to promote the new leadership structure for the METASIP, as a new way of doing business.

2. Limited Role of the Private Sector in the METASIP to Date

Ghana’s Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) currently has significant human and financial resource constraints and lacks the funds it needs to meet CAADP target #2 ( to invest 10 percent of its national development budget into the agriculture sector), and to operationalize its priority programs in 2011). At the very least, the public sector will need to provide a more enabling environment to attract and leverage private sector investment--through borrowing to finance infrastructure and providing seed capital. To overcome these constraints, MOFA will need the full support of other Government ministries, development partners and in particular, private sector investors. But with a history of mistrust between public and private sectors, which may help explain why the “real” private sector, i.e. agro-business firms are largely absent from the CAADP Country Team (CCT), it is not clear what incentives would bring private firms to the table to implement the

METASIP, together with the Government and other CCT partners despite the clear advantages in doing so.

a. The Steering Committee should consider increasing its membership to include a representative of a large agro-business firm, able to bring the perspective of potential investors with important insights on managing risk, transparency and accountability.

b. Development partners should consider supporting the Steering Committee to better engage the private sector with capacity development in leadership through training in building functional teams, change management, strategic communication, media training, trust building, negotiations, conflict management and coalition building, and resource mobilization.

c. The Steering Committee would benefit from developing a strategic communication plan, as well as a funds mobilization plan for the METASIP, which could help bring the private sector into the METASIP strategy.

3. Fragmentation and Parallel Programs and Poor Coordination

A key role of the Steering Committee within the CAADP Country Team (CCT) is to improve the alignment and harmonization of all agriculture-related ministries and development partners, through the Steering Committee and the ASWG, and to bring to the table the private sector, civil society and farmer organizations through the CAADP process for the successful implementation of the METASIP. However, with so many actors involved, fragmentation poses real challenges. This is illustrated by the Steering Committee’s efforts to gain high-level technical/analytical and policy input to power its oversight and advisory functions. Although the SAKSS Policy Nodes were designed to serve this function, they have not fully materialized (and remain a handful of policy studies) and underfunded. AGRA’s Policy Nodes on the other hand, are more operational but are largely inaccessible to the CCT. Several interviewees said that the AGRA Policy Nodes operate outside the CCT and the ASWG, with a coordination hub in PPSRD, rather than PPMED. In the current institutional set up, the Steering Committee is less able to access the evidenced-based scientific and policy research it needs to fulfill these roles and responsibilities. The same holds true for the entire CCT and MOFA. Similarly, the ASWG may be under-utilized for policy advice and guidance, and is viewed by some as cut off from the work of relevant MDAs and the CCT.

a. The CCT may wish to consider linking itself more closely with the AGRA Policy Nodes and hub.

b. The Special Task Team currently serving as the de facto secretariat to the METASIP, should be freed of its broad responsibilities within MOFA, and dedicated exclusively to providing support to the METASIP, reporting directly to the Steering Committee, whose authority should be delegated by MOFA leadership to serve out its policy advisory and oversight, and coordinative functions to the CCT and Government across all agriculture-related ministries. This would mean that PPMED will require new staff with requisite skills to serve this current function within the MOFA.

c. This new METASIP Secretariat could also serve as a National Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) Technical Secretariat, linking the SAKKS Nodes with the AGRA Nodes, and with other agriculture-related ministries directorates, and agencies. It may also be worth considering moving the existing AGRA Hub to the SAKSS Secretariat, which could eventually link and coordinate with suitable global nodes, providing knowledge exchange, research, and technical inputs from institutions and experts that extend beyond Ghana and Africa to the rest of the world.

d. The new National Technical Secretariat could take the initiative through the activation of its policy nodes, to break down any silos that may currently exist among ministries, directorates and agencies, within MOFA and across the Government MDAs.

e. All of this is predicated on the funding of the Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS), which could greatly expand the efforts of MOFA, the Steering Committee and development partners to bring evidence-based scientific and policy research into agriculture sector reforms. Donor partners should recognize and support this essential capacity development intervention which could be instrumental in operationalizing the METASIP.

4. The Advantages of Building on Strengths and Anchor Capacity Development on Existing Priority Programs

In the face of large budget gaps, and resource constraints in the agriculture sector, the Government may choose to adopt an opportunistic approach to achieving the priority goals of the METASIP, by seeking support from development partners and the private sector, where there is an alignment of interests. Development partners should take a similar approach to capacity building, anchoring training and other capacity development interventions in priority projects and programs that are funded and already underway, to provide platforms for enabling implementation through functional teams of multi-sectoral public and private sector partners who have come together to operationalize and achieve the Government’s investment goals. These functional teams should take a problem-driven approach, focused on overcoming barriers to change and reform through capacity development.

Recommendations:

a. The Steering Committee should act swiftly to build linkages with AGRA and to bring its Policy Nodes and Hub, into the reach of CAADP Country Team, managing the connection with their knowledge platforms through input from a new National SAKSS Technical Secretariat.

b. In order to support the CAADP principle of engagement and broad collaboration between government and non-state actors, including NGOs, academia, civil society, and the private sector, the Steering Committee should act to mobilize engagement of the private sector and public sector through capacity development interventions targeting multi-stakeholder functional teams, anchored on priority investment programs, such as the Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project, and the Grain Warehouse Receipts Initiative. These functional teams should take a problem-driven approach, focused on overcoming barriers to change and reform through capacity development.

c. The Steering Committee should be encouraged to raise awareness on priority programs and projects that are in line with the METASIP (such as the Ghana Commercial Agriculture Project) and provide institutional strengthening to farmer organizations to mobilize agricultural productivity and land reform at the local government and community level.

d. Development partners and the Steering Committee should act to mobilize the 100 change champions already trained by Africa Lead to engage in the operationalization of various aspects of the METASIP.

5. Emerging Need to Address the Vast Capacity Gaps Created by Decentralization and the Government’s New Regional Priorities for Agriculture

Government’s plan for decentralization is already underway (to 11 national, 10 regional, and 170 district directorates operating service delivery functions including stakeholder fora, planning and review sessions, training and orientation of service providers, formation of FBOs, among others).

Districts will soon plan for, manage and operate extension services which until recently were an integral part of the MOFA. These functions are now within the Ministry of Rural Development and Local Government. The change will significantly expand the need for greater capacity in leadership, including such skill sets as: strategic communication, change management, team building and managing for development results (MfDR) at all levels of government, and among all partners to the CAADP process. Demands for capacity development and training will be significant in the North of the country, a priority region for Bread Basket and Feed the Future initiatives, evidenced by the GOG’s Savanna Accelerated Development Agency’s SADA program.

Recommendations:

a. Development partners should consider supporting the METASIP and Government’s decentralization efforts with intensive face-to-face capacity development workshops at the regional and district level that also aim to inform local governments, through district assemblies, agricultural extension workers and FBO’s about the features and opportunities within the METASIP, and its particular relevance to them.

b. Policy/Program efforts will now be driven more by the Districts, based on constituents’ needs and these may not always align with national policy/programs such as the METASIP. This will likely require an on-going dialogue at all levels of government in an effort to gain greater consensus and alignment.

c. The workshops that will ultimately raise awareness about the METASIP could also be used for training in leadership and change management for functional teams of change champions who are organized around specific project objectives, which may be tied to priority programs and projects, as proposed above.

d. There will also be a great need for developing capacities in managing for development (MfDr) results at the regional and district levels, including the development of monitoring systems for the local level.

e. In preparation for this training, a set of capacity assessment tools such as the Cap Scan should be developed and administered to prospective participants to establish a baseline for leadership and change management knowledge and skills.

I. BACKGROUND

1. The Africa Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP) is a voluntary continent-wide New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) strategy for the development of Africa’s agriculture. Its goal is to help African countries reach and sustain a higher path of economic growth through agriculture-led development that reduces hunger and poverty and enables food and nutrition security and growth in exports. This requires participating countries to commit to allocate ten percent of their national development budgets to agriculture and food security in pursuit of achieving six percent annual growth in agricultural productivity. It also calls on governments to adopt the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goal number one: to cut hunger in half by 2015. This fully reflects the broad principles of peer review and dialogue, accountability and partnership1. CAADP supports governments in the process of preparing agricultural investment plans, while encouraging a more enabling policy environment to implement the plans.

2. Ghana’s Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (METASIP) for 2011- 2015 is a sector-wide investment plan, and constitutes the Government’s commitments made under the CAADP Compact. It includes activities that will engage all agricultural-related ministries, departments and agencies as well as development partners including: donors, private sector and civil society (NGOs, academia, civil society, farmers and other on-farm and off-farm private sector operators, researchers and service providers). It is an ambitious and wide-ranging plan for reform that aims to modernize agriculture and structurally transform the economy, through strengthening food security and preparedness, employment opportunities and reducing poverty. The proposed components of the program include: food security and preparedness, increased growth in incomes, increased competiveness and enhanced integration into domestic and international markets; sustainable management of land and environment; science and technology applied to food and agriculture development; and improved institutional coordination. The METASIP is largely unfunded, and with donor funds constituting approximately 6 percent of Ghana’s nominal GDP in 2010 and 20112, GOG will need to look beyond its usual development partners in order to mobilize investors and operationalize the plan.

3. The Government of Ghana has called 2011, “the year of action”, as it prepares for general elections in 2012. With forty percent of its GDP, and fifty percent of its employment in the Agriculture sector, a rapidly urbanizing and youthful population, high urban unemployment and burgeoning rural-urban disparities, Ghana’s agriculture sector remains of high importance3 for the country’s growth and security, even as oil revenues have begun to flow into GDP. The World Bank has warned that oil revenues could create greater economic disparities in the North, reinforcing the need for more agricultural-led investment in the region.

4. This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of a fact finding mission to Accra, from June 6-17, 2011, to assess the institutional arrangements and capacity requirements for operationalizing the METASIP. The CAADP process calls for the development and implementation of the METASIP to be guided by a CAADP Country Team (CCT). This assessment will provide an institutional mapping of the key individuals and organizations that constitute the CCT (both public and private) at the national and sub-national levels. To the extent possible, this report identifies the METASIP objectives, to which these actors will contribute, and their existing capacity constraints and training needs, and proposes how existing institutional arrangements may be made more effective. The main objectives of the mission were to (i) clarify the roles and responsibilities of the CAADP Steering Committee and identify the institutional arrangements and capacities needed to oversee METASIP implementation; (ii) identify the Ministry of Food and Agriculture’s (MOFA)’s role in managing and implementing the METASIP, and identify the capacity gaps that need to be addressed in order for the ministry to successfully fulfill its role; and (iii) identify the role of non-state actors (NSA) in the implementation of the METASIP, and to define a process for how they can be meaningfully engaged.

The report will suggest recommendations for strengthening the CAADP process at the country level through building capacity and improving institutional arrangements in support of the METASIP.

The CAADP Trust Fund Program Document, November 10, 2008.

World Bank, April 2011, Third Agriculture Policy Development Policy Operation.

Fertilizer subsidies, equipment and buffer stock initiatives also reflect the politics of the time, as do the high staff and administrative budgets of

MOFA.

5. The team originally planned to pilot a set of assessment tools that could be used on an as-needed basis by the Steering Committee to identify and analyze the programmatic capacity of the CCT associated with the METASIP, however, this proved not to be feasible.

To begin with, virtually everyone interviewed described the Steering Committee as too new to be assessed. Created in February 2011, it had met just three times, and as a result its roles and responsibilities were not fully established. MOFA’s PPMED planned to launch the METASIP officially at the end of June, and from their perspective the assessment was premature. Independent interviews with five members of the Steering Committee revealed considerable frustration with the pace at which their roles and responsibilities as the main CAADP coordination and oversight body were taking shape.

It was clearly too early for a capacity assessment in the context of the METASIP’s implementation, and within a few days of our arrival, the Steering Committee announced it would use the momentum created by our mission, to conduct its own review and assessment of their roles and responsibilities and come up with a plan of action. Moreover, the anticipated approach had required the assessment team to identify the top 4-5 priority investment programs of the METASIP with the help of the CAADP special task team in MOFA’s PPMED, to establish entry points for the analysis where implementation was already underway. However, consultations with PPMED on the first day produced little in the way of insights into the METASIP investment priorities with interviewees insisting that, “everything was a priority”. The scope of the mission was adjusted to take all of this into account. The focus of the assessment shifted again in response to the initial consultation with USAID, when the team was asked to help document the de facto institutional arrangements of the CAADP Country Team at that point in time, taking into account the key actors and the capacity constraints, including what institutional arrangements would better support the CCT.

6. Over the course of two weeks the mission team conducted 28 structured interviews, from among state and non-state actors involved in the CAADP process, including 5 members of the METASIP Governance Steering Committee (Steering Committee), and ten members of the Agriculture Sector Working Group (ASWG). A list of the individuals interviewed, their organizations and the interview protocol can be found in Annex 1, and 2 respectively. The team also conducted a focus group with 10 change champions who completed Module One of the Africa Lead Program in 2011, and are currently engaged in driving institutional change and reform within various aspects of the METASIP. The exercise set out to establish what elements of the leadership training they found to be most useful, and what additional training they would value most in the future. The exercise also captured some of their stories of how they put their leadership training into practice, and what they learned in the process. A summary of this is provided in Annex 3. A self assessment tool was utilized in the interviews with members of the METASIP Steering Committee to arrive at a menu of what capacity development interventions would be most useful to its members. This can be found in Annex 4. The World Bank conducted a CAP SCAN Workshop during the week of June 13. The workshop results were provided by PPMED, but are not included in the findings of this report.

II. STATUS OF METASIP IMPLEMENTATION

FASDEP I and II

7. The Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP) is the GOG’s overarching policy framework (first developed in 2002) to modernize the agricultural sector, it followed with FASDEP II in 2007, which together with the Feed the Future initiative provides the foundational policy framework for the CAADP. This constitutes a sector policy extending beyond the MOFA to incorporate the mandates of all ministries that will contribute to agriculture sector outcomes.

In contrast to FASDEP I, FASDEP II places greater emphasis on improving agricultural productivity of market-driven value chains through the application of science and technology, environmental sustainability and greater engagement of the private sector, as well as greater collaboration through partnerships.

Feed the Future

8. The METASIP is well aligned with the USAID strategy for the Feed the Future (FtF) initiative.

The Feed the Future (FtF) initiative began in Gana under USAID’s 2009 Global Food Security Response Program. FtF provided USD 800 million in total funding of agriculture-related projects from 2007-2010.

In 2010 alone, FtF provided over USD 180 million in funding to Africa’s agriculture development.

Through the FtF program the U.S. Government supports GOG’s capacity to improve policies and attract private sector investment by helping to ensure efficient and sustainable delivery of the METASIP, and removing management policy and investment constraints to agriculture in Ghana.

9. The FtF Program strategy is based on a high impact approach across the value chains of staple crops and fisheries, and strives to: 1) Integrate nutrition in the Value Chain Approach; 2) Build up the GOG capacity to deliver the METASIP; 3) Improve the environment for private sector investment; 4) Improve resiliency for targeted households among the most vulnerable; 5) Improve the nutrition status of women and children; 6) Address cross-cutting issues of gender equity and climate change; 7) Build U.S. Government FtF partnerships; 8) Achieve measurable and meaningful results. FtF program targets can be found at the back of this report in Table B.

10. Other potential areas of capacity development support under FtF, in line with CAADP objectives include:

Improving the enabling environment for private sector investment Increasing investment in the Agriculture sector Improving policy to support growth in the agriculture sector Improving execution of the public sector investment priorities

CAADP Strategy and Program Alignments

11. Ghana has a mixed record so far in meeting the CAADP targets. With respect to the CAADP Target # 1: increase productivity growth in agriculture by 6 percent, it appears that Ghana successfully met the target in 20094, and nearly met the target in 2010 (5.8 percent). Government may have met Target #2, investing 10 percent of the national development budget in agriculture in 20095, however, its investment in 2011 appears to have dropped off. MOFA has requested USD 47 million, to which Government has allocated about 34 percent, or USD 16 million. This accounts for about 2.36 percent of the national development budget (of which 98.9 percent is expected to go to administration

4 Cocoa’s contribution to GDP in 2009 was 11.5%.The Cocoa subsector had a GDP Growth rate of 5.2%. Source: Agriculture in Ghana, Facts and Figures 2009. MOFA, Statistics, Research and Information Directorate, December 2010.

Africa Green Revolution in Agriculture (AGRA) website, show and staffing)6. With a gap of this magnitude it seems likely that GOG will need to look beyond MOFA to meet the target--to other agriculture-related ministries e.g. transport, industry and trade, as well as donors and the private sector. With respect to the entire budget request for the METASIP (for 2011- 2015), MOFA has requested USD 1.095 billion, and the GOG projected contribution is USD 354 million, with a funding shortfall of USD 7417. This resource gap suggests that promoting the METASIP and mobilizing investment for it could become an important function of the Steering Committee and entire CCT. In 2009 Ghana was set to meet the MDG #1, country poverty target of 25 percent by 2015, putting Ghana on course to be the first African country to achieve the millennium goal of halving rates of poverty and hunger by 2015, see Table 2. Ghana recorded significant gains in poverty reduction between 1992 and 2006, with the poverty rate falling from 52 percent to 29 percent during this period8.

Malnutrition was halved over roughly the same period. The CCT could play a key role in getting this important success story out to potential investors, with a well crafted strategic communication plan.

12. Table 1 below shows the alignment of the METASIP and the CAADP pillars, and provides some insights into the GOG’s investment priorities, despite claims that there are few indications of the Government’s priorities in the METASIP: 1.) Irrigation and water management; 2.) Development of pilot value chain for two selected commodities in each agro-ecological zones; 3.) Promotion of cash crop, livestock and fish production for income in all ecological zones; and 4.) Mechanization services.

Minutes of the Ag Sector Working Group February__, 2011.

7 At this rate the Government’s priority programs remain underfunded, (i.e. fertilizer subsidies -57%, Irrigation development -90.8%, National Food Company -67%, Youth in Agriculture -82%, and Block farms -60%. In the face of this wide resource gap, it seems likely that the Government will need to adopt an opportunistic approach to it operationalizing the METASIP.

World Bank, Third DPO, April 2011, p. 14

TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF ALIGNMENT OF CAADP PILLARS TO GHANA METASIP

INVESTMENT PRIORITIES

CAADP Pillars Ghana CAADP/METASIP Priority Investments

METASIP

Investment Priorities

In US$ (millions)

Pillar I: Extending the area under sustainable land management and reliable water management systems

Program 1: Food Security and Emergency Preparedness

1.6 Irrigation and Water Management

1.7 Mechanization Services

Program 4: Sustainable Management of Land and Environment

4.1 Awareness creation and use of

SLM technologies by men and women farmers.

Pillar II: Improving rural infrastructure and trade related capacities for improved market access

Program 2: Increased Growth in Incomes

2.1 Promotion of cash crop, livestock

and fish production for income in all ecological zones.

2.3 Development of pilot value chain

for two selected commodities in each agro-ecological zone.

Pillar III: Increasing food supply, reducing hunger and improving responses to food emergency crises.

Program 1: Food Security and Emergency Preparedness

1.1 Productivity Improvement

1.2 Support to improved nutrition.

1.3 Support to Diversification of

Livelihood Options for the Poor with Off-farm Activities Linked to Agriculture.

1.5 Early warning systems and

emergency preparedness.

Pillar IV: Improving agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption

Program 5: Science and Technology as Applied in Food and Agriculture Development

5.1 Uptake of technology along the

Value Chain and Application of Biotechnology in Agriculture.

Source: METASIP, p. 62, CAADP Development Framework, Exchange rate calculated at GHCD 1. 40: US$

13. The development of Ghana’s METASIP began as early as 2009 at the CAADP Round Table Conference. In line with the CAADP’s agriculture sector priorities across four pillars the Roundtable noted three main objectives:

To assess Ghana’s performance and progress at that point in time in terms of achieving the growth and poverty reduction targets under the CAADP and FASDEP agenda.

To forge a commitment around the CAADP Compact, from a broad base of stakeholders in Government, private sector, development partners, and among non-state actors to implement the FASDEP agenda.

To establish institutional arrangements for the coordination and oversight of implementation and performance of the CAADP Road Map.

14. Since the Roundtable, a technical review of the METASIP was conducted in June 2010 followed by a business meeting as part of the CAADP process. Other milestones include: the establishment of the METASIP Steering Committee in February 2011 and the anticipated launch of the METASIP on June 21, 2011.

III. AN OVERVIEW OF THE CAADP COUNTRY TEAM (CCT)

15. According to the Terms of Reference (TOR) prepared by the METASIP Steering Committee at its inception9, the Ghana CCT will be significantly larger than the 7-8 referred to in the CAADP Capacity Development framework. The TOR suggests that it will be greater than thirty members. As such it has been designed with many of the features of a community of practice. The main components of this are: A core group, or leadership team of thirteen constitutes the Governance Steering Committee, or Steering Committee (13); the PPMED Secretariat (4 persons); the Policy Dialogue Groups including the Agriculture Sector Working Group (20 persons), and participating individuals and organizations in the Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS). Within this broad group of stakeholders, the CCT terms of reference designates the Steering Committee as the main coordinating and oversight body of the CAADP Process, with a leadership role in implementing the METASIP. Their role in leading and managing the CCT is greater than was anticipated under the CAADP Capacity Development Framework. As the Steering Committee is composed of highly qualified and influential professionals, the time they have to give to the coordination task will likely be constrained by other demands on their time. Table 2 shows the contrast between the expected roles and responsibilities as outlined in the terms of reference at their inception compared to the current situation. The roles and responsibilities of these CCT groups are described in more detail below and some of the main capacity constraints that affect their ability to deliver on these are explored.

(i) CAADP Governance Steering Committee (Steering Committee)(13 members) Convener- Minister/MOFA Chief Director PPMED, Chairman- Odeneho Gyapong Ababio II, National House of Chiefs, Kumasi, Vice Chairman, Atta Agyepong of KFW10.

Proposal for the Ghana National CAADP Country Team, supplied by USAID, Ghana

His membership in the Steering Committee follows the position in the ASWG which rotates periodically with the ASWG leadership.

16. The group of thirteen is drawn broadly from stakeholders within the agriculture sector, and represents the signatories to the CAADP Compact. Its members are well qualified, well connected, impressive professionals, from a wide-range of agricultural-related fields, who are committed to carrying out CAADP principles for the implementation of the METASIP. If the METASIP is to succeed as a multi-ministerial/multi-sector initiative, the Steering Committee will require capacity development support across a number of functional areas, including: leadership, change management, coalition building, and strategic communication. In particular, the Steering Committee currently lacks a strategic communication plan for the METASIP, and a funds mobilization plan. But more important, if the METASIP is to succeed as a multi-ministerial/multi-sector initiative the Steering Committee will need to be positioned with greater authority to provide strong outreach to MOFA and the other MDA’s and other actors involved in implementing the METASIP, as well as serving coordinative, advisory and work planning functions, so as to keep the key functional actors engaged and working together.

17. During the June consultations Steering Committee members shared their frustrations over the challenges that constrain them in providing oversight, coordination and policy advice for the METASIP, such as: the institutional arrangements within the MOFA, the lack of resources, both financial and human (in particular, the absence of a dedicated secretariat to drive the follow-up and provide administrative support for their work, and a need for better access to high quality knowledge resources such as the proposed, but as yet unfunded SAKSS11 policy nodes). Those Steering Committee members interviewed believe that a dedicated METASIP secretariat is necessary.

Table 2 compares the roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee, as outlined in the TOR drafted at the CCT’s inception to the current operational realism.

18. The situation suggests that the main capacity constraints affecting the Steering Committee, at this time are structural and due largely to the institutional arrangements in place to support the CAADP process. Steering Committee members interviewed explained that while the Minister of MOFA and the Ministry’s Chief Director are called the conveners of the Steering Committee, in actual practice their influence extends beyond the function of calling the meetings , to dominating the decision-making of the group, and determining its direction. Steering Committee members expressed concern, over how they would gain the independence to serve in a meaningful advisory capacity, with MOFA and the other key ministries involved in the METASIP’s implementation, e.g. the Ministry of Finance and Planning, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Transport. To date, MOFA officials have not delegated sufficient authority to the Steering Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman to enable them to take on a leadership, and oversight role in any real sense. Steering Committee members recognize the key role of MOFA’s high level leaders as champions of the METASIP, and this is viewed as essential. However, some delegation of authority by the Minister and the Chief Director will be needed to empower the Steering Committee to fulfill its expected roles and responsibilities. Without this, some of the Steering Committee could lose interest in the METASIP and decide to leave. The current institutional arrangement is sketched out in Figure 1, below.

19. Work planning remains informal and ad hoc. Halfway through 2011, the Steering Committee finds itself getting by without a work plan. While some members mentioned a work plan under development, others said that the lack of a dedicated secretariat had slowed its follow through on this and many other important tasks (e.g. sending out agenda and briefing documents in

Strategic analysis and knowledge support system advance of Steering Committee meetings). Steering Committee Members complain that although capable, the CAADP team within PPMED is over-burdened with other commitments from MOFA, and its reporting relationship to the Steering Committee is unclear. As important, to date, is the fact that no funds have been allocated for this purpose. So, it is no surprise that a lack of resources is considered to be the core capacity constraint. With the Steering Committee dependent on MOFA for budget and staffing resources, this severely constrains its actions.

20. Members of the Steering Committee also expressed frustration over the limited resources of the Agriculture Sector Working Group, and the SAKSS nodes, which they see as their primary platforms for promoting evidence-based strategic decision making. It is still unclear how the Agriculture Sector Working Group, and the SAKSS Nodes will improve its linkages with the Steering Committee and MOFA, several interviewees also described them as cut off from the MOFA, and operating in isolation.

21. While the initial TOR prepared by the Steering Committee called for meetings twice a year, members of the Steering Committee now believe that a higher level of engagement is required. They consider Monthly meeting to be the ideal, but are concerned that individual members who live outside Accra, will incur high travel costs. The Steering Committee will work together to develop a set of guiding principles on their level of engagement, based on what they have learned in the first year of their operations.

22. Despite these obstacles the Steering Committee has made some progress. For example, at the Seventh CAADP Meeting in Yaounde, Cameroon in March 201112, the Steering Committee took a leadership role in proposing a set of mechanisms to support a mutual accountability framework. Whether this will be adopted by the GOG and its development partners will depend to a great extent on the effectiveness of the Steering Committee’s leadership going forward. Some of the main features of this are provided below:

A multi-stakeholder national Steering Committee which includes signatories to the CAADP Compact.

Stakeholder policy dialogue and review using platforms such as the ASWG, Joint Sector Review, which is informed by an annual report from the sector M&E system and intermediate ones from the institutions of the participating stakeholder groups

Evidenced based analysis on thematic areas of the METASIP carried out and managed by sector institutions including those in the public and private sector, academia and civil society in a strategic analysis and knowledge support system;

Decentralized implementation through sector agencies: fora for improving M&E mechanisms for stakeholder participation at the regional and district levels.

Presentation of preliminary findings and way forward for MAF in the agriculture sector in Ghana, 7th PP, March 2011, Yaounde, Cameroon, Presented by the METASIP Steering Committee.

23. It is possible that our mission spurred some actions on the part of the Steering Committee to reach greater consensus and to take action on strengthening their roles and responsibilities. Members of the Steering Committee announced their intentions to meet on June 17th, in order to reach an agreement, on the institutional arrangements that govern the Steering Committee.

They also requested a workshop in July with Africa Lead to 1) Conduct participatory work planning 2) To review progress on the METASIP, and its importance to various constituents of members, 3) Bring all members to the same level with regard to leadership skills training. This event could also provide the opportunity to provide training and capacity support with the use of the Rapid Results Approach to enhance the leadership structure of the CCT, and by working with the political and technocratic leaders in MOFA to bring about the delegation of sufficient authority to the Steering Committee to enable it to better serve the coordinative, oversight and advisory functions that they aspire to. A capacity building workshop with GIZ for the CCT was also scheduled for July.

TABLE 2: EXPECTED VS. ACTUAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE

STEERING COMMITTEE

Expected13

Actual

Meets Bi-annually Meets monthly

Oversees functioning of the CCT Oversees the application of the CAADP framework in operationalizing the METASIP, including stimulating and supporting:

-policy dialogue -technical evaluations and evidence-based decision-making -organizational improvements and capacity development -institutional capacity and arrangements -peer learning -active participation of the private sector, civil society and farmer organizations -alignment and harmonization of development partners (including donors and local institutions)

Develops Medium and Long Term Strategic Plans Introduces CAADP as a reform agenda and catalyze people and institutions to move beyond business as usual to achieve the goals of CAADP.

Develops and implements annual work plans

Examines proposals for funding, project and or program proposals emanating from sector stakeholders, and make funding recommendations based on direction provided by the annual work plan.

Mobilizes resources

Evaluates activities of projects and programs and measure outputs and outcomes of programs, using criteria as outlined in the METASIP and CAADP targets.

Examines with the help of the Policy Dialogue Group the policy and institutional landscape to provide guidance on strategic direction within the framework of the METASIP and CAADP targets.

Derived from the Proposal for a Ghana National CAADP Country Team, developed by the CCT and provided by USAID.

Expected13

Actual

Discuss opportunities and constraints to METASIP implementation identified by the Policy Dialogue Group and the SAKSS Technical Secretariat and make recommendations for action.

Provides advocacy function to government

Develops and maintain liaison with Government and donors

Advices and Guides the achievement of the SAKSS node goals

Mobilizes resources to support SAKSS node development

Source: Proposal for the National CAADP Country Team, provided by USAID

(ii) Combined National SAKSS Secretariat and CAADP Secretariat (In support of the

METASIP)

24. The Special Task Force for CAADP Team is currently led by Lena Ottoo, Deputy Director PPMED, supported by PPMED staff of 4. This team does not currently serve as a national SAKSS node, nor does it serve as a dedicated office or secretariat for METASIP implementation at this time.

However, it has the potential to serve these functions, proposed by the Ghana CCT at its inception:

Act as the functional unit of the Steering Committee

Provide a national framework for review and implementation of the METASIP.

Serve as the National SAKSS Technical Secretariat whose objective is to improve the quality of design and implementation of policies and strategies in the country through the facilitation of well informed planning, review and dialogue processes.

Coordinate a collaborative network to mobilize the available expertise in order to generate the targeted knowledge products to support the implementation of agriculture and rural development.

Ensures accessible storage and dissemination of such products.

Strategic Analysis- to help bridge the gaps identified by national stakeholders and assist the government in the evaluation of its progress in achieving the CAADP targets.

Contribute to the evaluation of policy and investment options to accelerate growth and reduce poverty and hunger in collaboration with relevant national regional and international centers.

Knowledge Management- Develops knowledge platforms such as websites and CDs to help inform the process of peer review and dialogue within the framework of the CAADP.

Ensure political dialogue, especially through the facilitation and support of the national round table process, as well as implementation of METASIP

Facilitate access to researchers and those working on the development of agriculture

Strengthen networks for the collection, analysis and dissemination

Communicate and disseminate information online and through other channels

Facilitate and encourage exchange with other countries and regional and international institutions.

Capacity Building- Helps strengthen institutional and technical capacities for the implementation of annual programs approved by the Steering Committee.

Coordination- A national node will be built around networks of institutions and existing experts who could be strengthened and coordinated by the Statistics and Planning Unit of the MOFA.

(iii) Dialogue Groups

25. The groups are drawn as required from members of the CAADP Compact signatory group, MDAs, and NSAs including: Civil Society organizations, Private sector, and Farmer-based organizations.

Meets as needed

Broad range of NSA stakeholders, including Private Sector firms and Associations (meets as needed)

Midterm review of projects and programs recommended for funding, and of annual work plans

Revisit the annual work plans and make recommendations to the Steering Committee for adjustments

Review M&E, examine and discuss financial reports from the Steering Committee and make recommendations

Review Annual Budget

Dialogue on challenges and arrive at consensus to guide Steering Committee on planning and implementation

Facilitate networking with grassroots organizations.

(iv) Strategic Analysis & Knowledge Support System (SAKSS)

Built around networks of institutions, and existing experts

Includes institutions in charge of research, data collection, analysis, and policy formulation, and professional associations, such as producers associations, processors, etc.

Built around 6 components of the METASIP

(v) Agriculture Sector Working Groups

26. Members include representatives of MOFA, ACDI/VOCA, KFW, WFP, DAI-Africa Lead, World Bank, CIDA, PEF, IFAD, DANIDA and other Development Partners.

Coordinate information exchange on donor funded programs in the agricultural sector

Liaise with Steering Committee through vice chairperson on policy matters

Develop mutual accountability frameworks.

Produce the Annual Joint Sector Review

In 2010 there were three thematic working groups whose tasks were aligned with the recommendations of the 2010 Joint Sector Review of the Agriculture Working Group; these are presented below with their respective terms of references.

Working Group 1: Agriculture Policy/Strategic Development and Harmonization and M&E

27. Members include representatives of PPMED, SRID, WIAD, DAES, Fisheries, FAO, EMBRAPA, GTZ, KFW, USAID, IFPRI, CIDA, AFD, World Bank, JICA, ACDI/VOCA, IFAD, WFP

Advise on policy and strategy related issues

Advise on implementation of METASIP through required structures

Provide guidance in the development inter-intra sectoral linkages

Provide guidance for the implementation of Agricultural Sector M&E systems

Address any emerging policy issues

Follow up on decentralization issues and provide regular updates

Guide MOFA engagement with the private sector and Civil Society

Working Group 2: Human Resource Development and Management

28. Members include representatives of HRDM, PPRSD, VSD, F&A Directorate, PPMED, PPMED MEC Division, GTZ, IFPRI, CIDA, World Bank.

Guide Human Resource development issues including training

Provide oversight for studies aimed at improving institutional performance, such as the institutional review to inform and implement the METASIP

Guide and advise on human resource management issues including staff promotion process so it is linked transparently to regular staff performance and appraisal.

Working Group 3: Strengthen Financial Management System

29. Members include representatives from: MOFA/Finance Directorate, CSD, APD, F&A Directorate, PPMED, PPMED Budget Division, MOFA IT, MOFA Treasury, MOFA Audit, JICA, KFW, CIDA, USAID, WFP.

Support the improvement of MOFA’s financial management systems

Carry out necessary activities to improve asset management

Work toward human resource capacity development, for informed financial management

Identify and recommend areas for financial review, evaluation or study to improve financial management

Investigate the financial implications of decentralization and advise MOFA accordingly.

Support the strengthening of linkages between Finance Directorate, the Budget Unit and Donor Desk to enhance financial data collection and reporting.

Provide oversight for studies aimed at improving public expenditure management.

Figure 1: Operational Realism

CAADP…