Reforms in the Ghanaian Extension System

Transcription

1 Reforms in the Ghanaian Extension System Kwame Amezah Deputy Director, Ministry of Food and Agriculture in Accra, Ghana Johann Hesse Agricultural Policy and Services Adviser of the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) in Accra, Ghana This case study was prepared for the workshop entitled Extension and Rural Development: A Convergence of Views on International Approaches?, held November 12-15, 2002 in Washington, DC, and hosted by the Sustainable Agricultural Systems and Knowledge Institutions Thematic Group of the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development in conjunction with the Neuchatel Initiative. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions of this case study are the author s own and should not be attributed to the World Bank, its management, its Board of Executive Directors, or the countries they represent.

2 Extension and Rural Development: A Convergence of Views on International Approaches? Executive Summary This paper reviews the major reforms in the provision of agricultural extension services in Ghana. The mode of public sector financed and delivered extension has been changed several times over the last twenty years. Current reforms focus on the private sector for financing and delivering the service. An analysis of the changes provides interesting lessons, both for the design of future interventions in Ghana and for other countries. The provision of public agricultural extension services started in Ghana in the colonial era with the emphasis on cocoa and other tree crops for export. The coverage was extended to other crops after independence, in The main focus was to advise farmers to apply subsidized inputs to increase yields. In the 1980s the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) implemented the Training and Visit System of extension with funding support from the World Bank and others. This was geared towards providing specific technologies on time to farmers. A top-down, single-line of command management structure was adopted in 1992 with the regional and district departments of MOFA directly accountable to national technical directors. The national Director of Agricultural Extension Services in Accra coordinated all extension activities. The system is therefore referred to as Unified Extension System (UES). Although the implementation of this management structure has led to increased knowledge and skills about improved agricultural practices, the liberalization of the economy with its attendant removal of subsidies of farm inputs has reduced the profitability of some promoted technologies and thus reduced adoption rates, especially for inputs such as fertilizer, improved seeds, and pesticides. The response to this by MOFA is to promote value addition through processing and better marketing of agricultural products. This means that the extension agents need new knowledge and skills in the area of processing, farm management and marketing. In 1997, the Ministry de-concentrated its operations in line with the overall decentralization policy of the Government of Ghana. As part of this initiative: 10 Regional Agricultural Development Units (RADUs) have been established to be responsible for the co-ordination, management and implementation of agricultural projects and programs in the regions and districts; 110 District Agricultural Development Units (DADUs) have been established to be in charge of managing projects and programs and implementing policies and decisions in the districts; 45 Subject Matter Specialists Centers have been created to give technical support to Agricultural Extension Agents (AEA); 450 AEAs are to be re-trained to meet the multipurpose needs of the farmers Dr. Kwame Amezah is the Deputy Director for Agricultural Extension Services of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture in Accra, Ghana Dr. Johann Hesse is Agricultural Policy and Services Adviser of the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) in Accra, Ghana The views presented in this paper are the personal views of the authors and not in any way those of their respective employers 1

3 Reforms in the Ghanaian Extension System This de-concentration has re-organized the public extension system at the implementation, i.e. the district level. Before de-concentration, all technical departments of MOFA managed their own staff, including the allocation of financial resources and the management of human resources. After de-concentration, all services at the district level were merged into one structure headed by a District Director for Agriculture who is responsible for planning, implementing, and managing all activities at the district level. A similar merger of technical specialists into one directorate was effected at the regional level. MOFA designed this de-concentration as an interim measure in anticipation of a wider organizational change at the district level in the wider context of the decentralization of the Government s administration. Contrary to expectation, a Local Government Service bill designed to create the necessary structures for integrated service delivery, and thus implement full decentralization to the district level, has not yet been passed into law. Therefore, a Local Government Service is not yet in existence and the de-concentration of MOFA which was thought to be an interim measure is still in place. The structure adopted for the de-concentration has not given much emphasis to the quality of service provision in specialized areas such as veterinary, plant regulatory services and agricultural statistics services. It is our opinion that, although the MOFA district directorates are now in charge of their own planning and implementation process, the de-concentration is yet to contribute significantly to better client participation and effectiveness of extension delivery. This can be attributed in part to (a) the absence of the anticipated Local Government Service, (b) the inertia of reorienting into the new system, (c) the limitations of the extension management system being adopted, and (d) the limited financial resources allocated to the MOFA by the Ministry of Finance. In 2000, extension work which had previously been done by the Cocoa Services Division of Cocoa Marketing Board (COCOBOD) was transferred to MOFA for the purposes of providing a more costeffective extension to all farmers. The impact of this has been that cocoa does not get the same attention under MOFA as it received under COCOBOD because of poorer extension coverage and budgetary constraints. In the absence of extension funding through the COCOBOD and considering that MOFAs limitations to provide adequate quality extension service in cocoa, the question is whether the private sector, for example the private cocoa buying companies, can contribute to the extension funding and/or delivery. In line with general government policy, MOFA wishes to increase private sector involvement in agricultural services delivery. Some experience with the private sector in the funding and delivery of services have been gathered in the area of livestock services. Similarly, experiences are available from fruit export farmers and some NGOs. Farmer based organizations such as co-operatives, associations, companies etc. exist but many are not active at the grassroots level for historic reasons. MOFA is currently putting in place mechanisms to promote private sector and farmer-participation in extension funding and delivery through the establishment of an Extension Development and Farmer Based Organizations Development Fund. The objective of these funds is to develop a pluralistic extension system where farmers can demand and contribute to extension services delivery in collaboration with government and the agricultural industry. It is however too early to judge the success of this initiative. Background Formal agricultural extension activities were initiated in the colonial era to encourage farmers to follow good cultural practices in their cash crops farms (Hill 1970). The other agricultural commodities grown for local consumption were ignored. After independence, the export-commodity development strategy was de-emphasized in favor of food crop development. 2

4 Extension and Rural Development: A Convergence of Views on International Approaches? The agricultural development approach taken by post independent Ghana was designed to modernize traditional farming practices (Donkoh 1989). The over-arching idea was to increase agricultural productivity through the development and application of scientific knowledge. The government s policy of modernizing peasant agriculture was implemented in the 1960s as the USAID supported Focus and Concentrate Program (FCP), and various other programs in the 70 s and 80 s. In the FCP, for example, finance, inputs and technical advice were made available to a few Progressive Farmers (PFs) to showcase improved farming practices. These PFs were expected to act as models for other farmers to emulate via the posited trickle down effect. The Ministry of Food and Agriculture moved away from input distribution in the 1980 s to the provision of knowledge and information to farmers. In doing this, MOFA adopted a modified Training and Visit System of extension called the unified extension system. In this system, one Agricultural Extension Agent (AEA) reaches a certain number of farmers with basic technology and information. Although a lot of farmers became aware of the technologies through this approach, they were unable to adopt technologies requiring the application of external inputs (see Hailu 1990). For a large part of our existence as a country, it has been the responsibility of the central government to fund and deliver extension services. The support from most development partners is also routed through the government. In the early 1960 s, however, when the concept of the socialist oriented collective farms were in vogue, the farmers co-operatives and the United Ghana Farmers Cooperative Council (UGFCC) provided extension services and other inputs to farmers. Currently, there are other agencies providing extension services to farmers. These include private companies, non-governmental organization (NGOs) and agricultural co-operatives. Recent Reforms to Public Extension The provision of extension services has been subject to frequent reforms. There are a number of driving forces behind these reforms, many of which are not specific for Ghana and can be found elsewhere, e.g. financial constraints, decentralization of general government s service delivery, equity considerations etc. (see Rivera 1996, 2001). Some reforms are specific to the agricultural sector and within the management mandate of MOFA, whereas others are general reforms that affect the extension delivery system indirectly. As table 1 below shows, most reforms have taken place in the context of public funded and public delivery of services. Private funding and private delivery has so far been limited and only recently been acknowledged to be part of the national extension system. Table 1: Reforms in and related to the Ghana agriculture extension system Public delivery Public funding (A) within the agriculture sector: 1992: Adoption of modified T&V 1997: De-concentration of management 2000: Merger of cocoa with mainstream extension Private funding 2000: Privatization of veterinary service delivery introduced (fee based, no subsidy) 2000: Cocoa reform: export levy continued but services changed from d ti d i t 3

5 Reforms in the Ghanaian Extension System (B) other, indirectly affecting extension: since 1996: Civil service management, incl. public financial management reform production advice to quality control,and control of cocoa pests and diseases Private delivery since 2001: Poverty reduction strategy focus since 2002: WTO & EU trade: new demands in knowledge and skills 2000: Preparation of Extension Development Fund (EDF) and Farmer Based Organisation Fund (FBO) 2002: Preparation of new extension policy, acknowledging private extension and NGOs as part of the national extension system For reasons of space, this paper can only focus on selected reforms within the agriculture sector, namely 1. The adoption of a modified Training and Visit (T&V) system of extension by the public sector ( ). 2. Decentralization of extension management and delivery (1997 to present). 3. The merger of cocoa extension with the general extension under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (2000). 4. The increased function of the private sector in financing and providing extension services Modified T&V (Unified Extension) MOFA adopted a modified Training and Visit System for extension management in This was referred to as the Unified Extension System (UES) whereby all technical subjects were coordinated by the most senior technical officer reporting to a regional and national director for extension. The main characteristics of this method are the scheduled (a) training of staff and (b) visits to farmers. This differed slightly from the classic T&V because of the focus on farmer group activities instead of individual farmers, and reduction in the regularity of training to once a month or in certain cases, once every two months. Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs) are responsible for delivering all types of extension messages to farmers, and Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs) support them. Farmers, Extension Agents and SMSs are in close working relationship with the Research Extension Liaison Committees (RELC) established at zonal levels. The RELC reviews the research and extension programs and assesses their relevance to agricultural development in zone. 4

6 Extension and Rural Development: A Convergence of Views on International Approaches? The main outcomes of this reform have been: The rationalization of the public extension system removing the previous duplication of extension activities by each of the individual departments of MOFA. Farmer empowerment through knowledge. MOFA staff were not longer involved in procurement and sale of inputs to farmers. The implementation of the UES was facilitated by the World Bank financed National Agricultural Extension Project (NAEP), implemented from This system adopted a single line of command structure. All the extension agents reported to the national Director of Agricultural Extension Services through their various Regional Agricultural Extension Officers. The UES system is predicated on the notion that farmers adopt new technologies when given the knowledge. A review, however, found that while most of the farmers became aware of the technologies, the adoption rates were lower than 30%, especially for those technologies involving external input application (DAES, 2001). The inability of the UES to raise adoption rates can be attributed to the government s policy of removing subsidies on agricultural inputs. The removal of subsidies, with an increase in real prices of all farm inputs including credit, makes it difficult for farmers to adopt the technologies, and indeed, it makes economic sense not to adopt. 4 This situation has been aggravated by worsening international terms of trade, whereby input prices have risen at higher rates than output prices. In addition, imports from developed countries where agricultural subsidies are in place puts pressure on real prices of local agricultural products. Ian Johnson, the Vice President of the World Bank, speaking at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, indicated that the U.S., Japan, EU and other rich nations now spend 350 billion dollars a year on agricultural subsidies annually. This hurts farmers in developing countries by driving down commodity prices. It is our opinion that the removal of subsidies by developed countries can help increase adoption rate of technologies through its positive effect on commodity prices in Africa. If extension or technologies are to have an impact on agricultural production, then output prices have to be right. The present strategy of the government as outlined in the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (Government of Ghana, 2002) and the Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (MOFA 2002) is in the right direction. These strategies have outlined how farmers can add value to their products and what the government intends to do to support them. In this regard, subjects such as farm management and marketing are now to be included in extension. Some degree of technical specialization at the district level will however be necessary to plan and implement these activities efficiently. Decentralization of the Public Extension System In most of the post-colonial era, agricultural extension was structured and implemented in a top down manner. All extension staff were considered part of the Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services at the MOFA Head Office. Programs were planned based on targets and standards set from the head office. This centralized system approach raised questions of contextual relevance and the flexibility to deal effectively with local specific problems. 4 See also Aldermann (1994 & 1996), Pearce (1992), Sarris & Shanis (1991) in general, and Hesse (1997) for the example of animal traction 5

7 Reforms in the Ghanaian Extension System In 1997, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture decided to decentralize its operations to the regional and the district level. The decentralization within MOFA was primarily a process of decongestion and devolution of power within the publicly funded extension system. Issues such as the participation of farmers in planning, budget preparation, accountability etc. have only partly been addressed in the reform process to date. This process should therefore be regarded as de-concentration. 5 As a result of this process, extension program planning and budgeting became the function of the 110 District Directorates of Agriculture. The de-concentration was accompanied by staff rationalization. The various commodity and subject departments of crops, livestock, policy planning monitoring and evaluation, plant protection and regulatory services, fisheries, veterinary services and agricultural engineering services were merged into a single directorate headed by a District Director of Agriculture. It is important to note that the de-concentration of MOFA was effected as an interim measure in anticipation of a wider organizational change in the context of the decentralization of the Government s administration. The Government s decentralization policy aims to transfer functional powers, means and competence from the central ministries and departments to the District Assemblies. The policy of decentralization is manifested in the countries constitution (Government of Ghana, 1992) and is therefore not a matter for debate. In practice, however, it is not the District Assemblies but rather the sector ministries that control the majority of the funds for development purposes at the district level. To change this, there are plans to introduce a new Local Government Service which would integrate all sector ministries staff and the management of funds at the district level. In order to establish this Local Government Service, the Government is preparing a Local Government Service bill. This bill, however, has not been passed into law yet. Therefore, the anticipated Local Government Service is not in existence and the de-concentration of MOFA, which was thought to be an interim measure when it was conceived in 1997, is still in place. Although the District Directorates of Agriculture now plan their activities and prepare their own budgets independently of the National Directorates, the incomplete political decentralization and staff rationalization posed great challenges to the management and delivery of services by the Ministry. For example The District Directorates have something of an identity crisis. Where do their loyalties lie and who supervises the work, MOFA or the District Assembly? The quality of delivering specialized services such as veterinary, plant regulatory and agricultural statistics services provided by the MOFA has been compromised. Since the District Directors were appointed on seniority basis, most of them had had no experience in extension planning and management. A training program designed to tackle this problem could not be continued for lack of funds. Whilst the District Directorates of MOFA have the role of implementing development activities, the roles of the regional and national MOFA offices have become policy planning, co-ordination, technical 5 De-concentration is used here to describe the devolution of authority to the lower tier level in the ministry, i.e. from the central head offices to the regional and district offices (see also Rivera 2001:29). This is not regarded as complete decentralization because a full devolution of authority in the area of financial and human resource management and the integration into the District Assemblies is still outstanding. 6

8 Extension and Rural Development: A Convergence of Views on International Approaches? backstopping, monitoring and evaluation (MOFA, 1997). An important issue, however, is the acquisition and coordination of funds. National directorates have, for historic reasons, had more experience, skill, and the contacts that help them to acquire funds in the form of projects and programs from various donors. In a situation where more than 80% of the total annual budget (MOFA 1999) is sourced from donors, the national directorates play an important role in fund acquisition, planning, supervising, monitoring, reporting etc. But, in order to make decentralization meaningful, these are functions which should be transferred to the district level. Here the ministry faces a challenge: how to harmonize the fund acquisition role of national directorates (top down) with the activity implementation role of district directorates (bottom up) in a way that provides the District Directorates with a composite plan and budget. Furthermore, there is the thorny question of how MOFA could prepare a budget according to the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) planning procedure, which would be based on composite district plans, then be aggregated, and finally be proposed to the Ministry of Finance for approval. Cocoa Extension Merger with MOFA Until recently, the Cocoa Services Division (CSD) of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) which is the publicly owned marketing board for cocoa had the mandate to provide cocoa extension services. Extension for cocoa was merged with the MOFA extension system in 2000 with the aim of providing a more cost effective extension services to farmers. MOFA is now in the process of developing its capacity for cocoa extension. This is being done through staff training, linking up with the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG) and learning on the job. While MOFA is grappling with developing the capacity and attitude for cocoa extension, there is a growing unease among stakeholders that the mainstreaming of cocoa extension has led to a reduction in the quality of cocoa extension. Farmers complained, for instance, about a reduction in the regularity of extension visits to their cocoa farms (Amezah and Asante Mensah, 2002). Some staff of COCOBOD stated that cocoa extension died with the closure of CSD. It is appreciated that MOFA would be faced with challenges as it adds cocoa extension to the large number of commodities it now has to contend with. Firstly, MOFA s extension is organized in such a way that one AEA interacts with farmers on all major agricultural commodities (unified approach, see above). Therefore, cocoa farmers will hardly get the same attention that they had when cocoa extension was delivered by CSD under COCOBOD. Secondly, MOFA is faced with the problems of fewer field staff and inadequate operational funds. According to Fiadjoe (1998) the AEA to farmer ratio under CSD was 1:127 versus 1:1500 for MOFA. Amezah and Asante Mensah (2002) found that in 2001 only approximately 20% of the approved operational funds were eventually released by the Ministry of Finance. While it might be too early to judge the effects of the merger, it should be noted that because of structural and resource differences, MOFA cannot undertake to provide the same quality of cocoa extension as CSD under COCOBOD. So why was cocoa extension removed from COCOBOD and merged with MOFA extension? One explanation is that the merger was initiated in order to reduce COCOBOD s expenditure, and the pressure to reduce costs was greater than the pressure to deliver good quality extension. Masdar (1998) noted that CSD was the largest divisional employer in COCOBOD accounting for 3,375 staff and spending about 2.7% of FOB of cocoa sales. It was estimated that the merger would lead to a savings of about 20 billion Cedis 6 annually to government (COCOBOD, 1998). While Masdar (1998) estimated that each cocoa extension worker cost the cocoa farmer an amount US$ 6,143 per year, a similar costing of the benefits of 6 1 US$ equaled approximately 2300 Cedis in

9 Reforms in the Ghanaian Extension System extension was not done. This reflects the inability to cost and appreciate the contribution of extension to agricultural development. Extension appears to be a silent development sector, with no voice, that can easily be sacrificed when the need to reduce government expenditure arises. There is the need to identify alternative ways to complement the efforts of MOFA in delivering cocoa extension. The Ministry needs to encourage the LBCs to undertake cocoa extension. The proposed EDF fund provides some possible alternatives through strengthening the capacities of private service providers, particularly the local buying companies. There is a general trend to increase public sector service delivery efficiency through hiving off some of its agricultural services delivery to the private sector while maintaining the delivery of public good type of services (Smith, 2001). In the case of agricultural extension in Ghana, a new extension policy (MOFA, forthcoming) recognizes the activities of NGOs and private companies as part of the national extension system. There is already some private sector extension funding and delivery in the nucleus farmer outgrower schemes or by commercial fruit farmers (Ntifo-Siaw 1999, Atengdem 1999). MOFA is, however, exploring options to increase the participation of the private sector in funding and delivery of services. An example for an ongoing reform initiative in this context is the privatization of the veterinary services. Animal health workers in the public sector were encouraged to go into private practice. This has seen the springing up of private veterinary clinics around the cities and major cattle growing areas. Private veterinary activities are yet to be established in most rural areas because of the income earning potential for private veterinarians in these areas (Agyen-Frimpong, 2002). Another private sector extension initiative is the Community Livestock Worker (CLW) scheme. The scheme provides basic training to members of village communities who, on returning to their villages provide frontline veterinary advice and some clinical intervention to farmers in the communities. In operating this system it was realized that farmers fail to pay regularly for the services of the CLW because of the ever increasing prices of inputs (Agyen-Frimpong, 2002). Although the examples above do not yet provide convincing evidence for success, MOFA is committed to promoting private sector participation in extension delivery. This is because MOFA realizes that in order to maintain quality extension service on a sustainable basis, farmers must be encouraged to pay for services from service providers. However, the private sector does not have the capability of delivering extension services if the public sector folds up. This is evident from the dependence of NGOs on MOFA staff for their field work (Fiadjoe, 2000, Atengdem 1999). MOFA is establishing an agricultural Extension Development Fund (EDF) to pilot a publicly funded but private sector delivered extension scheme in 10 districts in the country starting This will provide the means for MOFA to monitor private sector providers while improving their capacity. In this scheme the extension delivery, in a district as a whole or part thereof, will be contracted to private sector providers for a three-year period. Lessons learnt from the process will be used to refine the system for the purposes of scaling up. We agree that there is a case for state withdrawal from the delivery of some agricultural services. However, the pace of the reform has to recognize the need to develop the capacity of the private extension service providers. This gradual process would allow for (a) better development of the requisite capacity, and (b) participation of stakeholders in setting of ground rules and standards for services delivery. It is expected that a greater diversity of services providers through the extension development fund and the development of more powerful farmer-institutions would lead to the emergence of a pluralistic and demand driven extension system in Ghana. 8

10 Extension and Rural Development: A Convergence of Views on International Approaches? Potential Private Sector Service Providers As discussed in the previous section, there are initiatives to strengthen the private sector funding and delivery of extension services. The following gives an overview of potential private sector actors whose involvement in extension delivery could be strengthened: Private Companies There are a number of companies operating in agricultural enterprises that have potential for commercial or profitable production. For cash crops like oil palm, rubber, pineapple, cotton and vegetables, extension is financed and delivered through buyers and processing companies under contract with farmers (Atengdem 1999). Pesticide companies and dealers also provide extension on specific products. The sustainability of this extension arrangement for other crops will be dependent on the profitability and demand from industry and the market in general. Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) There are a growing number of non-profit making organizations in the agriculture and rural development sector in response to the liberalization of the economy and general trends in the global NGO movement. Many NGOs in Ghana are concerned with assisting rural communities to improve their livelihoods. Some NGOs are advising farmers on the production of cash crops such as mangos, citrus and cashew. Most NGOs do not have their own extension agents. They depend heavily on MOFA staff for their fieldwork (Fiadjoe 2000, Atengdem 1999). Some MOFA District Directors report that NGOs use MOFA staff without formal approval or planning with MOFA authorities. This creates conflict of interest problems for MOFA field staff, as on one day the AEA could be giving out NGO food, whereas the next day he might be a facilitator for MOFA participatory extension, which are clearly two conflicting approaches. NGOs are, however, providing resources that enable MOFA field staff to interact with farmers, and should therefore not be ignored completely. The way forward seems to be an improvement in planning with MOFA to reduce the unofficial use of public officers by NGOs. The need for cooperation among agricultural services providers is key to efficiency and effectiveness of services delivery. MOFA s current approach is to facilitate the creation of agricultural services providers fora at the regional and district levels for informing MOFA s planning process. We are hopeful that this will improve the cooperation with NGOs. Farmer Based Organizations and Cooperatives The agricultural farmer co-operatives and associations are currently for historic reasons not very strong. After independence, the government tried to use the co-operative approach to agriculture according to the socialist development model. Cooperatives and state farms were created which collapsed in the 1980s for management and other economic reasons. The reputation of cooperatives has hence been tarnished by these disappointing experiences. In the 1980s, the government supported the formation of the Ghana National Association of Farmers and Fishermen (GNAFF). Most of the executives, however, associated themselves with politicians rather than with farmers. Many associations are therefore not active at the grassroots level. 9

11 Reforms in the Ghanaian Extension System The few active co-operatives include the horticultural association and the vegetable farmers association. The approach of these associations is to link farmers and facilitate the group sale of produce in the export market. Other organizations like the poultry farmers association and the fish farmers associations attempt to reduce input costs for its members through collective bargaining and purchasing. These associations have not engaged the services of any extension agent to serve their members. According to Atengdem (2001) farmers still depend to a large extent on their own knowledge and farmer to farmer extension in addition to the public extension service. Because of these weaknesses, MOFA has concluded that co-operatives, associations, and other forms of farmer based organizations (FBO) need strengthening. In the next three years, the government will spend 5 million US$ to support approximately 300 FBOs and help them organize themselves into self-sustaining farmers organizations. It remains to be seen whether this fund can re-establish the trust of farmers in cooperatives, associations or other forms of FBO and increase their impact for the development of agriculture in Ghana. Conclusion Agricultural extension services in Ghana have passed through different changes and reforms. Extension was once fully funded and provided by the state. Now, MOFA s approach is to acknowledge and support the role of the private sector. In recent times the impact of extension has been directly and negatively affected by (a) the trade liberalization, with lower product prices as a result of the worsening terms of trade and (b) the incomplete decentralization process of the government, with the de-concentration of MOFA, and a decline in the quality of service provision. We support the approach of the government to worsening terms of trade, i.e. the attempt to add value to local production through processing and improved marketing. With respect to the uncompleted decentralization, we recommend a thorough review of the process with respect to MOFA s service delivery. The issue of staff supervision (MOFA or District Assemblies), the provision of specialized services such as veterinary, plant regulatory and agricultural statistics services, and the upgrade of staff skills to meet functional requirements must be addressed with high priority. We recommend the creation of a change management team made up of senior members of the MOFA management to guide the process and initiate action. The cocoa extension reform has transferred the authority for providing cocoa extension from the COCOBOD to MOFA. Because of budgetary constraints, MOFA cannot provide the same level of extension to farmers as compared to COCOBOD who financed the extension provision through a direct levy on cocoa exports. New ways have to be found to provide high quality cocoa extension, for instance through integrating and improving the activities of local buying companies.. The EDF can be used to kick-start the participation of the private sector in cocoa extension. The uncoordinated way in which some NGOs use MOFA staff demonstrates the need to improve the planning process and integrate the various initiatives. Apart from NGOs, there are numerous private companies providing extension services to farmers. The Ministry's support through the establishment of the EDF is important for the improvement of the capacity of private sector extension providers. Similarly the initiatives for farmer empowerment, through the development of FBO would enable farmers to demand and pay for services. It remains, however, to be seen whether these funds will achieve a positive impact, and the progress will be closely monitored by MOFA. 10

12 Extension and Rural Development: A Convergence of Views on International Approaches? Bibliography Agyen-Frimpong (2002), Director for Veterinary Services, Ministry for Food and Agriculture, Personal Communication. Alderman, H., Shively, G. (1996), Economic Reform and Food Prices: Evidence from Markets in Ghana, World Development Vol. 24 (3), pp Aldermann, H. (1994), Ghana: Adjustment's star pupil? In: Sahn, D., et al. (Editors), Adjusting to Policy Failure in African Economies, pp ,. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, Amezah and Asante Mensah, (2002), 'The Effect of Reforms in the Cocoa Sector on Cocoa Extension., GTZ consultancy report for the Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES), Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), Accra, Ghana Atengdem (1999), Agricultural Extension Concepts in Ghana: Contract Extension by Private Companies: Cotton Companies and Fruit Exporters, GTZ consultancy report for the Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES), Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), Accra, Ghana Atengdem (2001), The current status and the way forward in farmer-driven training in Ghana, GTZ consultancy report for the Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES), Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), Accra, Ghana COCOBOD (1998), Modalities for the Implementation of the Cocoa Services Devision (CSD) / Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) Merger, COCOBOD, Accra DAES (2001), National Agricultural Extension Project (NAEP), Project Completion Report, MOFA, Accra Donkoh, F. (1989), The History of Agricultural Extension in Ghana, Internal Mimeo, MOFA, Accra Fiadjoe (1999), Agricultural Extension Concepts in Ghana: Extension bynon-governmental Organizations (NGOs), GTZ consultancy report for the Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES), Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), Accra, Ghana Government of Ghana (1992), The Constitution of Ghana, Accra Government of Ghana (2002), Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS), Accra Hailu, Z. (1990), The Adoption of Modern Farm Practices in African Agriculture: Empirical Evidence about the Impacts of Household Characteristics and Input Supply Systems in the Northern Region of Ghana, Weikersheim, Germany Hesse, J.H. (1997), Is bullock traction a sustainable technology? A longitudinal case study in northern Ghana, Dissertation.com, Parkland, Florida, USA Johnson, I. (2002), Drop the Subsidies says the World Bank, Daily Graphic of 28/06/2002. Graphic Company, Accra Lynn, C.W. (1937), Agriculture in North Mamprusi, Department of Agriculture, Bulletin No. 34, Accra Ntifo-Siaw (1999), Agricultural Extension Concepts in Ghana: Extension delivery through nucleus farm out-grower schemes by the public sector and private companies, GTZ consultancy report for the Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES), Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), Accra, Ghana Masdar Consult (1998), Socioeconomic Study of Cocoa Farmers. COCOBOD, Accra 11

13 Reforms in the Ghanaian Extension System MOFA (1999), Agriculture Sector Expenditure Review, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), Accra, Ghana MOFA (1997), Handbook of Decentralization, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), Accra, Ghana MOFA (2002), Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP), Accra, forthcoming MOFA (forthcoming), Extension Policy of Ghana, Accra Pearce, R. (1992), Ghana, In: Duncan, A., Howell, J. (Editors), Structural Adjustment and the African Farmer, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London Rivera, W.M. (1996), Agricultural extension in transition worldwide: structural, financial, and managerial strategies for improving agricultural extension; Public Administration and Development (16), Rivera, W.M. (2001), Agricultural and Rural Extension Worldwide: Options for Institutional Reform in the Developing Countries, FAO, Rome Sarris, A.; Shanis, H. (1991), Agricultural Sector Structure and Performance, In: Ghana under Structural Adjustment, the Impact on Agriculture and the Rural Poor, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), New York Smith, L.D. (1997), Decentralisation and Rural Development; FAO, Rome. 12

14 Extension and Rural Development: A Convergence of Views on International Approaches? List of Acronyms AAGDS AEA Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Development Strategy Agricultural Extension Agent AgSSIP Agricultural Services Sub-Sector Investment Project COCOBOD DADU DAES DDA EDF FBO FBODF FCP GNAFF GTZ MOFA MTEF NAEP NGO PF RADU RELC SMS T&V UAES UGFCC USAID Ghana Cocoa Marketing Board District Agricultural Development Unit Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services District Director of Agriculture Extension Development Fund Farmer Based Organization Farmer Based Organization Development Fund Focus and Concentrate Program Ghana National Association of Farmers and Fishermen German Agency for Technical Cooperation Ministry of Food and Agriculture Medium Term Expenditure Framework National Agricultural Extension Project Non- Governmental Organization Progressive Farmers Regional Agricultural Development Units Research Extension Linkage Committee Subject Matter Specialist Training and Visit Unified Agricultural Extension Services United Ghana Farmers Co-Operative Council United States Agency for International Development 13