4 June 2010 Developing Planning Unit, University College London

Client: International Water Management Institute

GIDA ASHAIMAN REPORT
Authors: MSc Environment & Sustainable Development Students: Sa’adatu Abatemi-Usman, Veronica Cheng, Andrea Demurtas, Sara Guy, Ai Kaibu, Cassidi Kunvipusilkul, Robin Pratap, Salman Rassouli, Hauwa Usman [1]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations Preface

3 4 5 6
6 6 6 6

Executive Summary 1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the study 1.2 Urban & peri-urban agriculture 1.3 Food sovereignty 1.4 Background: Ashaiman GIDA site

2 Research

7
7 7 10 10

2.1 Definition of SUPA & areas investigated 2.2 Methodology / conceptual framework 2.3 Tools 2.4 Limitations

3 Ashaiman GIDA site

11
11 11 14 15 15 16

3.1 Findings 3.1.1 Environmental sphere (encroachment, farming practices, right bank) 3.1.2 Social sphere 3.1.3 Economic sphere 3.1.4 Policy sphere 3.2 Summary

4 Recommendations

17
17 19 21

Strategy 1: Land control: drawing the line Strategy 2: Development of the right bank: right bank rehab Strategy 3: Farmers‘ association: unity & strength

5 Conclusions References Appendices

23

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

[2]

ABBREVIATIONS
AIFCS AshMA AshWGUPA AWGUPA CACS DCMC DPU EPA FUP GC GIDA Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society Ashaiman Municipal Assembly Ashaiman Working Group on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture Accra Working Group on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture College of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences District Citizens Monitoring Committee Development Planning Unit Environmental Protection Agency Federation of the Urban Poor Ghana cedi Ghana Irrigation Development Authority Ghana Water Company Limited Irrigation Development Centre Institute of Local Government Studies International Water Management Institute Japan International Cooperation Agency Ministry of Food and Agriculture Metropolitan Works Department National Development Planning Commission Right Bank Committee Roman Down Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security Sustainable urban and peri-urban agriculture Town and Country Planning Department Tema Development Corporation Urban and peri-urban agriculture Waste Management Department

GWCL IDC ILGS IWMI JICA

MoFA MWD NDPC RBC RD

RUAF SUPA TCPD TDC UPA

WMD

[3]

June 2010

SUSTAINABLE URBAN AGRICULTURE IN ASHAIMAN, GHANA

The GIDA site (Ashaiman, Ghana)

PREFACE
Over the past 5 months, many people and organisations have helped us in our research. Special thanks are due to Dr Olufunke Cofie and the International Water Management Institute, Memuna Mattah and Nii Ofoe Hansen for their commitment and generous assistance. We are also extremely grateful for the support and advice from our lecturers and team leaders, Adriana Allen, Pascale Hofmann, Alex Frediani and Rita Valencia. We also thank our colleagues working at the Roman Down site for their cooperation. Special mention must also be made of the Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society, Ghana Irrigation Development Authority and the Ashaiman Stool for receiving us. Thanks are also due to the Roman Downs Farmers’ Cooperative and all the other individuals and organisations who graciously gave us their time.

[4]

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

MAP OF GIDA SITE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Agriculture is a key industry in Ghana, occupying a central socioeconomic position (JICA, 2006); in addition, urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) is seen as both a common and beneficial use of land (Smit and Nasr, 1992). The situation regarding food in Accra is that 40% of the inhabitants are, “considered vulnerable, in that they have enough food for now, but still spend a high proportion of income on food, making them vulnerable to seasonal and price changes or other global food supply issues” (Maxwell et al., 2000). Urban agriculture can serve the multiple purposes of helping to alleviate poverty while also conserving natural resources and making productive use of under-utilized areas. In Ghana, a national policy for food security contributed to the introduction of the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) and its subsequent schemes. This report details research conducted into sustainable UPA on one such GIDA site, located in Ashaiman, a rapidly urbanising area near Accra. The current state of UPA at the Ashaiman GIDA site was ascertained, achievements and problems identified, and potential solutions to these problems proposed. Food sovereignty, as an alternative paradigm to both food security and current global food systems, was used as the benchmark and signpost for the research. The challenges of food sovereignty are particularly pertinent in a country such as Ghana, with a strong export-oriented agricultural sector. We believe that sustainable UPA can be used to support the progress of food sovereignty, particularly given the importance attached to local food markets and food for people rather than export and trade (Nyéléni, 2007, La Via Campesina). We review the progress of the GIDA Ashaiman scheme and the roles of the various groups involved. The report outlines a framework for analysing the sustainability of the scheme and its position with regards to food sovereignty, looking at environmental, social, political and economic spheres. While political commitment for UPA is presently in rhetoric, the situation on the ground shows conflict among institutional groups (particularly around issues of land and encroachments), a low importance attributed to ecological concerns and a lack of supportive financial options. The recommendations given are aimed at sustaining UPA in Ashaiman and further afield, and towards promoting the principles of food sovereignty. Strategies are focused on land (allocation and use) and the organisation of farmers: ๏ Drawing the line: defining and protecting the areas of land dedicated to agriculture and putting a halt to further encroachments and the degradation of natural resources necessary for UPA.

๏ Right bank rehab: rehabilitation and development of an unused area of the Ashaiman GIDA site with full participation of all stakeholders, to make the best use of the land and safeguard it for agricultural purposes. ๏ Unity and strength: improving the resilience of UPA through strengthening the internal cohesion and functioning of the farmers’ association while at the same time networking with other farmers to give them a louder voice, greater control and a wider knowledge base.

[5]

1 INTRODUCTION
Purpose, Structure & Scope of the Report
1.1 Purpose of the study
This project builds upon the research on sustainable urban agriculture conducted in 2009 by the DPU students of the 2008/2009 academic year. Focusing on land, water and waste management, our study aimed to: ๏ explore the existing achievements and their background, ๏ identify remaining obstacles, and ๏ develop potential strategic interventions for overcoming these obstacles towards the achievement of sustainable urban and peri-urban agriculture (SUPA) in the Greater Accra Region, using the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) site in Ashaiman as a case study. The study will be analysed using the principles of food sovereignty, which we believe is the ultimate goal that SUPA should support.

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

President Kwame Nkrumah in the early 1960’s. The total area is approximately 155 ha, divided into a left (56 ha) and right bank (99 ha) by a central drainage canal. The reservoir, constructed in 1965−68, has a capacity of approximately 5.6 million metric tons and provides the water for irrigation. Agriculture is a key export industry of Ghana1. Shortly after independence, the Ghanaian government worked on the development of a formal irrigation scheme in order to increase domestic food production; the Ashaiman GIDA site was one such project. A top-down, centralized management approach failed to adequately maintain the irrigation facilities. Under the World Bank’s Structural Adjustment Program of the 1980s, government expenditure on the irrigation scheme was reduced and the irrigation sites became dilapidated (Sato, 2006). Against this backdrop, the Ashaiman GIDA site was selected by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) as a model site for the Small-Scale Irrigated Agriculture Promotion Plan in the 1990’s, aiming for a transition from government- to farmer-led management (JICA, 2006). With JICA’s support, the Irrigation Development Centre (IDC) in Ashaiman was established within GIDA as a “base for the development and dissemination of irrigated farming techniques” (ibid.) and the left canal was reconstructed. Currently, 93 farmers are growing rice, maize, okra and other vegetables on the site; in addition, unregistered farmers are using land known as Roman Down (RD) and seasonal farmers are using land on the right bank. Registered farmers belong to the Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society (AIFCS) and pay an irrigation service charge to GIDA every 6 months (APPENDIX A).

1.2 Urban & peri-urban agriculture
Urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) is recognized increasingly by the private sector, governments (national and local), NGOs and development agencies as a means for poverty alleviation in urban and peri-urban areas. Cities Farming for the Future (Adam-Bradford et al., 2006) defines UPA as: “… the growing of plants and the raising of animals for food and other uses within and around the cities and towns, and related activities such as the production and delivery of inputs, and the processing and marketing of products”. There is great potential but also elements of risk around various issues, for example, health benefits and impacts, local economic development and urban environmental management. City dynamics have changed rapidly over recent decades and, due to continued urban growth and rural−urban migration, cities have to extend their capacities in terms of infrastructure, providing economic opportunities, housing and, of course, food provision. UPA can play a sizeable role in improving livelihoods of the urban population; having been part of many cities for centuries, it is flexible and can be adapted to changing situations. At least 50% of the average income of a family living in a developing country is spent on food (Adam-Bradford et al., 2006). With this figure in mind, UPA can contribute significantly to food security, especially among the urban poor, and help to move societies towards food sovereignty.

Food Sovereignty
“Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture; to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to determine the extent to which they want to be self-reliant; to restrict the dumping of products in their markets; and to provide local fisheriesbased communities the priority in managing the use of and the rights to aquatic resources. Food sovereignty does not negate trade but rather it promotes the formulation of trade policies and practices that serve the rights of peoples to food and to safe, healthy and ecologically sustainable production.” (La Via Campesina)

1.4 Background: Ashaiman GIDA site
The Ashaiman GIDA site is located in Ashaiman Municipality, which was carved from Tema in 2008. Ashaiman is 5 km2 and has a population of approximately 75,000. The site is one of 22 projects run by GIDA, a government organization under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA). The land for the site, traditionally owned by the stool, was purchased by the Tema Development Corporation (TDC) when the government launched the GIDA project under

Report by:
Sa’adatu Abatemi-Usman Veronica Cheng Andrea Demurtas Sara Guy Ai Kaibu Cassidi Kunvipusilkul Robin Pratap Salman Rassouli Hauwa Usman

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

[6]

2 RESEARCH
2.1 Definition of SUPA & areas to be investigated
To address the research aim mentioned earlier, the team developed a working definition of SUPA. 2) Sustainable farming practices In order to maintain and enhance the natural resource base, a reduced dependence on chemical inputs (e.g., fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide) is necessary. Cropping techniques can also increase or decrease resilience (APPENDIX B). The team hypothesised that there are economic barriers to adopting ecologically sustainable farming practices. Farmers’ association and collective action The farmers’ association should be integral conveying farmers’ needs to policy-makers. Joint action amongst farmers may improve their economic and political conditions. conventional market-oriented agriculture. On the other hand, SUPA has been seen as an appropriate tool for achieving the ecological goals of food sovereignty, in terms of its approach to using ecological inputs and considering long-term benefits for both humans and the environment (Pimbert, 2008). Neoliberal economics and the green revolution paradigm advocate the replacement of smallholders with large-scale, industrial farming and of intercropping with cash monocrops, undermining both the socio-economic livelihood of the farmers and the environment. This double-edged damage becomes more significant when we consider that, in the global South, 800 million people are dependent on small-scale UPA (Pimbert, 2008). Countries aiming to secure a sustainable food supply should follow appropriate policies that support UPA. However, domestic production alone cannot guarantee the sustainability of food supply, since agricultural practices may still contradict the principles of food sovereignty. To move UPA toward sustainability (SUPA), all principles of food sovereignty should be considered and integrated in policy-making for (S)UPA. Four main spheres were found to be crucial to SUPA on the GIDA site: policy, environment, economics and society. These spheres influence (positively or negatively) the sustainability of UPA; the principles of food sovereignty also apply across these spheres. The different spheres are inter-related and coordination among them is needed to ensure SUPA. To better understand the integration of food sovereignty in SUPA and the relationship between the two, we have developed a set of criteria, using Nyéléni’s Pillars of Food Sovereignty (2007), against which the current situation can be measured. These criteria are given in the table on the following page.

Sustainable Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture
“Urban and peri-urban agriculture is a process of crop and/or animal production activities in the city and its peri-urban areas for consumption and/or commercial purposes. Its sustainability is dependent on the physical environment, the availability of resources and the relationships among actors. Suitable farming practices that maintain and enhance the natural resource base and supportive policies across all levels of governance are needed to enable sustainable UPA, thus enhancing health and well-being in the city, food security and moving towards food sovereignty.” 3)

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

Based on this definition, the Terms of Reference and secondary research, three main areas were investigated: 1) Water supply and waste management A sufficient quantity of good-quality water is an essential natural resource in terms of the physical environment required for sustainable agriculture. Encroachments on the Ashaiman GIDA site, exacerbated by a lack of waste collection and sewerage of surrounding area, are affecting the water quality for irrigation, as well as the volume of water available.

POLICY SPHERE

ENVIRONMENTAL SPHERE

SUPA
ECONOMIC SPHERE

SOCIAL SPHERE

Conceptual Framework

[7]

Six pillars of food sovereignty

Spheres of influence in achieving and maintaining sustainable UPA Social sphere Migrants have a share in UPA practices to provide sufficient food Indigenous people are involved in UPA Women are involved in UPA

Policy sphere Economic sphere Environmental sphere Focuses on food for people Availability of Food is Food is affordable, enough, healthy distributed healthy and nutritious and nutritious equitably and food for all, without prejudice particularly among people vulnerable groups

Values food providers Respecting the Policies support Economic policies are Urbanization and Media adequately reflect the right of small security of tenure not biased to encroachments are not a importance of UPA and smallfarmers and and/or control industrial or Green threat to UPA holder farms rejects policies over land for UPA Revolution-inspired that threaten or farmers farming but put value undervalue their on and provide role Youth are opportunities for encouraged and urban farmers supported in UPA Farmers have access Official media to loans and credit adequately reflect with suitable payment the importance of terms and interest UPA and small- rates holder farms Localises food systems Bringing food Policies support providers and the expansion of consumers closer local markets for and rejecting of UPA produce policies that favour Imported crops unsustainable are subject to international trade tariffs and unaccountable Local remote consumption is commercials prioritized over export Puts control locally Gives local producers control over their natural resources and rejects privatisation of local resources through laws and contracts

Access to local market as a source of income is guaranteed Farmers are not dependent on middlemen for selling crops

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

Public and private sector ownership or management is limited in UPA by decentralised policies The control and responsibilities are well transferred to the municipal level and roles are well defined

Local urban/peri-urban farmers have a voice and can decide the methods and products they grow. Farmers’ associations help farmers to gain management knowledge Associations operate in a transparent and accountable manner

[8]

Builds knowledge and skills Supports Policies do not sustainable support use of localized food genetically production modified crops knowledge and and limit skills and rejects undermining undermining technologies technology Education on and experimentation with traditional practices takes place Works with nature Has an agroecological production and farming approach that maximize long term ecosystem functions and improve resilience

Traditional practices are used Farmers’ associations are in UPA linked to enhance and exchange indigenous knowledge and skills

Appropriate policies favour composting Appropriate regulations encourage and facilitate composting plants Regulations limit the excessive use of chemicals and destructive farming technologies Monitoring of the quality and nutrition of UPA products takes places

Adequate state and The source of water is not There is consumer international funds are contaminated and suitable for pressure for organic allocated to education UA. produce on environmentally friendly farming Irrigation methods reduce methods health risk and contamination The water used for irrigation does not pose any threat to farmers or consumers Intercropping is practised Food grown respects the local vegetation Farmers implement closed loop farming Soil has a good structure (not compacted) and is suitable for agricultural purposes Soil quality is protected from toxicity and salinity caused by the (over-) use of chemical inputs (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc) Farmers’ practices endorse:  Minimization  Reusing  Recycling  Composting The areas of food production are free from waste The surrounding area is clean The surrounding area is served by adequate garbage collection

Source: Adapted from Nyéléni, 2007

[9]

2.3 Tools
An initial review of the literature on UPA was conducted to underpin the theoretical perspective of the research. In addition, the literature concerning the political and administrative context of Ghana, in particular Accra, Ashaiman and the GIDA site, and the approach to UPA were reviewed. This was followed by fieldwork in Accra and Ashaiman, consisting of a number of meetings with primary and secondary stakeholders from state, private and civil society sectors. Authorities from MoFA, GIDA, Zoom Lion, the Stool and others were consulted. This information was complemented by individual (semi-structured) interviews with farmers and officials; focus groups with the farmers to identify their perceptions of farming on the site GIDA; and transect walks to gain understanding of the infrastructure and natural environment of the site (for a full schedule of the fieldwork conducted, see APPENDIX C).

TOOLS

2.4 Limitations
Fieldwork was conducted within a 2-week timeframe. The language barrier resulted in a possible loss of understanding or even misunderstanding, and the disengagement of some farmers from focus group discussion. We were also unable to meet with all relevant stakeholders, such as the encroachment residents and migrant farmers. A final presentation and plenary session was held with the majority of stakeholders, which allowed areas of conflicting information to be raised; the additional presence of the Stool would have made the discussion more complete. Research was conducted using our Terms of Reference, focussed on urban agriculture, as the starting point. Therefore, we mostly focussed on the views and needs of farmers and not, for example, those in need of housing.

On-site research

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

[10]

THREATS TO WATER

3 ASHAIMAN GIDA SITE
3.1 Findings 3.1.1 Environmental Sphere Encroachment
Encroachments on the GIDA site are a significant threat to sustaining the irrigation scheme. Houses have been erected around the reservoir, on the shoulder of the left bank, along the left irrigation canal on the buffer zone and pollution catchment area, and on the floodplain of the site. Land erosion and solid waste cause siltation and pollution of the reservoir, as well as pollution from waste water. Reducing the buffer zone, developments affecting the catchment drain and inappropriate use of water in the canals increase the likelihood of water pollution. The boundaries were marked by trees, which have in some areas been cut down by encroachers. Encroachments on the buffer zone are the result of an unclear land ownership agreement between the government and the Stool, as well as unclear demarcation of boundaries. It is apparent that the government has not enforced its authority strictly; as such, farmers who feel the direct impact have no control to resolve the problem. Due to the lack of documented evidence and unclear demarcation, the Stool claims that the Ashaiman GIDA site is on a long lease of 125 years of which 75 years is already spent, yet the Stool has not received the full compensation. Land in Ashaiman is becoming increasingly valuable as the area becomes further urbanised. Currently, the Land Allocation Committee, which includes representatives from Ashaiman Municipal Assembly (AshMA), the IDC/GIDA, the Stool and the farmers (AIFCS), meets regularly to discuss the land issue. There have been negotiations between the government and the Stool to allow a 50 m buffer zone on the catchment area of the left canal, and there are also plans to demolish 150 homes out of the total 1000 encroachment residences on GIDA-managed land. The District Citizen’s Monitoring Committee (APPENDIX D) is facilitating dialogue between the RD farmers and the Stool with regards to land security. However, there is an urgent need for a more comprehensive negotiation among GIDA, TDC, farmers, Stool and residents to resolve the land disputes.

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

[11]

Farming Practices
Farming activities on the GIDA site take place on the 56 ha of the left bank. Each farmer cultivates a plot of 1−2.5 acres (0.4−1 ha). Although most farmers acknowledge the negative impacts of using chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, they continue to use them. Chemical fertilizers are used at many stages of crop production, from land preparation to shortly before harvesting. From interviews with farmers we learned that pesticides are widely used. Farmers do not use compost because they perceive it to be labour intensive, time consuming and with high associated transportation costs. Research into the viability of composting as a private enterprise has been conducted by Zoom Lion. The farmers are more concerned with short-term rather than long-term goals, even though their land tenure is secure. In other words, farming practices are not harmonious with nature. By contrast, they degrade the natural resources, moving them away from the fundamental principles of food sovereignty and sustainability. Intercropping is used rarely; crop rotation and mono-cropping are more common. The farmers claim that their small plot size discourages them from intercropping, as they believe they will yield an insufficient amount of each kind of vegetable for sale. In fact, intercropping methods can be implemented on small plots; when done appropriately it gives a high yield, promotes resilience and has the potential to reduce the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers (pers. comm. Biel R, 2010). However, land limitation is still the main constraint that hinders farmers from farming practices such as integrated farming (the combination of crop, animal and fish farming).

CHARACTERISTICS

Left canal
The only fully functioning main canal on the site.

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

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

[12]

Right Bank

UNPRODUCTIVE LAND

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

The 99 ha of the right bank are designed to be irrigated through the right canal by gravity. However, the canal is constructed of earth rather than concrete, allowing water seepage, and water flow is impeded by waste and weeds. As a result, not only is the canal too shallow to channel the water, it is also blocked by debris. At present, only part of this area is being used to cultivate onions seasonally and informally by migrant farmers. In individual interviews, farmers mentioned that onions can provide additional benefits for farmers above their usual cultivation. However, the information on migrant farmers was gathered towards the end of our research and we were not able to meet any of these farmers or follow-up on, for example, the regulations governing this use of the right bank. The lack of water has forced farmers on the right bank to abandon their land and transfer to the left bank, resulting in smaller plot sizes for cultivation, thereby generating lower incomes. Rehabilitation of the right canal is capital intensive, beyond the farmers’ means, so they are dependent on GIDA for reinforcing the canal. GIDA also requires external funding to develop the right bank as it lacks the necessary finance. There are a number of ideas for the development of the right bank, such as the

‘Youth in Agriculture’ program. This Program, implemented by Ghanaian government, aims to reduce the both unemployment and poverty. According to MoFA, approximately 47,000 people benefitted from the program in 2009 (IIJ 2009). As a result, in 2010 the government will invest another 50 million GC into the program (Ghana Business News 2010). Both GIDA and the Stool recognize the potential of the Youth in Agriculture program for the right bank. GIDA has drafted plans to rehabilitate the right bank to which MoFA has agreed in principle, and is now working on sourcing funds. The IDC has also proposed introducing small animal farming and aquaculture on the right bank. Even with the repair of the right canal, the volume of the water from the reservoir would only allow 70% of the right bank to be irrigated. As a result, any planned intervention will require less water-intensive activities. GIDA is looking to implement new technology, such as water dripping, on the site. A major drawback, however, is the minimal to nonexistent role that AIFCS farmers have in the decision-making and development plans for the right bank.

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

[13]

3.1.2 Social Sphere
On the GIDA site there are 93 farmers who have formed a cooperative, the AIFCS, which has been registered with the Department of Cooperatives since 1998. AIFCS is also a member of the Ghana Peasant Farmers Association. Members and their elected executives manage the cooperative. Within the assembly, there are various sub-committees; each comprises five members, including the sub-committee chair as the figure on the right hand shows. The Chairman and the executive members are elected by the General Assembly. Once elected, the chairman designates the respective positions for each member of the Executive Committee. Elections are held every 3 years and members can be elected for two consecutive terms only. The last election was in 2007. All decisions taken by the executive members have to be ratified by the General Assembly to take effect. Since 2000, accounts are opened to members at the end of each year to increase transparency. All members of the cooperative work together once a month in order to maintain common property. A fine of 5 GC is levied on any member who fails to participate. The maintenance committee works closely with GIDA to co-manage the site. The cooperative does not play a role in sales or marketing; as a result, farmers have to deal with ‘market mummies’ individually, which has made the farmers vulnerable. During the fieldwork, a joint focus group of the AIFCS, farmers from the RD site and representatives from the Federation of the Urban Poor took place. A vision for sustainable agriculture in Ashaiman was discussed and the creation of an ‘umbrella’ organisation of farmers in Ashaiman was agreed upon, in order that the farmers may support each other and work together, for example, in political lobbying.
Disciplinary Committee

General Assembly
Chairman Welfare Committee

Vice Chairman Secretary

Agriculture Committee

Finance Committee

Treasurer Organizer

Womanʼs Leader

Maintenance Officer

Maintenance Committee

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Maintenance committee chaired by the Maintenance Officer Agriculture committee chaired by the Secretary Finance committee chaired by the Treasurer Disciplinary committee chaired by the Vice Chairman Welfare committee chaired by the Vice Chairman

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

Meeting between Roman Down & GIDA site farmers

[14]

3.1.3 Economic sphere
Farmers belonging to the AIFCS make regular financial contributions of up to 62 GC/year to the association that are allocated to administration, welfare and share capital funds. Financial contributions of the Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society Fund Administration Welfare Share capital Amount, frequency 1 GC/month 10 GC/6 months 30 GC/year Use and distribution To cover administrative costs of running the cooperative Financial assistance for those in need (e.g., through illness or death in the family). Distribution is decided by the Welfare Committee For investment purposes

In addition to these funds, there is a Farmers’ Bank on the site that provides loans for inputs of seeds and chemicals. However, in our discussions with the farmers, lack of adequate finance was highlighted as a significant problem. Owing to the nature of farming, there is a need for cash advances throughout the growing process, not only at the input stage. The costs of hiring labour was one of the highest costs of the process (for more detailed information, see APPENDIX E). The absence of cash credit availability leads the farmers to rely on market mummies, who not only dictate the prices of produce but also influence the crops grown to suit their demands. A women’s savings group was previously active in the AIFCS but the leaders left the farm and members of the group were not able to get their money. However, the farmers were positive regarding the potential benefits of regular group savings and, with support from an organisation such as the Federation of the Urban Poor, some members would be interested in starting such groups. Greater financial independence would help to reduce the dependency on GIDA and the market mummies, a desire that was expressed strongly by the farmers.

3.1.4 Policy sphere
The traditional belief in Ghana is that “all power is in land” (Dyasi, 1985). This belief is founded on the principle that land provides the basic elements that sustain people; in turn, the earth is owned by the ancestors who maintain it. Therefore, the land, waters and minerals cannot be owned by individuals as they are sacred and must be treasured (ibid), rather they are safeguarded by the chiefs, which is why land transactions are leases rather than outright purchases. On the GIDA site, various institutions, such as MoFA, GIDA, IDC, AshMA and the Stool, have interrelated roles regarding food production, poverty alleviation, sustainable land practices and sound indigenous beliefs that can ensure SUPA and lead to food sovereignty. The relationships of the various parties and institutions on the GIDA site as their activities relate to UPA have been mapped using the Web of Institutionalisation (Levy, 1996).

The Web of Institutionalisation
MoFA GIDA IDC Market Mummies MoFA GIDA RUAF AshMA GTV AshMA JICA DANIDA NDPC MoFA NDPC

Organisational Sphere

Policy Sphere

Resources

MoFA GIDA AshMA NDPC

ILGS TDC GWLC TCP

Mainstream Responsibility for Transformatory Principles

Political Commitment
Farmers associations (RD & AIFCS) Market mummies’ associations DCMC FUP

Policy / Planning
MoFA IDC

Procedures
MoFA EPA ILGS AshMA Stool IDC

Pressure of Political Constituencies

Representative Political Structures
AshMA Stool

Staff Development

Farmers Market mummies’ associations Encroachment residents

Woman & Men’s Experience & their Reflexive Interpretation of Reality Applied Research

Delivery of Programmes & Projects
MoFA WMD MWD IDC / GIDA GWLC Zoom Lion

Methodology
IDC ILGS IWMI JICA

Theory Building
MoFA NDPC AshMA WMD Stool

Citizen Sphere

IWMI RUAF WMD Fisheries Department

CACS / University of Ghana DPU

Delivery Sphere

Source: Adapted from Levy, 1996 High influence & high support Low influence & high support Low influence & low support High influence & low support

[15]

Looking south over the GIDA site from the dam

GIDA is as much a demonstration site as an agricultural scheme. The IDC, as the research arm of GIDA, provides numerous workshops and training for the farmers on new techniques, as well as guiding crop choices, resulting in an absence of indigenous knowledge and practices. The organisational structures of GIDA and the IDC are given in APPENDIX F. The dependence of farmers on institutions is manifest in MoFA’s subsidizing of chemical fertilizers and the establishment of the Farmers’ Bank by JICA, which lends for seeds and fertilizers. Extension services and some forms of credit are available and food production is mainly for economic purposes rather than self-consumption, yet the younger generation is discouraged from farming as a result of the low standing of farmers in society and the low economic benefits. The absence of infrastructure further discourages sustainable farming practices. The Stool and AshMA, while claiming to support UPA, plan to develop the land around the reservoir into a leisure resort as an alternative income-generating strategy. The Stool is also involved in selling land to developers; it believes that urbanisation and UPA should have equal opportunities, although they appear to lean more towards urbanisation (Ashaiman Stool Chairman).

concerns. Food providers are not always valued by the system and farmers do not have control of the land they farm. Regarding SUPA, there appears to be a vicious circle in operation on the site. One of the biggest constraints for the site is poor maintenance of the irrigation facilities on the right bank, which has led to limited land available for farmers. This causes a decreased income for each farmer (compared with larger plots), which is combined with inflexible credit services. Although farmers are aware of the importance of more sustainable farming practices, such as intercropping and composting, their economic conditions and perceptions lead them to adopt less sustainable farming practices. The low collection rate of the irrigation service charge may partially reflect the farmers’ inadequate incomes, yet it is exacerbating the poor maintenance. In addition, the ecological impacts of high chemical inputs will bring about a decrease in agricultural productivity and increased expense in the long term. The Ashaiman GIDA site has enjoyed substantial support both from GIDA/MoFA and external donors, such as JICA; however, there have been some unintended consequences. Our research revealed an apparent financial and technical dependency at two levels, the farmers on GIDA and GIDA on external donors. This loss of control over finances impacts practical decisions regarding farming practices. In addition, the high level of technical training received through GIDA/IDC belittles the value of traditional knowledge and skills, rendering them almost non-existent. A transparent policy- and decision-making process in close collaboration and coordination with all stakeholders is lacking, leading to confusion and setting the scene for potential future conflicts. In particular, active participation of the farmers in decisions regarding the running and development of the site, as well as the integration of UPA into Ashaiman’s relevant plans and policies is desirable to give local control.

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

[16]

4 RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations are aimed at improving the sustainability of UPA. A more in-depth discussion of the reasoning behind each strategy is given in APPENDIX H. Strategy 1: Land control: drawing the line
Encroachments on the eastern side of the GIDA site cause several problems to the farmers and are threatening the long-term survival of the scheme. From our research, the root cause seems to be the mismatch between the traditional council and current local administration regarding the leasing of the land, especially for some areas, such as Roman Down or the reservoir’s banks. It is thus necessary to involve local dwellers and workers in understanding the problem (sub-strategy 1), to conduct a technical assessment of the requirements of protecting the site, and to insure that new and existing housing is adequate for Ashaiman’s growth and has access to municipal services and infrastructure (sewage, piped water, waste collection, etc).

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

Sub-strategy

Actions

Timeline

Outcomes

Monitoring

Actors (main driver[s])

Sub-objective Facilitate and lower resistance to the process (of securing boundaries) Expand the role and membership of the Land Allocation Committee Map local stakeholders and engage them in the appraisal of the encroachment problem Immediate Bringing local actors to a common understanding of the problem Needs of different stakeholders identified Produce a common proposal to address the issue Short term (3 months) Report Integration of local needs within city-wide projects DCMC AshMA GIDA

Sub-objective Define environmental and technical necessities of the site Implement a technical State of the Environment Short term environmental Report of Ashaiman (6 months) assessment Report TCPD (University of Ghana) Integrate planning with actors’ needs, including protection of farmers and adequate residential development Masterplan for Ashaiman includes buffer zones Secure flooding/ catchment areas

Include the views coming Short term from the expanded Land (6 months) Allocation Committee in the masterplan

TCPD DCMC

Define the buffer zone

Short term (6 months)

TCPD GIDA

Demarcate the boundaries Short term of flooding/catchment (6 months) areas

GIDA

[17]

Sub-objective Secure competences, roles and future upgrading of the area Redefine and formalise the agreement for the GIDA scheme Conclude new arrangements with local chief (if necessary) Medium term (1 year) New, documented lease that all parties agree on

DCMC Improve coordination Define new protocol to procedures between formally register traditional and formal customary leases land agreements Medium term (1 year) New, publicised protocol for land sales/leases

AshMA MoFA Stool

Motivation GIDA/IDC: The progressive expansion of encroachments is threatening the scheme. GIDA/IDC, as the formal tenants of the site, have a responsibility to protect it as a priority. AshMA TCPD: among the duties of TCPD is the zoning of the city and the provision of infrastructure to citizens. The encroachments are undermining the TCPD plans and the possibility of planned development in the area. Stool: To maintain a good relationship with the local administration and farmers on the GIDA site, the Stool must help to resolve current land disputes in Ashaiman. Resources The resources for implementing this strategy would have to come mainly from AshMA and GIDA. The preliminary State of the Environment Report could be outsourced to university students, while the farmers’ association could provide labour for securing the perimeter of the GIDA scheme.

Monitoring The monitor selected for the second strategy is the DCMC, with the participation of AIFCS and Roman Down farmers for actions more related to the GIDA scheme. Areas to monitor are: · Effective involvement of local stakeholders · Production of documents showing the boundaries of the GIDA scheme · Financial allocations for practically securing the boundaries · Removal acts/demolition of houses illegally built

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

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

[18]

Strategy 2: Development of the right bank: right bank rehab
A portion of the 99 ha of the right bank is farmed seasonally and informally; farmers on the left bank struggle because of limited plot size, while in Roman Down farmers are farming informally. The development of the right bank is both a logical solution and a necessary action, in order to prevent possible encroachments. Interviews with key stakeholders revealed a lack of coordination between the different bodies interested in developing the area and a general lack of resources for development. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a committee (Right Bank Committee [RBC]) to assess different plans for the area and provide in-depth consultation with other stakeholders (particularly farmers). Having farmer representatives in the RBC would help to address any potential conflicts at the initial planning stage to ensure that actions proceed in the most effective and appropriate way. Any plans for the rehabilitation of the right bank should also take into account the impact of such plans on the migrant farmers who use the land at present. The inclusion of migrant farmers on the RBC would be beneficial; unfortunately, as we were unable to meet this group we cannot say to what degree they are organised or willing to participate in such a venture. When the opportunity of a composting site has been presented to farmers, several technical difficulties were raised. However, the incorporation of a composting facility on site could resolve many of their concerns.

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

Sub-strategy

Actions

Timeline

Outcomes

Monitoring

Actors (main driver[s])

Sub-objective Ensure transparency and participation in the decision-making process Create a committee Identification of for the development of representatives of other the right bank main actors (AshMA, Stool, Farmers) Establishment of the committee (RBC) Short term (3 months) Local stakeholders representative AshMA GIDA AshWGUPA

Short term (3 months)

Assessment and public disclosure of projects for the right bank Site identification

Identify a site for Short term Integrated Farming on the (3 months) right bank Establish a dialogue with Short term the Fishery Department to (3 months) implement IF on the Right Bank

Feasibility of Integrated Farming determined AIFCS (Monitoring Committee) GIDA RBC

Identify possible sources Short term of finance (6 months)

Financial possibilities

Sub-objective Replace the use of chemicals with natural compost and begin recycling practices Implement a composting site Identify a suitable site on Short term the right bank (6 months) Site identified

GIDA/IDC RBC Zoom Lion AshWGUPA Zoom Lion

Feasibility study and economic preliminary assessment Realisation of the composter

Medium term (1 year)

Economic budgeting

Medium term (3 years)

Composter realised

[19]

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

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

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

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

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

[20]

Strategy 3: Farmers’ association: unity & strength
The AIFCS plays an important role; however, it has shown several limitations with regard to its dependence on external actors. Furthermore, to date the association has not taken a particularly proactive role. Therefore, two strategies are proposed: one of internal reorganisation, to be carried out by the AIFCS; and one of networking, to be fostered by AshMA and MoFA. Strengthening the internal organisation follows three main directions:

Improve management practices: after being elected, the executive team should follow a training course (one or two workshops) in organisational management and group dynamics, as provided in Accra under AWGUPA. The IDC could provide the necessary human resources. Creating additional area-specific task forces is also suggested to involve a greater number of farmers in active management of the scheme. Increase transparency of the executive team: given the number of farmers in GIDA scheme conflicts among them may easily arise; it is therefore necessary to have procedures to avoid suspicion and mistrust. Improve self-financing capacity: research has highlighted the constraints to farmers’ choices posed by limited finances. Saving groups could ease the situation, while also building social capital within the AIFCS.

๏ ๏

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

Improve the resilience of urban agriculture through the farmers’ association. Main objective: Strengthen the internal organisation and external position of the farmers’ association Sub-strategy Actions Timeline Outcomes Monitoring Actors (main driver[s])

Sub-objective Strengthen internal organisation Improve management Train elected executive on From next practices basic management elections (to be practices (IDC) repeated for every new election) Creation of new task Short term forces (3 months) Increased efficiency of the executive

AIFCS GIDA/IDC

Dedicated groups to deal with common issues: · Marketing · Machinery maintenance · Sustainable farming practices · Patrolling Improved internal monitoring and control Improved accountability Recorded basis for assessment AIFCS

Increase transparency Identify a monitoring team Immediate of the executive team Release an audiorecorded report on the works of the executive every 6 months Immediate

AIFCS

Improve self-financing Release a 6-months Immediate capacity budget (for plenary session) Initiate saving groups on Immediate the model of FUP (inputs, machinery maintenance)

Improved financial accountability Reduced dependence on market women Allow farmers who are not officially creditworthy access to funding

AIFCS FUP

[21]

Sub-objective Improve external position Have an active role in Create a multi-stakeholder Short term policy-making task force (AshWGUPA) (3 months) on the model of AWGUPA Increasing political representation United actions planned and carried out Having a platform for dealing with common issues AIFCS Encourage city/nationShort term wide farmers association (3 months) (in part already done?) Increasing political representation

MoFA AshMA

Strengthen links to other farmers associations

Create a partnership with Immediate Roman Down farmers’ association

AIFCS MoFA AshMA

AIFCS MoFA

Improve their position Facilitate new partnership Short term in the local within the local civil (3 months) community society

Becoming an important and accepted local actor

AIFCS MoFA AshMA FUP

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

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

Monitoring Implementing a reorganisation of the association, the AIFCS should create a monitoring committee, which could go beyond internal control and collect information also on the support of institutions to the second part of the strategy. For monitoring the internal reorganisation, the AIFCS monitoring committee could collect information regarding: · Farmers actively involved in the association (part of task forces or committee) · Audio-recorded reports · Saving groups created · Workshop organised by IDC · Joint meetings with Roman Down’s association · Networks created · Commitment from AshMA for the creation of AshWGUPA

Food sovereignty These recommendations are aimed at the empowerment and networking of farmers. Under the principles of food sovereignty, farmers have the right to direct their lives and their produce. This can only be achieved with strong organisational capabilities and a consistent political voice that is heard. It is also necessary to build strong local ties with other actors to be able to implement a localised food system. AIFCS: Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society; AshMA: Ashaiman Municipal Assembly; AshWGUPA: Ashaiman Working Group on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture; FUP: Federation of the Urban Poor; GIDA: Ghana Irrigation Development Authority; IDC: Irrigation Development Centre; MoFA: Ministry of Food and Agriculture.

[22]

5 CONCLUSIONS
Investigation of the Ashaiman GIDA site gives an insight into some of the challenges facing UPA in a rapidly urbanising area in the context of a planned intervention. In a situation where the green (UPA) and brown (housing needs) agendas clash, land remains a contentious issue, even where a government site has been established. The situation is made more complex by the tandem operation of customary and official land systems. In addition, some of the indirect consequences of unplanned development are visible. The lack of agreement and documentation regarding the land allocated to the GIDA site threatens the long-term viability of the irrigation scheme through the effects of encroachments on water quality and quantity. Further, a side effect of this planned intervention is that of dependence, seemingly created by external assistance in setting up and developing the site, and by the large amount of training and facilities provided to farmers. Regarding finance in particular, dependency is evident on at least two levels: GIDA on external donors; and the farmers on GIDA. This lack of self-reliant funding is impeding the adoption of more ecologically sustainable farming practices. A dependence and elevation of modern farming practices also negates the value of indigenous practices, and short-term productivity is prioritised over long-term sustainability. Food sovereignty, with its emphasis on local markets and people, valuing small-scale farmers and working with nature, provides a challenging yet compelling direction for UPA in the Greater Accra Region. The role of UPA within food sovereignty is not clearly defined, yet the principles highlighted are not incompatible with SUPA and the objectives are ecological, social and financial sustainability. The strategies recommended support these aims through: increased dialogue with and participation of farmers and other stakeholders; greater control for farmers through a greater voice and wider financial options; decreasing reliance solely on GIDA through working more with other organisations; and increased self-reliance of the farmers. The ultimate goal of food sovereignty is a long way off; however the proposals given provide initial steps towards this ambitious target.

[23]

REFERENCES
Adam-Bradford A, Bailkey M, de Bon H et al. (2006). Cities Farming for the Future. van Veenhuizen R (Ed.). IIRR/RUAF/IDRC, Ottawa, Canada. Adams S, Athulathmudali S, Breyer E et al. (2009). Towards a Model of Sustainable Urban Agriculture: A Case Study of Ashaiman, Ghana. DPU, UCL, London, UK. Dyasi HM (1985). Culture and the environment in Ghana. Environmental Management 9(2), 97−103. JICA (2006). Historical changes in technical cooperation provided to Ghana’s irrigated agriculture sector. In: A Study of the Effectiveness and Problems of JICA's Technical Cooperation from a Capacity Development Perspective. Available at www.jica.go.jp/english/publications/reports/ study/capacity/200609/pdf/200609_04e.pdf (Accessed 30 May 2010). Lee R (2007). Food Sovereignty and Food Security. Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series No.11, Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. Levy C (1996). The Web of Institutionalisation. Working Paper No. 74, UCL, London, UK. Maxwell D, Levin C, Armar-Klemesu M, Ruel M, Morris S, Ahiadeke C (2000). Urban Livelihoods and Food and Nutrition Security in Greater Accra, Ghana. Available at www.who.int/nutrition/publications/WHO_multicountry_%20study_Ghana.pdf (Accessed 30 May 2010). Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana (2007). Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP II). www.mofa.gov.gh/FASDEP %20II (Accessed 29 May 2010). Nyéléni (2007). As cited in Mulvaney P. Food Sovereignty Comes of Age. www.foodethicscouncil.org 2(3), 19−20 (Accessed 25 March 2010). Pimbert M (2008). Towards Food Sovereignty. Available at www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/14855IIED.pdf (Accessed 30 May 2010). Sato K (2006). Construction of Participatory Irrigation Management in Ghana Irrigation Project Sites Assisted by Foreign Aid. PhD thesis, University of Tsukuba, Japan [Article in Japanese]. Smit J, Nasr J (1992). Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: using wastes and idle land and water bodies as resources. Environment & Urbanization 4(2), 141−152.

Websites FAO. www.fao.org (Accessed 2 June 2010). Ghana Business News. 2010. Ghana to implement GH¢50m youth in agriculture project in 2010. http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/09/25/ghana-to-implement-gh%C2%A250m-youth-in-agriculture-project-in-2010/ (accessed 21 June 2010). IIJ, the International Institute for Journalism of InWEnt. 2009. Ghana: Youth in agriculture gets GH¢10.7m government support. http://inwent-iij-lab.org/Weblog/2009/08/25/ghana-youth-into-agriculture-gets-governments-support/ (accessed 21 June 2010). La Via Campesina. www.viacampesina.org (Accessed 30 May 2010).

Interviews, seminars & focus groups Ashaiman Stool Chairman (2010). Meeting with the Chief and his associates, Ashaiman, Ghana, 8 May. Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society (2010). Focus groups and individual interviews, Ashaiman, Ghana, 4−11 May. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana (2010). Seminar within MSc Fieldtrip, Paloma Hotel, Accra, Ghana, 10 May.

[24]

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

[25]

Appendix A
Payment
of
irriga.on
service
charges
to
the
Ghana
Irriga.on
Development
Authority. Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Season Rainy Dry Rainy Dry Rainy Dry Rainy Dry Rainy Dry Rainy Dry Rainy Dry ISC/ha (GC) 25 25 25 50 80 80 80 Area
 Amt.
 Amt.
 cropped.
Ha expected
GC received
GC 52.3 52.6 64.7 63.1 65.07 64.87 45.62 50.86 51.25 50.21 43.81 49.91 46.88 47.78 1509 1524 2129 2049 2147.5 2137.5 2350 2874 4660.8 4494.4 3504.8 3812.8 3750.4 3822.4 1033.37 100.71 1058.65 1547.23 992.6 1416.7 837.88 1292.57 4346.35 717.68 3504.8 1100.13 2540 2140 %
recovery Amt.
Disbursed
 GC

68 685.18 7 1448.81 50 240.2 76 362.31 46 2648.6 66 662.5 36 2347.43 45 256.07 93 969.7 16 972.68 100 5757.88 29 3439.63 68 No
data 56 No
data

Amt.:
Amount;
GC:
Ghana
cedi;
ISC:
IrrigaPon
service
charge. Source:
Interview
with
Ghana
IrrigaPon
Development
Authority,
Accra,
Ghana,
12
May
2010.

[26]

Appendix B: Mono-cropping versus crop rotation, intercropping and integrated farming: an introduction
Several cropping patterns are widely used in agricultural practice: mono-cropping, crop rotation, intercropping and integrated farming. Since World War II, a less diverse pattern of cropping, originating in the industrialised countries and termed ‘monocropping’, has been implemented widely (Liebman and Dyck, 1993). Mono-cropping is a method growing the same crops in the same place repeatedly, without resting the land. It is dependent on high use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to attain a high yield. More recently, this methodology has been transferred to developing countries to grow cash crops and vegetables for sale to and support of developed countries. However, mono-cropping is susceptible to both environmental and economic risks. Economically, a single crop system is vulnerable to shocks from market prices and fluctuating weather − the system lacks flexibility and resilience, the complete reverse of natural ecosystems. From an environmental perspective, the dependence of mono-cropping on chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides will increase productivity in the short term but causes drastic soil degradation in the long term, reducing productivity due to: erosion, compacting, soil structure destruction and loss of organic substances. Moreover, mono-crops are subject to chronic pest and weed problems, which exacerbate the issues mentioned previously (Dairy Nutrient, 2005). Crop rotation is a farming methodology that attempts to run farms in harmony with nature. “Crop rotation involves growing different crops in systematic and recurring sequence on the same land … Ration cycles typically extend over several years with often only annual changes of crops but the concept of crop rotation also includes the use of green manures and cover crops.” (Liebman and Dyck, 1993, pp. 93). With good farming practices and a wellselected combination of crop types, farmers can grow different crops on a cycle throughout the year while maintaining the soil’s organic matter and top soil, leading to high productivity; for example, a field experiment of crop rotation between maize and various legumes in Africa resulted in an increase in maize production (Horst and Ardter, 1994). Intercropping is “the growing of two or more crops in close proximity to promote interaction between them” (Sullivan, 2003, pp. 3). This methodology uses the principle of diversity, mimicking the natural ecosystem. There are different types of intercropping: traditional intercropping, mixed intercropping relay intercropping and strip cropping. This methodology can give higher production per unit of land more than mono-cropping; however, careful selection and arrangement of plants is needed, such as the type of plant, maturity rate and plant density (ibid.). By imitating nature, intercropping has the potential to reduce or even stop the use of chemical pesticides, which can reduce investment costs, is environmentally friendly and has benefits for human health. Diversity in ecosystems brings stability to the system. Natural pest control, which can bring the population of each species into balance, means that outbreaks of pests are rare. Moreover, this system can maintain the fertility of the soil, as nutrients in the soil are able to accumulate and reproduce through the biodiversity of the system. Intercropping is a good long-term agricultural practice that reduces the use of chemicals. Integrated farming is a further agriculture system that uses a combination of crop production and animal farming in the same area. The crops and animals should support and assist each other. However, in order to operate integrated farming successfully, the correct operating system and management of the activities are needed to ensure that farmers are utilising the synergies within the physical environment, economic and social systems. The labour investment, funds, land and production inputs have to be considered. Importantly, the waste from one production system must be reused as an input to another system effectively; this method can reduce input costs and promotes a closed-loop, recycling farming system that benefits nature. For example, chicken droppings can be used to promote algae growth in fish ponds, pig manure can be used on vegetable fields, waste water from fish ponds can be used in rice paddies, bee keeping can be conducted in an orchard or a composting site can be set-up on the farm (Department of Agriculture). Integrated farming is widely practiced in Thailand, under the name ‘New Theory Agriculture’, as part of the ‘Sufficiency Economy Principle’ introduced by King Rama IX. This integrated farming system can help Thai people to survive even during times of economic crises and secures livelihoods by providing food for many people, as demonstrated by a poverty rate of less than 10%, a lower rate than in many developed counties (Isarangkun and Pootrakool, 2005). Integrated farming in Thailand has the aim of helping farmers to operate their farms independently, reducing impacts from external factors. The practice is set by a rough formula, where an area of 1.6–2.4 ha is divided into four parts: 30% is used as rice paddy, 30% for mixed cultivation, 30% as a fish pond and 10% for housing and small-scale animal farming (Border Patrol Police Bureau, 2007; ONEP, 2000). One success story is that of a farmer in the Thai countryside who used to grow only rice but changed to integrated farming using the King’s principle. He now has a greater variety of food production, which has given him an improved quality of life, as proved by his award of Best Farming Practice prize in the province in 2001 (Land Development Department, 2001). This integrated pattern of farming was designed for use mainly in rural areas; however, can be translated to urban or peri-urban areas and the formula can be adapted to suit the conditions of a particular site.

References Border Patrol Police Bureau (2007). Royal Project: New Theory Agriculture. www.bpp.go.th/project/project_4.html (Accessed 30 March 2010). Dairy Nutrient (2005). Crop Rotation: Risks of Mono-cropping Systems and Renewed Interest in Crop Rotation. http://dairynutrient.wisc.edu/ 468/page.php?id=165 (Accessed 28 April 2010). Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Integrated Farming. http://oard3kk.dyndns.org/newfarm.asp (Accessed 12 April 2010). Horst WJ, Hardter R (1994). Rotation of maize with cowpea improves yield and nutrient use of maize compared to maize monocropping in an Alfisol in the Northern Guinea savanna of Ghana. Plant and Soil 160, 171—183. Isarangkun C, Pootrakool K (2005). Sustainable Economic Development Through the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy. www.sufficiencyeconomy.org/old/en/ (Accessed 31 March 2010). Land Development Department (2001). Year Report 2001. www.ldd.go.th/ofsweb/news/report_ldd_44/report_ldd_44/report_ldd_44_19.pdf (Accessed 27 May 2010). Liebman M, Dyck E (1993). Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecological Application 3(1), 92—122. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (2000). Report on the Environmental Situation 2000. www.onep.go.th/download/soe43dl.html (Accessed 30 March 2010). Sullivan P (2003). Intercropping Principles and Production Practices. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service: A Project of National Center for Appropriate Technology. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/intercrop.html#prod (Accessed 27 April 2010).

[27]

Appendix C

Research
schedule.

Month Jan‐Apr Feb Mar Apr Day 5 5 28 2 3 Stakeholders Literature
review,
seminars,
lectures DPU DPU DPU IWMI AWGUPA Local
facilitator Farmers 4 IDC MoFA
Ashaiman WMD Zoom
Lion EPA IDD
&
Ghana
TV Farmers GIDA Fishery
Department FUP Roman
Down
Farmers AcPvity Group
presentaPon
on
progress Interim
group
presentaPon Pre‐fieldtrip
group
presentaPon City
tour
of
Accra Group
presentaPon
on
reserch
plan Seminar,
Q&A
session Seminar,
Q&A
session IniPal
meePng Focus
groups Transect
walk Seminar,
Q&A
session Seminar,
Q&A
session Seminar,
Q&A
session Seminar,
Q&A
session Seminar,
Q&A
session ObservaPon,
transect
walk Interview Interview,
transect
walk Interview,
transect
walk Interview Focus
group

5

6

May 7

Field
trip

AshMA Seminar,
Q&A
session Municipal
Planning
and
CoordinaPng
Unit GIDA GOAN DANIDA Enterprise
Works/Relief
InternaPonal Farmers Ashaiman
Stool ExoPc
Vegetable
Sellers
AssociaPon ILGS MoFA Social
Investment
Fund Farmers Seminar,
Q&A
session Seminar,
Q&A
session Seminar,
Q&A
session Seminar,
Q&A
session Focus
groups Seminar,
Q&A
session Interview Seminar,
Q&A
session Seminar,
Q&A
session Interview Joint
focus
group
with
Roman
Down
 farmers Interview Interview Seminar,
Q&A
session Interview Interview Seminar,
Q&A
session Group
presentaPon,
Q&A
session Final
group
presentaPon Final
group
report
submission Field
visit

8

10

11

12 13 26 4

Jun

Farmers IDC AshMA Assembly
member Ghana
FederaPon
of
the
Urban
Poor GIDA Land
planning Various
stakeholders DPU DPU

[28]

Appendix D: District Citizens Monitoring Committee
The Ashaiman District Citizens Monitoring Committee (DCMC) is a civil society group led by Braimah Abdulai from the Rural−Urban Women and Children Development Agency. The DCMC is a network comprises different NGOs and community-based organizations, as well as individual representatives from the Stool, Municipal Assembly and Roman Down farmers. The role of the DCMC is to monitor policies, such as national health and insurance policies, or grants through, for example, budget tracking. In Ashaiman, one of the group’s initial tasks was to conduct agricultural budget tracking for a national NGO, SendGhana, to ensure that pro-poor policies were being adhered to. Through this, the DCMC became aware of the problems regarding land and encroachments facing farmers on Roman Down. The group works primarily through establishing dialogue between different actors to bring about solutions, as well as lobbying and advocacy, although the resources for this are limited. A member of the DCMC attended the joint focus group of farmers from the GIDA site and Roman Down, where he was able to meet with farmers from both areas, as well as a representative of the Federation of the Urban Poor.

[29]

Appendix E

Costs
of
growing
1
acre
of
rice.
Land
preparaPon PlanPng Spraying FerPlizer Hand
weeding Maintenance Bathing Bird
scaring Ploughing
+
hand
weeding
+
levelling
+
line
marking
:
155
GC Carrying
+
transplanPng
:
75
GC Seeds:
20‐40kg/acre
(1
kg
=
1
GC) PesPcide:
mainly
CONDAX
(low
cast
and
effecPve),
8
GC/bag,
20‐Pmes/acre MPK
(50
GC/bag),
UREA
(40
GC/bag)
and
ammonia
(30
GC/bag):
6
bags
in
total
(2:2:2
or
 3:1:2),
two
applicaPons
and
top
dressing Labour:
40
GC/acre Mending
of
bund:
30
GC IntroducPon
of
rodenPcide:
24
GC 3
GC
x
30
days
x
2
people Cumng:
60
GC Heaping:
30
GC Threshing:
60
GC 60
GC 22‐25
bags
can
be
harvested
from
1
acre
(84
kg/bag).
Price
is
variable
from
55
to
70
GC
but
 the
average
is
60
GC/bag.
 962
GC 1410
GC 448
GC Miscellanious:
70
GC

HarvesPng

Drying
and
Bagging Selling Average
es.mated
 total
costs Average
es.mated
 sales Profit

[30]

Organisa.onal
hierarchy
of
Ghana
Irriga.on
Development
Authority
MINISTRY
OF
FOOD
AND
AGRICULTURE
(MoFA) BODY
OF
DIRECTORS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE

INTERNAL
AUDIT

LEGAL
SERVICES
&
 STATES
 MANAGEMENT

DEPUTY
CHIEF
EXECUTIVE
‐
ENGINEERING

DEPUTY
CHIEF
EXECUTIVE
‐
 AGRONOMY

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

[31]

REGIONAL
 OFFICES
(6)

PLANNING,
 MONITORING
AND
 EVALUATION
 DEPARTMENT PROJECT
 DEVELOPMENT
 DEPARTMENT PROJECT
OPERATIONS
 DEPARTMENT

FINANCE
AND
 ADMINISTRATION
 DIRECTORATE

IRRIGATION
 TECHNOLOGY
 DEVELOPMENT
 DEPARTMENT
(Jan.
2010‐)

PROJECTS

PROJECT
 PLANNING
&
 CO‐ORDINATION SURVEY DESIGN
&
 QUANTITIES

ENVIRONMENTAL
 MANAGEMENT

FINANCE

QUALITY
ASSURANCE

BUDGET

TECHNOLOGY
 TRANSFER

PUBLIC
 RELATIONS

RESEARCH
&
 INNOVATION (IDC) SOIL
&
WATER
 MANAGEMENT
 PARTICIPANT POST
HARVEST
 &
MARKETING FARM
 MANAGEMENT
ADMINISTRATION

M
&
E

PLANT
&
 EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION
 &
 MAINTENANCE

TRAINING
&
 MANPOWER
 DEVELOPMENT

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

Organisa.onal
hierarchy
of
the
Irriga.on
Development
Centre
Director

AdministraPon

Finance

Water
 Management
Unit

Farming
Unit

CulPvaPon
Unit

Farmers
 OrganizaPon
Unit

Environment
Unit

Rice
Unit

Vegetable
 Unit

[32]

Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty
The concept of Food Sovereignty is new and fascinating. It offers the farmers perspective in matter of food production and distribution, in line with ecological principles and more equitable social distribution. However, the Nyéléni, chart and other documents produced under the principles of Food Sovereignty offer only rather general guidelines for the practical application of the paradigm. Basing the whole analysis on them seemed to be dangerous and would probably have limited the scope of our research. For this reason, we developed a supporting framework which would have helped us to identify areas to study (civil society, natural and built environment, policy support and financial issues). Having the findings organised in this way, it was possible to assess the performances of these conceptual areas under the principles of food sovereignty as developed in the table on page 8 and 9. In chapter 3, we organised our findings according to particular issues we found critical, leaving the underlying analytical process hidden. Here we make it explicit, providing the link between findings and the Food Sovereignty principia. Below are presented the criteria with a synthetic judgment and a brief explanation of the reasons why we assigned a given rating according to our findings.

[33]

Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty (cont.)

Environmental
sphere
Criteria
UrbanizaPon
and
encroachments
are
not
a
threat
 to
UPA

Judgement
 Reasoning

The
impacts
of
encroachment
are
indirect,
 through
the
effects
on
the
water
supply
and
 threats
to
the
whole
system Farmers
are
encouraged
to
use
modern
 techniques;
there
is
however
a
lack
of
 machinery
available The
cleanliness
of
water
used
for
irrigaPon
is
 under
threat
for
the
future,
but
is
currently
 suitable
for
farming

TradiPonal
pracPces
are
used
in
UPA

The
source
of
water
is
not
contaminated
and
 suitable
for
UA. IrrigaPon
methods
reduce
health
risk
and
 contaminaPon The
water
used
for
irrigaPon
does
not
pose
any
 threat
to
farmers
or
consumers Intercropping
is
pracPsed
 Food
grown
respects
the
local
vegetaPon Farmers
implement
closed
loop
farming Soil
has
a
good
structure
(not
compacted)
and
is
 suitable
for
agricultural
purposes Soil
quality
is
protected
from
toxicity
and
salinity
 caused
by
the
(over‐)
use
of
chemical
inputs
 (ferPlisers,
herbicides,
pesPcides,
etc) Farmers’
pracPces
endorse:  MinimizaPon
  Reusing
  Recycling
  ComposPng


RotaPon
cropping
is
generally
preferred
over
 intercropping,
respecPng
natural
ecosystems
to
 a
certain
extent Closed‐loop
pracPces
are
not
used Farmers
use
a
high
amount
of
chemical
inputs

ComposPng
is
perceived
as
overly
labour‐,
Pme‐
 and
cost‐intensive The
farmland
is
clean
but
the
surrounding
areas
 have
build‐up
of
waste

The
areas
of
food
producPon
are
free
from
waste The
surrounding
area
is
clean The
surrounding
area
is
served
by
adequate
 garbage
collecPon The
surrounding
area
is
not
served
by
waste
 collecPon
or
sewage
services

[34]

Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty (cont.)

Policy
sphere
Criteria
Policies
support
security
of
tenure
and/or
control
over
land
 for
UPA
farmers Youth
are
encouraged
and
supported
in
UPA Official
media
adequately
reflect
the
importance
of
UPA
 and
small‐holder
farms Policies
support
the
expansion
of
local
markets
for
UPA
 produce Imported
crops
are
subject
to
tariffs Local
consumpPon
is
prioriPzed
over
export Public
and
private
sector
ownership
or
management
is
 limited
in
UPA
by
decentralised
policies The
control
and
responsibiliPes
are
well
transferred
to
the
 municipal
level
and
roles
are
well
defined Policies
do
not
support
use
of
genePcally
modified
crops
 and
limit
undermining
technologies EducaPon
on
and
experimentaPon
with
tradiPonal
 pracPces
takes
place Appropriate
policies
favour
composPng Appropriate
regulaPons
encourage
and
facilitate
 composPng
plants
 RegulaPons
limit
the
excessive
use
of
chemicals
and
 destrucPve
farming
technologies Monitoring
of
the
quality
and
nutriPon
of
UPA
products
 takes
places

Judgement
 Reasoning

While
there
are
plans
to
involve
more
 youth,
these
are
not
currently
 realised

Among
many
stakeholders
there
is
a
 mindset
towards
the
value
of
crop
 exports Imported
goods
may
be
cheaper
than
 domesPc
produce Ghana
operates
a
decentralised
local
 government
system Land
ownership
follows
both
 customary
and
official
lines The
IDC
is
experimenPng
with
 NERICA
rice Workshops
on
modern
farming
 techniques
are
held There
is
lisle
pracPcal
support
for
 organic
compost
use
and
few
limits
 on
the
use
on
chemical
inputs


[35]

Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty (cont.)

Economic
sphere
Criteria
Food
is
affordable,
healthy
and
nutriPous Economic
policies
are
not
biased
to
industrial
or
Green
 RevoluPon‐inspired
farming
but
put
value
on
and
provide
 opportuniPes
for
urban
farmers Farmers
have
access
to
loans
and
credit
with
suitable
 payment
terms
and
interest
rates Access
to
local
market
as
a
source
of
income
is
guaranteed Farmers
are
not
dependent
on
middlemen
for
selling
crops Adequate
state
and
internaPonal
funds
are
allocated
to
 educaPon
on
environmentally
friendly
farming
methods

Judgement
 Reasoning


?

Insufficient
data
gathered
to
make
a
 judgement
 Farmers
have
difficulPes
accessing
 credit
through
official
avenues
 Interest
rates
are
too
high
making
 them
unsuitable
for
urban
farmers Farmers
are
dependent
on
market
 women
for
sale
of
their
produce
and
 have
lisle
choice
in
the
crops
grown Environmentally
friendly
farming
did
 not
come
across
as
a
priority

[36]

Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty (cont.)

Social
sphere
Criteria
Migrants
have
a
share
in
UPA
pracPces
to
provide
sufficient
 food Indigenous
people
are
involved
in
UPA Women
are
involved
in
UPA

Judgement
 Reasoning

Farmers
are
mostly
immigrants
to
the
 area There
is
a
support
from
the
Stool
for
 more
indigenous
people
to
be
 involved
in
farming Almost
20%
of
farmers
are
women There
has
been
some
negaPve
 coverage
of
UPA
in
the
media;
 however,
farmers
and
GIDA
have
also
 used
the
media
to
present
their
 views There
is
evidence
of
a
consumer
bias
 against
locally
grown
produce
 Sale
is
mostly
local,
no
mulPnaPonals
 are
involved Farmers’
voice
ouen
goes
unheard;
 they
cannot
decide
independently
 their
methods
and
products When
raised,
the
issue
of
 transparency
and
potenPal
 mismanagement
led
to
 disagreements
among
the
farmers The
links
between
farmers
do
not
 serve
to
build
or
value
indigenous
 knowledge
and
skills No
evidence
for
an
organic
market
 was
found Organic
labelling
has
been
asempted
 with
lisle
success

Media

adequately
reflect
the
importance
of
UPA
and
small‐ holder
farms

Consumers
choose
local
products
 Farmers
are
not
integrated
into
global
trade
and
dependent
 on
exporters
but
sell
crops
to
the
local
market Local
urban/per‐urban
farmers
have
a
voice
and
can
decide
 the
methods
and
products
they
grow.

 Farmers’
associaPons
help
farmers
to
gain
management
 knowledge AssociaPons
operate
in
a
transparent
and
accountable
 manner Farmers’
associaPons
are
linked
to
enhance
and
exchange
 indigenous
knowledge
and
skills


There
is
consumer
pressure
for
organic
produce

[37]

Appendix H: Strategies
Strategy 1. Land control: drawing the line The first strategy is aimed at solving the main problem and the biggest threat to the survival of the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) scheme at present. The growth of the city is reaching a point where the new buildings are only few metres from the farmed land and the reservoir’s banks, while in Roman Down, houses are built on land that used to be farmed. When the site was planned, a wide buffer zone was set aside to protect the source of water, the land to be farmed and the flooding areas (land to be kept undeveloped to allow the excess water to flood during the rainy season). Encroachments create problems not only in terms of land lost for agriculture, but also in terms of pollution to the reservoir and waterways; new houses do not have access to sewage systems or waste collection, so all their refuse is dumped into the water. The encroachments on Roman Down could ultimately result in damage for the scheme (the water would reflux into the canals rather than flowing out of the site when the capacity limit of the dam is reached) and poses a risk to residents of the area.
Interviews with the local administration and with the traditional councils have shown that the root cause of this problem is the unclear definition of the agreement for the leasing of the site. The Stool is now selling land which should be left empty in the flooding areas, while on the reservoir’s bank, houses are progressively expanding beyond the land allocated by the Stool in the past. To solve the problem it is necessary thus to find an agreement between the residents, the Stool and the technical requirements. The first sub-strategy is proposed to address the necessities and the reasons for the residential developments; it should be lead by the Land Allocation Committee and should produce a common proposal to address the issue. At the same time, the Town and Country Planning Department (TCPD) should produce a State of the Environment Report (being a wide piece of research, this could be outsourced to local masters or PhD students) while working together with GIDA on a technical reassessment of the buffer zone necessary to protect the scheme and the reservoir. Once technical and ‘civil’ necessities have been defined, the TCPD should integrate the two and include them in a new masterplan. Once the area has been defined on paper, farmers could be actively involved to create natural (e.g., trees) and /or artificial (fences) barriers to separate the scheme from the city. The new boundaries would be secured also through new agreements (if necessary) with the Stool. Development of the right bank: right bank rehab The strategies proposed for the right bank are aimed at creating a transparent process for future developments and to introduce more ecological methods of biodegradable waste disposal. For the first part, we suggest to direct the efforts of the Right Bank Committee (RBC) towards the promotion of more sustainable farming techniques, described more in detail in APPENDIX B. To reach this target, it would be expedient to establish a dialogue with the Fisheries Department and with the other farmers located near the dam, as they are already applying integrated farming techniques. To overcome the lack of funds, we suggest that the committee should be actively involved in the search of resources, especially in the private sector. Contributions from farmers should have priority but their economic situation will probably not allow this level of investment. The integrated farms could provide the necessary inputs for a progressive implementation of a canals’ system on the right bank, which should be less extensive than the one currently in place, owing to the limitation highlighted by GIDA, that the reservoir capacity is not sufficient to irrigate the entire right and left banks. The introduction of animals would also reduce the amount of water required. Financial contributions to the integrated farms could come also from an agreement with Zoom Lion for the realisation of a composting site. Although it may be risky to lease the land to an external actor, at the moment this seems to be the only stakeholder that could provide the expertise and money for completing this action. The fact that the site is close to the city centre (meaning that it is less expensive to bring biodegradable waste from the city) and that farmers are the purchasers of the final output (economies of proximity) should allow GIDA to impose advantageous conditions on the contract. Of course, this action should be modelled on the needs of the farmers, as the costs associated with compost are perceived as one of the main barriers to its widespread use.

Strategy 2.

[38]

Appendix H: Strategies (cont.)

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

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

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

[39]

REPORT BY
Sara Guy Hauwa Usman Andrea Demurtas Salman Rassouli

Ai Kaibu Veronica Cheng Sa’adatu Abatemi-Usman Cassidi Kunvipusilkul

Robin Pratap

Rita Valencia (Supervisor)

Course Name: University: Department: Module Code: Module Name:

Environment & Sustainable Development University College London (UCL) Developing Planning Unit (DPU) BENVGES3 Environment & Sustainable Development in Practice DPU Field Work 2010

[40]

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful