poverty impact assessment – pia case study ghana · · 2011-03-11poverty impact assessment –...

Poverty Impact Assessment – PIACase Study GhanaAfrican Cashew initiative

Published by:Deutsche Gesellschaft fürInternationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbHInternational FoundationsPostfach 5180, 65726 Eschborn, GermanyT +49 61 96 79-1438F +49 61 96 79-80 1438E [email protected] www.giz.de

Place and date of publication:Ghana, April 2010

Authors:Seth Osei- Akoto, Consultant (Cashew Value Chain).Claudia Gottmann, Programme Millennium Goals and Poverty Reduction, GIZ.

Responsible editors:Peter Keller (Director African Cashew initiative)African Cashew initiative (ACi)32, Nortei Ababio Street Airport Residential AreaAccra, GHANAT + 233 302 77-41 62 F + 233 302 77-13 63E [email protected]. Angela Langenkamp (Programme director)Programme Millennium Goals and Poverty ReductionGIZ Eschborn, Germany, T +49 6196 79 1287F +49 6196 79 80 1287E [email protected] [email protected]

COOPERATIONGHANA

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Acknowledgement:This study has been implemented as part of the African Cashew initiative (ACi) in cooperation with the programme Millennium Goals and Poverty Reduction (PMA).

The ACi is a project jointly financed by various private companies, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ACi is implemented by the African Cashew Alliance (ACA), the German Development Cooperation GIZ, as a lead agency as well as FairMatchSupport and Technoserve.

The PMA is implemented by GIZ in Germany, on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. It pro-motes pro-poor policies, strategies and approaches such as PIA and lends its expertise and knowledge to the BMZ in order to enhance Germany’s contribution to achieving the MDGs by 2015.

This report is based on research funded by the programme Millenniums Goals and Poverty Reduction (PMA) on behalf the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Printed on 100% recycled paper

Design:© creative republic // Thomas Maxeiner Visual Communication, Frankfurt am Main/GermanyT +49 69-915085-60I www.creativerepublic.net

Photos:© GIZ/Rüdiger Behrens, Claudia Schülein, Thorben Kruse &

creative republic, iStock, Shutterstock.

African Cashew initiative is funded by:

and private partners

In cooperation with:Implemented by:

Poverty Impact Assessment – PIAApril 2010

4 Contents

Introduction ...........................................................................................................7

1 General Poverty Situation in Ghana ..................................................8

1.1 HowispovertydefinedinGhana?...........................81.2 Incidenceandregionalpatternsof

povertyinGhana....................................................101.3 Characteristicsandmulti-dimensionality

ofpovertyinGhana...............................................11

2 Stakeholders and Institutional Analysis ...................................16

2.1 Smallholdercashewfarmers(targetgroups)..........162.2 Otheractorsinthevaluechain..............................202.3 Implementingpartners...........................................202.4 Institutionsandsocialrules–traditional

landrights...............................................................20

Modules 2a+b Summaryoftheactorsandtargetgroups,howfartheysupportthepro-poornatureoftheprojectandrisksthatmayhinderthemfrombenefitingfromtheproject...............................................................................20

3 Analysis of Transmission Channels and Results .................... 28

3.1 Theemploymentchannel........................................283.2 Thepricechannel...................................................283.3 Theproductivitychannel........................................283.4 Theaccesschannel..................................................293.5 Theassetschannel..................................................293.6 Theauthoritychannel.............................................293.7 Transfers.................................................................29

Module 3 Analysisoftransmissionchannels...................30

4 Analysis of Stakeholders and Target Groups Capabilities .. 33

4.1 Smallholders(extremelypoor,poorandbetter-offcashewfarmers).......................................32

4.2 Commercialandrichcashewfarmers.....................334.3 Hiredlabour(farmerswithnocashewfarms,

seasonalmigrants,employeesinprocessingcentres)..................................................34

4.4 Women(employedwomeninprocessingcompanies,womenincashewproducinghouseholdsandfemale-headedhouseholds)............34

4.5 Children(under15years).......................................344.6 Municipal/districtassemblies..................................354.7 Otherstakeholderandintermediaries.....................35

Module 4Tablesummarisingtheimpactoftheprojectcapabilitiesofstakeholdersandtargetgroups....................36

5 Analysis of the expected Results in Relation to the MDGs and National Level Strategic Goals ...................................... 38

Module 5Impactsummarytable.....................................40

6 Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................44

6.1 Conclusions........................................................... 446.2 Monitoringneeds,informationgap

andpotentialriskstobemonitored........................456.2.1 Informationgaps....................................................456.2.2 Potentialrisks.........................................................466.3 Recommendations..................................................46

List of Acronyms ..............................................................................................49Glossary ...............................................................................................................49Currency Exchange Rates and Calculations of Land Sizes ....... 50Literature ............................................................................................................ 50

Annex I: Schedule of the PIA Mission “African Cashew initiative – Ghana” ......................................................51

Annex II: Official List of MDG Indicators ............................................. 52

Further Acknowledgement ........................................................................54

6

Introduction

Thisreportsummarisesthefindingsofanex-antePoverty Impact Assessment (PIA)inthecontextofthe‘African Cashew initiative’ (ACi)projectincooperationwiththeGIZ Programme “Millennium Goals and Poverty Reduction” (PMA).Thefieldworktookplacefrom5Septemberto19September2009.

The African Cashew initiative whichisfundedbytheBill & Melinda Gates Foundationincooperationwithprivatesectorpartners,aimstostrengthentheglobalcompetitivenessofcashewproductionandprocessinginfivepilotcountries(Mozambique,Ghana,BurkinaFaso,Coted’IvoireandBenin).

Toachievethispurpose,theprojectpursuesfiveobjectivesnamely:ÿ Increasingthequality and quantity of cashew nut production thusensuring

thecompetitivenessofAfricancashewproductiononglobalmarketsÿ Strengtheninglocalmediumandlarge-scalecashewprocessingindustriesÿ Improving market linkagesalongthevaluechainandpromotingAfricancashewsÿ Supportinganenabling environmentforcashewproductionandprocessingÿ Identifyingandanalysinglearningareasandimplementing innovativepilotprojects.

Theprojectisscheduledforfouryears.Thesupportactivitieswillassist150,000small-scalecashewproducersinthefivecountries,withtheaimofincreasingtheirproductivityandsubsequentlygain-ingUSD15millioninadditionalincomeperyear.Furthermore,supporttolocalprocessingindus-trieswouldcreate5,500newjobsinlocalmediumandlarge-scalecashewnutprocessingindustries.

7 TheprojectstarteditsactivitiesinGhanainMay2009andfocusedonthesecondobjectiveofsup-portingprocessingindustries.Theotherprojectactivitiesbeganinthesecondhalfof2009.InAugust,theprojectcommissionedin-depthsectorstudiestoanalysethecashewvaluechainineachofthecountries.AlthoughthefinalprojectregionsinGhanaareyettobedefined,thecountrystudyforGhanaidentifiedtheBrong-AhafoandNorthernRegionsashavingthegreatestproportionofcashewproductioninthecountry.ItwasthenagreedwiththeProjectManageroftheAfrican Cashew initiativethatthePIAshouldfocusonBrong-Ahafoasapossibleprojectarea.

Toimprovethefocusonpoverty,theAfrican Cashew Initiativedecidedtoimplementanex-ante Poverty Impact Assessment (PIA)asacasestudyinGhana,thatwasimplementedincooperationwiththeGIZ Programme ‘Millennium Goals and Poverty Reduction’(onbehalfoftheGerman Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development).

PIAisaharmonisedapproachforanalyzingthepovertyanddistributionalimpactsofpoliciesandprogrames.PIAwasdevelopedby OECD-DAC´s Network on Poverty Reduction (POVNET).Itaimsatfacilitatinggreaterharmonisationindonors’assessmentproceduresandcanbeappliedbydonorsorpartnercountries.Itisbasedonamulti-dimensionaldefinitionofpoverty.PIAdrawsmostlyonreadilyavailableinformationsources,tryingtobalancequalitativewithquantitativeinformationwherepossible.

ThisspecificPIAstudyisbasedontwoweeksoffieldresearchinGhana.Theassessmentwasdonebyinterviewswithkeyresourcepersonswithexpertiseinthecashewvaluechain,fieldvisitsandgroupinterviewswithfarmerassociationsinBrong-Ahafo,aswellasareviewoftheliteratureandavailablestatistics.Thepreliminaryresultshavebeendiscussedwithimplementingpartnersoftheproject.Adetailedlistofallinterviewpartnerscanbefoundintheannex.

ThePIA’sobjectivewastoanalysetheproject’spovertyanddistributionalimpacts.Itexamineswhichmeasureswouldmakeagreatercontributiontopovertyreduction.Itexaminedtheintendedandunintendedeffectsoftheinterventionandhowtheinterventionwouldaffectvarioussocioeco-nomicgroupsdifferently.Itthusaimstohelpidentifypossiblerisksandconstraintsthatmayhindergroupsfromfullybenefitingfromtheproject.Specifically,theassessmentfocussedonthefollowingissues:

ÿ Tounderstandtherelationshipbetweentheinterventionandthepoverty contextintheprojectregions,dealingspecificallywiththefive dimensions of poverty(economic,human,political,socio-culturalandprotection)

ÿ Tounderstandhow the target groups can be differentiatedintoimportantgroupsbyincome,gender,age,landtenure,assetsetc.

ÿ Tounderstandthedifferentstakeholders and their pro-poor agendaandtheinstitutionsandrulesthatinfluenceandareinfluencedbytheproject’sinterventions

ÿ Tounderstandprimaryandsecondaryeffectsoftheinterventionthroughthedifferenttrans-mission channelssuchasprices,employment,access,authority,assets,andtounderstandtheinterrelationshipbetweenthesetransmissionchannels

ÿ Toassessthequalitative and/or quantitative outcomes for different groupsÿ Toassessthe key assumptionsandidentifypotential risks that should be monitoredÿ Toassessthereliability of data and information usedinthePIAexerciseandidentifykey

knowledgegapsÿ Toprovideaframework for improving baseline data and monitoring of the impact hypo-

thesesduringimplementationÿ Torecommendpossibleimprovementsintheproject’sinterventionsaimedatincreasingitspro-

poorimpactandmitigatingpossiblenegativeimpacts.

TherecommendationsthatwillbedrawnfromthePIAresultswillimprovetheproject’spovertyfocusandreduceormitigaterisksandconstraints.Furthermore,thePIAprovidesinformationthatcouldhelpinformulatingrecommendationsforfuturepoverty-focussedmonitoringandevaluationsystems.

9

1 CalculatingwithaConsumerPriceIndexforfoodinGhanaof179,44inJanuary2006andaConsumerPriceIndexforfoodof256,22inJanuary2009(GhanaStatisticalService).Thiscorrespondstoanoverallinflationof23%forfoodprices.2 PersonalcommunicationTainDistrictPlanningandCoordinationUnit,Mr.Samu.3 InterviewswithfarmersinWenchi,theMOFAofficerinSunyaniandchiefNanaAsukuinTechiman.

1 General Poverty Situation in Ghana

ToassesstherelevanceoftheprojectinterventiontoreducepovertyinGhana,itisimportanttounderstandthegeneralcontextofpovertyhere.ThischapterprovidesanoverviewofthepovertysituationinGhana,theregionaldistributionofpovertywithinthecountry,andhighlightsdifferentpov-erty-relatedaspectssuchashowfarpovertyisrelatedtotheeconomicengagementofthehouseholdinagriculture,mi-gration,landownershipandthesexofthehouseholdhead.

Thereisabroadrangeofliterature(see page 50)availablecon-cerningtheassessmentofthegeneralpovertysituationatcountryandregionallevels.Thespectrumrangesfromstatisti-calandeconomicanalysestoparticipatoryandqualitativepovertymappingimplementedbydistrictassemblieswithGIZ’s supportin2005.Besidestheinformationprovidedbytheinterviewpartners,thePIAteamreferredmainlytothefollowingliterature:

ÿ Thefifthroundofthe Ghana Living Standards Survey (GLSS),multi-topichouseholdsurveyswhicharedesignedtoprovidecomprehensiveinformationonlivingstandardsinGhana.SofartheGLSSwasconductedin1987/88,1988/89,1991/92,1998/99and2005/06

ÿ ThereportonPattern and Trends of Poverty in Ghana 1991-2006bytheGhana Statistical Service(April2007).

ÿ TheWorld Bank’sstudyonPoverty, livelihoods and access to basic services in Ghana,ananalyticalcontributionthatwillhelptheGhanaiangovernmentoperationaliseitsacceleratedandsharedgrowthagenda.(Draft for review from May, 2007).

ÿ District Poverty Profiling and Mappingsbythedistrictas-sembliesbetween2003and2005,withsupportfromtheLocal Governance and Poverty Reduction Support Program(GIZ)andtheNational Development Planning Commis-sion.TheseDistrict Poverty Mappingsdescribethecharac-teristicsofpovertyineachdistrict,variousstakeholderperceptionsofpoverty,andidentifythegeographicalspacewithinthedistrictthataredefinedas ‘poverty pockets’.

The preliminary rural livelihood studyconductedbyMin-istry of Food and Agriculture (Policy, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate and Statistical, Research and In-formation Directorate) in2006asafollow-uptothePoverty and Social Impact Assessment.Thestudyaimstoestablishadistrictdatabasetobettertargetandpackageruraldevelopmentplanningandprogrammes,andidentifytheoutcomeandim-pactindicatorstomeasurethesectorcontributiontothesecondGrowth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II)targets.

1.1 How is poverty defined in Ghana?

ThenationalpovertylineinGhanaisbasedonafoodandba-sicneedsconcept:TheLower Poverty Lineisdeterminedbytheminimumexpenditureneededtomeettheaveragenutri-tionalrequirementsofoneadult.ThislowerpovertylinewassetatGNC288peryearperadultin2006.Consideringtheoverallinflationandthedevelopmentoftheconsumerpriceindexforfood,thiswouldcorrespondtoGNC411peryearorGNC34.3permonthin2009(oraboutUSD280peryearandUSD23.3permonth).1

TheUpper Poverty Line,whichalsocomprisesessentialnonfood-consumption,wassetatGNC371peryearperadultin2006.ThiswouldcorrespondtoGNC556peryearorGNC46.3permonthin2009(oraboutUSD378peryearandUSD31.5permonth).

Table 1.1: Poverty in Ghana

Extreme Poverty: to meet the nutritional requirements

2006 288 New Ghana Cedis (GNC)/year per adult

2009 GNC 411 per year (own calculations) ~ USD 280 per year/GNC 34 per month (own calculations)

Upper Poverty Line: essential food and non food-consumption (2005/6)

2006 370 New Ghana Cedis (GNC)/year per adult

2009 GNC 556 per year (own calculations) ~ USD 378 per year/GNC 46 per month (own calculations)

Somedistrictshavedefinedtheirownpovertylinesthattheyuseforplanningpurposes.TheDistrictPlanningUnitintheTaindistrict(inthenorth-westofBrong-Ahafo)fixedthelowerpovertylineatGNC70peryearfortheyear2006,asthena-tionallowerpovertylineofGNC288appearedtoogenerictothem.Theyindicatedthatabout45%oftheirpopulationlivesbelowthatpovertyline.2

Thedefinitions of poverty by the cashew farmers themselvesandbysomeofourinterviewpartnerscoincidewiththeoffi-cialdefinition,astheyalsorefertothecoverageofbasicneeds.Theyidentifyapoorpersonas‘someone who cannot afford good meals, health services, school fees for the children, clothing, shel-ter, or hasn’t good drinking water.’ 3Someoneispoorifheorsheis‘ incapable of doing farm work, because he/she is physically challenged, ill or lazy.’

Ghana Western Central Greater Accra

Eastern Volta Ashanti Brong- Ahafo

North-ern

Upper West

Upper East

1991/92 52 60 44 26 48 57 41 65 63 88 67

1998/99 40 27 48 5 44 38 28 36 69 84 88

2005/06 29 18 20 12 15 31 20 29 52 88 70

Source: Fifth Ghana Living Standard Survey, referring to the Upper Poverty Line of 370 New Ghana Cedi

Ghana Western Central Greater Accra

Eastern Volta Ashanti Brong- Ahafo

North-ern

Upper West

Upper East

2005/06 18 8 10 6 7 15 11 15 39 79 60

10 ThefarmersinWenchidescribedpovertyasasituationwhere:ÿ peoplecannotexpandtheirareaundercultivationÿ peoplearealwaysworkingbutcannotaffordbasic

necessities–theyworkbutthereisnoprogressÿ peopledonotgetanyhelpfromanyoneelseÿ peoplecannotworkatall.

1.2 Incidence and regional patterns of poverty in Ghana

Ghanahassuccessfully reduced poverty over the past 15 years andwillmeettheMillenniumDevelopmentGoalofhalv-ingitspovertyrateevenbefore2015.Theoverallpovertyincidence(headcount)decreasedfrom52%in1991to29% in 2005/2006.

ComparedtootherWestAfricancountries,Ghanahasamediumlevelofinequality.However,inequalityhasincreased.TheadjustedGiniindexforconsumptionincreasedfrom0.353in1991/1992to0.378in1998/99and0.394in2005/2006.4

Theruralpovertyincidenceatnationallevelwas39.2%com-paredtotheurbanpovertyincidenceof10.8%.Neverthelessthereareextreme disparities between poverty incidences in

different regions.Thesedisparitiesincreasedoverthisperiod.Povertyismainlyconcentratedinthenorthernpartofthecountry–theSavannahzonecorrespondingtotheNorthern,UpperWestandUpperEastregions.WhilepovertyinGreaterAccraisabout18%,theUpperWestregionisaffectedbyapov-ertyincidenceof88%.In the cashew producing areas such as the Brong-Ahafo region, the poverty incidence in 2005/2006 corresponds with 29% of the national average.5

ThereisnotonlyahigherincidenceofpovertyintheUpperWestandUpperEastregions;povertyisalsomoreseverehere.Whileinmostareastheincidenceofextremepovertyismuchlower,intheUpperWest,UpperEastandNorthernre-gionstheincidenceofextremepovertyisnearlyashighastheincidenceofgeneralpoverty.Thus,mostofthepoorinthenorthernpartofthecountryareextremelypoor.

Thepoorpeoplelivingintheseregions(RuralSavannah)haveanaveragestandardoflivingwhichis42.3%belowtheupperpovertyline(incomegapratioorthedepthofpoverty).Intherestofthecountry,theaveragelivingstandardofthepoorinruralareasisabout30%belowthepovertyline.6

Tables 1.2 and 1.3 belowprovideanoverviewofthenationalandregionalpovertyincidenceandthedevelopmentovertime:

Table 1.2: Poverty incidence by region as a percentage of the total population (Upper Poverty Line) – Blue: main cashew growing region.

Table 1.3: Incidence of extreme poverty by region (% of total population) in 2005/2006 – Blue: main cashew growing region.

4 Coulombe,H.,Wodon,Q.(2007),p.19.5 WedonothaveexplicitdataonruralpovertyinBrong-Ahafo,butonlyfortheRuralForestzone.IntheRuralForestzone,povertyincidencewas27.7%.GhanaStatisticalService(2007):TrendsandPatternsofpoverty,p.9.TheGLSSin2006usedonlytheCoastalandForestzonesthatincludedBrong-AhafoandtheSavannahascategoriesintheirreports.MostpartsoftheTransitionzonewerecategorisedas‘Forestzones’fordataaggregation.(PersonalCommunica-tion,GhanaStatisticalSurvey).Inthesampleofthe‘Livelihoodstudy’bytheMinistryofFoodandAgriculture,36%ofthehouseholdsinthesouthernpartofGhanawerepoor.(MinistryofFoodandAgriculture(2007),Annex3.6 GhanaStatisticalService(2007),p.36.

Source: Fifth Ghana Living Standard Survey, referring to the Lower Poverty Line of 288 New Ghana Cedi

11 Thenorthernpartsofthecountryconstitute20%ofthepop-ulationinGhana,butcontribute46%tonationalpovertyratesasillustratedinthefollowing table 1.4:

Table 1.4: Regional contribution to national poverty (Upper Poverty Line) 2005/2006

Population share on total popu-lation in Ghana(%)

Poverty in-dices in the region (%)

Contribution to national poverty (%)

Western 10 18 7

Central 9 20 6

Greater Accra 14 12 6

Volta 8 31 8

Eastern 13 15 7

Ashanti 17 20 12

Brong Ahafo 9 30 10

Northern 12 52 23

Upper East 5 70 12

Upper West 4 98 11

All 100% 29 100%

Coulombe and Wodonindicatedthattheincreaseincocoapro-duction(increaseofyieldsandofareasunderproduction)hadcontributedsignificantlytogrowthandpovertyreductionintheruralareasoftheForestandCoastalzonesinGhana.Whilepovertyhadbeenmuchmoreequallydistributedamongtheregionsandcocoaproducingfarmershadbeenpoorerthanthepopulationasawholein1991/1992,poverty reduced significantly in cocoa producing regionsandremainedhighinthenorthernpartofthecountry.7Sotherecoveryandsta-bilisationofthecocoasectoraftertheextremefallofcocoapricesinthe1980scontributedtopovertyreductionhere.

However,theyindicatethatfuturepricedevelopmentsinthecocoasectorwouldnowhavelesserpovertyimpacts.Theyshowthatthepoorest20%ofthecocoaproducersearnonly8%ofthecocoarevenues,whiletherichest20%earn32%ofcocoarevenues.‘Across-the-board subsidies or support for all producers, while potentially beneficial for the growth of the sector, would not necessarily be well targeted to the poor (even if they would help in reducing overall income inequality...)’.8Anincreaseincocoapriceswouldthereforehavelessinfluenceonnationalpovertyincidence,asonly25%ofthecocoaproducingfarm-ersarepoor.

1.3 Characteristics and multi-dimensionality of poverty in Ghana

Rural – urban distribution of poverty: PovertyinGhanaislinkedtospecificcharacteristics.Asdescribedabove,thepov-ertyincidenceismuchhigherinruralareas(39.2%)thaninurbanareas.

Poverty by economic activity: Besidesitsgeographicpattern,theincidenceofpovertyisrelatedtothe households’ economic activities. Poverty was by far the highest among food crop farmers.Moreover,theircontributiontonationalpovertyismuchhigherthantheirpopulationshare.Withtheexceptionoffoodcropfarmers,allothergroupsrepresentasmallershareofthenationalpoorthantheirshareofthepopulation.9Only24%ofexportfarmersarepoorcomparedtothenationalaverageof29%.Theirshareinnationalpovertyisslightlylowerthantheirshareofthenationalpopulation,andhasre-duceddrasticallyovertheyears.(For detailed information see Table 1.5 on page 12)

7 Coulombe,H.,Wodon,Q.(2007),p.59.8 Coulombe,H.,Wodon,Q.(2007),p.62.9 GhanaStatisticalService(2007),p.14.

Figure 1.1: Map of Ghana showing poverty, livelihoods and access to basic services in Ghana

Source: Fifth Ghana Living Standard Survey, Pattern and trends of poverty, p. 41.

Source: by Harold Coulombe and Quentin Wodon; WB, Partial and preliminary draft for review Updated: June 11, 2007, P.: 35. .

High poverty incidents > Medium poverty incidents > Low poverty incidents (no detailed legend)

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Incidence (in%)

Public Sector Employment

Private Formal Employment

Private Informal Employment

Export Farming

Food Crop Farming

Non-Farm Self- Employment

Non-Working

Ghana

0%

35% 23% 8%

30% 11% 10%

39% 25% 17%

64% 39% 24%

68% 59% 46%

38% 29% 17%

19% 20% 13%

52% 40% 29%

60%

70%

1991/92 1998/99 2005/06

12 Table 1.5: Poverty by economic activity (Upper Poverty Line) 2005/06

Population share

Poverty indices

Contribution to national poverty

Public sector employment

7.1 7.8 1.9

Private formal employment

6.9 10.1 2.5

Private informal employment

6.7 17.1 4.0

Export farmers 7.4 24.0 6.2

Food crop farmers

43.0 45.5 68.5

Non-farm self employment

26.2 17.0 15.6

Non-working 2.7 13.3 1.3

All 100.0 28.5 100.0

Pattern and Trends of Poverty, p. 3910, calculated from the Fifth Ghana Living Standard Survey 2005/2006.

As figure 1.2indicates,food crop farmers experienced the slowest reduction of povertyincidencecomparedtoallothereconomicgroups.Incontrast,povertyincidenceamongexportfarmersreducedsignificantlyfrom64%in1991to24%in2005/2006.

Figure 1.2: Poverty incidence (P0) by main economic activity, 1991/1992 to 2005/2006

Male-headed households: Surprisingly,female-headedhouse-holdsarelessaffectedbypoverty(27%)thanmale-headedhouseholds(42%).Thiscouldbepartlyexplainedbythefactthattheproportionoffemale-headedhouseholdsislowestinthenorthernpartoftheregionwiththehighestpovertyinci-dence(RuralSavannahwith15%female-headedhouseholds,comparedtomorethan30%inRuralCoastalandRuralForestareas).CoulombeandWodonstatedthat‘there are few statis-tically significant differences between male-headed and female-headed households.’11IntheRural Livelihood StudybytheMinistryofAgriculture,female-headedhouseholdsseemtobepoorer.12

Table 1.6: Indices of poverty, by Gender of Household Head, 2005/06 (Poverty line = 3,708,900 cedis)

Population share

Poverty incidence within this group

Contribution to national poverty

Urban

Male 26.8 10.9 10.2

Female 10.8 10.7 4.1

Rural

Male 50.0 42.4 74.2

Female 12.4 26.4 11.5

All 100.0 28.5 100.0

Ghana

Male 76.8 31.4 84.4

Female 23.2 19.1 15.6

All 100.0 28.5 100.0

Source: Pattern and Trends of Poverty, p. 42, Computed from the Fifth Ghana Living Standard Survey 2005/06.

Migration and land ownership: Whenlookingatotherchar-acteristicsofthehousehold,wecanseethatthepovertyinci-denceamongmigrantsisnotmuchhigherthanamongpeoplewhohavenotmigrated.Landownershipseemstobearelevantfactorforpoverty,asonly35%ofpeoplewhoownlandarepoor,whilethepovertyincidenceamongtheruralpopulationwhodonotownlandisalmost42%.

10 GhanaStatisticalService(2007),p.39.11 Coulombe,H.,Wodon,Q.(2007),p.37.12 MinistryofFoodandAgriculture(2007),Annex3:Thepercentageoffemale-headedhouseholdsis15%amongthepoorand8%amongmiddlein-comegroups.Therewerenofemale-headedhouseholdsamongthebetter-offfarmers.

Table 1.8: Adult literacy rates, by sex and locality (percent)

Sex

Locality

Urban Rural Total

Accra Other Urban All Rural Coastal Rural Forest Rural Savannah All

Male 88.3 75.1 79.7 65.2 62.1 30.9 51.0 62.7

Female 73.7 53.0 59.6 33.4 33.9 14.2 26.7 40.3

Total 80.8 63.2 69.0 48.2 47.2 22.2 38.2 50.9

Table 1.7: Poverty incidence within different groups (2004/2005)

Poverty incidence%

Total Urban Rural

All Ghana 28.5 10.8 39.2

Migration

Yes 28.0 10.6 39.5

No 30.5 11.8 38.1

Land ownership

Yes 21.6 9.9 35.1

No 36.0 13.2 41.8

Source: Poverty. Livelihoods and access to basic services in Ghana. By Harold Coulombe and Quentin Wodon; WB, Partial and preliminary draft for review Updated: June 11, 2007; P. 22, Computed from the Ghana Living Standards Survey, 2005/06.

13 Education: AmongadultsinRuralForestareas,about47.2%ofthepopulationisliterate(knowhowtoreadandwrite13).Buttherearebroaddifferencesbetweensexes.Onlyonethird(33.9%)ofadultwomeninRuralForestareasareliterate,com-paredto62.1%ofadultmen(GLSS p. 30).

School attendance ratewithinthe12-15yearagegroupinRuralForestareasisabout95%forboysand94%forgirls–bothofwhicharehigherthanthenationalaverages.

Health: TheGLSSresultsconcerningthehealthsituationareremarkable.Every fifth person (21.7%) interviewed for the Living Standards survey responded that he or she was ill in the previous two weeks before the interview.About60%ofthosewhowereillhadtostoptheireconomicactivities.Withregardtothenationalhealthinsurancescheme,35%ofthepopulationinBrong-Ahafowerecovered;thehighesthealthinsurancecoverageofallregionsinGhana.14

13 Thepercentageofpopulationthatcanonlyreadbutnotwriteiswith51.3%onlyslightlyhigher14 Thesurveywasdoneshortlyaftertheintroductionofthenewgovernmentsprogram.

24,1% 38,7%

23,4%25,3%

52,4% 36,0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

land

size

in a

rcre

% of all farmers % of Cashew farmers

> 10

5–10

0–5

0%

Table & Figure 2.1: Land distribution in Acres, Brong-Ahafo data set (not statistically valid)

land size of total farm land

total No. of farms

0–5 acres (2 ha)

5–10 acres (2–4 ha)

> 10 acres (> 4 ha)

No. all farmers 311 139 143 593

% of all farmers

52% 23% 24% 100%

No. of cashew farmers(12,6% of “all farmers” )

27 19 29 75

% of cashew farmers

36% 25% 39% 100%

16 2 Stakeholders and Institutional Analysis

TheAfrican Cashew initiative (ACi)aimstoimprovetheprof-itabilityandcompetitivenessofthecashewvaluechaininfiveselectedcountriesinAfrica(includingGhana)byadvis-ingpoorproducingfarmersaswellaslocalprocessorsandlinkingthemtonationalandinternationalmarkets.Thefol-lowingchapterprovidesanoverviewofthestakeholdersin-volvedintheAfrican Cashew initiative.Theanalysisisguidedbythreecentralquestions:

ÿ How far do the involved stakeholders support the pro-poor nature of the project intervention?Whatareaspectsorintereststhatmayhinderthemfromhavingapro-pooragenda?

ÿ How can the target groups be differentiated?Areallcashewfarmerspoor?Ordowehavetomakeadifferen-tiationwithinthisgroup?Whathappenstowomenorchildrenwithincashewfarminghouseholds?Whataretheinterestsandrisksforothergroupsinfluencedbytheprojectintervention,suchasmigrantsorseasonalworkers?

ÿ What are the risks and constraintsforthedifferenttargetgroupsthatmayexcludethemfromtheproject’sbenefits.

Module 2a+b (pages 22 and 24) providesasummarisedover-viewofallstakeholdersandtargetgroups,theirrolesandinterestsinapro-pooragendaandtheriskfactorsthatcouldpreventthemfromfulfillingtheirrolesorexcludethemfromtheproject’sbenefits.

2.1 Smallholder cashew farmers (target groups)

Ithasbeenestimatedthat88%ofcashewfarmersinthecountryaresmallholdersproducingthebulkofraw cashew nuts (RCN) whousuallyhaverelativelysmallfarmsizesrangingfrom0.8–3ha(Country Study Report, 2009).Thereislittlereliablestatisticaldataavailableonthedistributionofland.Thereforeitwouldbeinaccuratetosaythataparticulartargetgroupispoorerthananotherusingfarmsizes.Wedonotknowiflandsizereallyisthecentralfactorthatdeterminesifahouseholdispoororifthereareothermoreinfluentialfactors.Never-theless,wewillprovidesomeinformationonlandsizeanditsrelationtopovertyindicators,eveniflandmaynotnecessarilybethemostimportantfactor.

Therawdatabaseofthefifth Ghana Living Standards Surveycontainssomedataonagriculture,farmlanddetailsandhar-vestofthehouseholds.ThePIAteamcouldnotfindanyanaly-sisoftheagriculturaldataofthesurvey.Sowecanonlypro-videtheindicativefigures,ascalculateddirectlyonthedata-setofthesurvey.15These figures indicate the number of cases found in the data file. They should not be under-stood as being representative statistics.

15 ThefrequencyoflandsizedistributionofallfarmersinBrong-AhafoandofcashewproducingfarmerswasprovidedbytheGhanaStatisticalServiceattherequestofthePIAteam.Theotherdataiscitedfromthefrequenciesofthedatasetdescription.16 MinistryofFoodandAgricultre(2007),p.7f.

Source: Data base, Ghana Living Standard Survey, Section 8 B Question 8: Size of farm (unit of area: Acres, poles,ropes, plots, other). Only acres were considered

TheinterviewpartnersdidnotconsidercashewfarmersasthepoorestfarmersintheBrong-Ahaforegion.Evenifthedataset(and the table 2.1 on land distribution in Brong-Ahafo) arenotstatisticallyrepresentative,theyindicatethatcashewfarmerstendtohavebiggerfarmlandthantheaveragefarmerinBrong-Ahafo.TheresultsofMOFA’s livelihood studysuggestthatonlymediumandbetter-offfarmersproducecashew,16whilethedatafromtheGLSSshowsthat36%ofthecashewpro-ducingfarmershavelessthan5acres(or2ha)andcouldthereforebeconsideredaspoor.ThefarmersofacooperativeinWenchiexplainedthattheircooperativeistryingtoencour-ageallfarmersintheirvillages(includingthepoorerones)toplantsomecashew.Onlywhenallfarmershavetreecropssuchascashew,willtheybeabletobettercontrolthebushfiresaf-fectingthecashewtrees.Cooperativeassociationscouldworkasimportantvehiclestoincludepoorfarmers.

Drawinginferencesfromtheoutcomesofthedialoguemeetingswithsomeimportantstakeholdersinthefarmingcommunities,thePIAteamgroupedcashewfarmhouseholdsinto:

ÿ extremelypoorcashewfarmersÿ poorcashewfarmersÿ better-offcashewfarmersÿ commercialandrichcashewfarmers.

Excurse: Calculation of land size equivalent to poverty lines Toobtainanannualincomefromcashewthatisequiv-alenttothelowerpovertylineof411Cedi,anannualpro-ductionofminimum1027kgwouldbenecessary,assumingafarm-gatepriceof0.4Cedi/kg.1. Toobtainthislevelofproduction(1027kg),farmers

wouldneedaminimumarea(landsize)of1.6ha,assum-inganoptimumyieldof650kg/ha.

2. Withamediumyieldof350kg/ha,theywouldthenneedaminimumareaof2.9ha.

Production (kg) x farm-gate price (Cedi/kg) = income = Poverty line

Required Annual production (kg) =

Production = area (ha) x yields (kg/ha)

Required area =

Theequivalent land size for extremely poor farmerswouldbeatleast1.6haatanoptimumyieldof650kg/ha,or2.9haatayieldof359kg/ha.Theequivalentlandsizere-quiredtomeettheupper poverty lineisatleast2.1 haatyieldsof650kg/haor4 haatayieldof350kg/ha.Astheselandsizesarecalculatedper adult,theareaoflandrequiredbyacompletehouseholdwouldhavetobeadjustedtotakeaccountofthenumberofhouseholdmembers.Thisisillus-tratedinthefollowingtable.

Thesefiguresgiveusaroughindicationoftherelationshipbetweenlandsizeandpoverty.However,theymaynotalwaysreflectthesituationinpractice,asmostfarmerspro-duceadditionalfoodcropsontheirland.

Poverty linefarm – gate price

required annual productionyields

Table 2.2: Estimation of ‘land size equivalent to the poverty line’ per adult

Estimated yield (kg / ha)

Required area of cashew farm size per adult person (ha)

AcresRequired annual production (kg)

FGP Cedi/ kgPoverty line (Cedi)

Upper poverty line

650 2.1 5.251390 0.4 556

350 4.0 9.9

Lower poverty line

650 1.6 4 1027,5 0.4 411

17

17 WorldBank(n.y),p.18.18 Thecalculationwasmadeundertheassumptionthattheentirelandsizeisusedforcashewproduction,thattheyieldis650kg/haandthatthefarmgatepriceis0,4NewGhanaCediperkg.Thecalculationismadeundertheassumedthattheentirefarmexpenditureandconsumptionisbasedonthiscashewpro-ductionwithoutadditionalfoodandsubsistenceproduction.

ThePIAcategorisationofsmallholdersintofourgroupsiscon-sistentwiththePoverty and Social Impact Assessment(PSIA) categorisation (PPMED in 2007).ThePSIAassumesthat95%oftheagriculturalpopulationaresmallholders.FortheTransi-tionalzone(themaincashewproducingareabetweentheForestandSavannahzones),the PSIA indicatesthat38.7%ofthesesmallholders[or37%ofallfarmers]are‘Poor Complex Di-verse Risk-Prone’(PCDR)farmers,34%(or32%ofallfarmers)are‘Non-Poor Complex Diverse Risk-Prone Farmers’ (NPCDR) and27.3%(or26ofallfarmers)arenonpoor‘Semi-Commer-cial small-scale farmers’(Semi-C).17

Poor and extremely poor cashew farmersThePIAteaminterviewedvariousfarmers,extensionstaff,andNGOinterlocutorstoidentifythepoor(targetgroupoftheproject).Theirresponsespresentedfairlyuniformimpressions.ThepoorinBrong-Ahafoaredescribedasthosefarmerswhocannotworktoearnalivingorthosewithoutfundstoclearlandforcultivationpurposes,havepoorsoilandlittleoccupa-tionaldiversitybeyondsubsistencefarming(Personal Com-munication, Danquah 2009).Thisinturnleadstoseverefoodshortages,verypoorqualityhousingandinabilitytorecoverfromeconomicshockssuchasmajorharvestlossesandserioushealthproblems.

Anotherobviouspointthataffectslivelihoodsisavillage’sproximitytomarketingcentres.(MOFA-PPMED 2006)Theparticipatorydistrictpovertymappingsidentifiedmostlyre-moteareasofthedistrictasthosewiththehighestincidenceofpovertyanddeclaredthemas ‘poverty pockets’(GIZ Dis-trict Poverty Profiling and Mapping).

Tocomparethesizeofthelandownedbytheextremelypoor,poorandnon-poorcashewfarmers,thePIAteamcalculatedtheminimumlandsizerequiredtohaveenoughincomefromcashewproductiontomeetthenationalpovertylineforcon-sumption.18

Better-off and commercial farmersThebetter-off farmers wouldthenhavemorethan2.1or4.0hacashewfarmsbutcanstillbeconsideredassmall-scalefarmers.Thefourthgrouparecommercial and rich farmers,representingabout12%ofallthecashewproducersinthecountryoronethirdoftheamountofthenationalproduc-tion(Country Study Report, 2009).

Table 2.2: Percentage of households in Southern Ghana that are not native from their community

Features of households

Criteria

Origin at birthPoor house-holds

Medium house-holds

Well-off house-holds

Average in study sampling

Native from the community (% of households)

15 42 35 31.2

Not native (% of households)

85 58 65 68.8

Source: MOFA 2007, Annex 3 p 1.

18 Risks and aspects that may hinder small-scale and poor farmers from benefiting from the project Inmostinterviews,cashewfarmersmentionedthelack of credit asamainconstraint,astheywantedtohireadditionallabourtoexpandtheirlandwithcashewproduction.Themainriskforcashewproducersisuncontrolled bush firesthatde-stroythecashewtrees.19Inparticularthepoorfarmersinre-moteareashavenoaccesstoinformation,areoftenilliterate,andfeeldependentonthetradersandthepricestheyoffer.Iftheprojectdoesnotfocusonincludingthesepoorerfarmersandtargetthemexplicitlyintheextensionstrategy,thenthereisariskthatthesepoorerfarmerswillremainmarginalisedandbeexcludedfromtheproject.

Women in cashew producing households and female-headed households Duetolimitedtime,thePIAteamdidnotconductanyinter-viewswithfemalefarmers,anddidnotassessthesituationofwomeninthecashewproducinghouseholds.Thereforethein-formationaboutwomenisbasedoninterviewswithmalecashewfarmers.Mostfarmersindicatedthattheirwiveshelponthecashewfarmsofthementhatissupposedtobethelandofthefamily.Accesstolandforwomenvariesamongthedis-tricts.Womenmayownlandbuttheyareoftenmuchsmaller.20Somewomenhavecashewontheirplots.AsdiscussedinChapter 1,thesexofthehouseholdheadshasnoinfluenceonthehousehold’spovertysituation.

Thesituation of women in cashew producing households should be further analysed during the baseline study.Is-suesincludewomen’slandownership,theirengagementincashew,andtheiraccesstoinputs,marketsandagriculturalextensionservices.

Long term migrants (settlers) and short term migrants – Once a stranger – always a stranger? 21

Seasonal migrantsaredefinedasthosewhomigrateforlessthanoneyearandwhohavepermanentresidenceinotherpartsofthecountry.SeasonalmigrationoccursduringtheleanseasoninnorthernGhanaandispreventivetothefooddeficitperiod(June-July).Themainmigrationroutestartsfromthethreeeconomically repulsive regionsofthenorthtotheeconomically attractive regionsofAshanti,GreaterAccraandBrong-Ahafo.

ThePIAteamdefinedlong-term migrantsasthosewhoarrivedbetweenonetomorethan30yearsagoandwhohavecometolivepermanentlyinBrong-Ahafo.ThePIAteamcouldnotfinddataonthepercentageofthepopulationwhowerelong-

termmigrants.Informationfromtheinterviewsplacedthenumberbetween10to25%.22ADFID studyonlandsecurityfoundthatoutoffivevisitedvillagesinBrong-AhafoandtheCentralRegion,twowereentirelycomprisedofmigrantten-ants.Theyassumethatagoodpartorabouthalfofthefarmsarecultivatedthroughsomeformofhiredlabour,formalten-ancyorsharecropping.23Itisnotclearifmigrantswillbefullyacceptedaspartofthecommunityandiftheycanownlandaftersometime.TheinterviewedfarmersinWenchipointedoutthat‘ they are all migrants’buthavebeenlivinginWenchisincethethirdorfourthgeneration.Theyhaveac-quiredlandandhavetheirownfamilyland.Eventhentheymaystillbemarginalised.InWenchi,adiscussionbeganastowhetheralong-termmigrantofthethirdgenerationcouldbecomeacommunitychief.

MOFA’s livelihood studyfoundintheirsampleforthesouth-ernpartofGhanathat69%ofthehouseholdswerenotna-tivetotheircommunity.Asurprisinglyhigh85%ofpoor householdsarenotnativetothecommunity,whileabout58%ofmediumand65%ofwell-offhouseholdsarenotna-tivetothecommunity(see next table 2.2).

Thedifferenceherefromindigenousfarmersisthatthenon-nativefarmersdonothaveanyprimaryorinheritedlanduserightsnorbelongtothestool.Insteadtheyhavetoacquirelandfromthecommunity(see the following chapter 2.4:Tra-ditional land rights)orcultivateitonasharecroppingbasis.Traditionallandrightscouldrestricttheiraccesstocashewandtreecropsasdiscussedinchapter 2.4.

19 PersonalCommunication,Wenchi,TainDPU,TechimanNanaOsuko.20 PersonalCommunicationwithfarmersinTanoBoasiandWenchi;MOFAinSunyani.21 DFID(2001).22 PersonalcommunicationwithTainDistrictPlanningandCoordinationUnit,Mr.Samu.TheTaindistrictconductedastudyonmigration.23 DFID(2001),p.84.24 MOFA(2007),Annex3p.1.SouthernpartofGhanaincludedinthisstudyCoastalSavanna,ForestareasandTransitionalzones.

20 2.2 Other actors in the value chain

Theprivatesector,especiallythetraders,exporters,localpro-cessingcompaniesandretailers,isthedrivingforceamongthestakeholdersofavaluechain.Theircooperationisneededtoimprovethesupplychain.Therearemanyvaluechainen-terprises,producers(smallholdersandcommercial),processors,policy-makers,(Cashew Development Project and District Ag-ricultural Development Units of the Ministry of Food & Agri-culture),institutions(municipal/districtassemblies),tradition-alrulers(chiefs)anddevelopmentpartners(NGOs).Alloftheminfluencethevaluechainandtherebyinfluencetheprojectintervention.

Thedetailsofthedifferentinterestsandagendasoftheseactorsaswellastheratingoftheirpro-pooragendasaresummarisedintable 2.2.

2.3 Implementing partners

Theprojecthasfourmainimplementingpartners:

2.3.1 German International Cooperation (GIZ):Itistheleadagencythatwillprovideproductiontechniques,createanenablingenvironmentandserveasalearninginno-vationcentre.

2.3.2 TechnoserveThisU.S.non-governmentalorganisationwasestablishedin1968.Itsmissionistohelpentrepreneurialmenandwomeninpoorruralareasofthedevelopingworldbuildbusinessesthatcreateincome,opportunityandeconomicgrowthfortheirfamilies,communitiesandcountries.Technoservewillcontributetotheprojectbyprovidingbusinessadviceandlinklocalprocessorswithbuyingandretailercompanies.

2.3.3 The African Cashew Alliance (ACA)ACAwasestablishedin2005asapublic-privatepartnershipwith25foundingmembersincludingUSAID.Itisaplat-formthatbringstogethercashewstakeholdersfromthepri-vateandpublicsectors.Underthisproject,ACAwillimple-mentactivitiesincludingadvocacy,sharebestpracticesandinnovationandpromotetheAfricancashewindustryinter-nationally,supportedbythemarketingexpertiseofprivatesectorpartners.

2.3.4 FairMatchSupportThisnot-for-profitfoundationwasfoundedinearly2007andisbasedintheNetherlands.Theyfillthemissinglinkintherelationshipbetweensmall-scaleproducersindevelopingcountriesandendmarkets.FairMatchSupportwillcontributetotheimplementationoforganisationalsupport,qualitymanagementandbusinesslinkagefromtheproducerstotheprocessorsandfinallythespecialtymarkets.

OnlyGIZ, TechnoserveandtheWest African Trade HubasclosepartnersoftheAfrican Cashew initiativecouldbeinter-viewed.Theywereaskedabouttheirunderstandingofhowtheprojectrelatestopro-poor-growth (PPG)andiftheyper-ceivetheprojectstrategyasrelatedtoabsolutegrowthorrelativegrowth:

TheDACdefinesPPGas‘a pace and pattern of growth that enhances the ability of poor women and men to participate in, contribute to and benefit from growth. Policies therefore need to promote both the pace of economic growth and its pattern, i.e. the extent to which the poor participate in growth as both agents and beneficiaries, as these are interlinked and both are critical for long-term growth and sustained poverty reduction.’

Absolute Growth:Thepoorpeopleenjoyabsolutegrowth,independentofthegrowthoftheothersectionsofthesociety.

ÿ Minimisingtheabsolutenumberofpoor

Relative Growth: Thepoorpeopleenjoymoregrowththantheothersectionsofthesociety.

ÿ Reducinginequality

Theintervieweesunderstoodtheproject’sstrategyasbeingclearlybusiness-orientedandmorerelatedtotheconceptofabsolutegrowth.Thestrategyistopromotefarmerswithpo-tential,withtheoverallpurposeofallowingpoorerfarmerstobenefitinthelongterm.However,thereweredifferentpositions;whetherthefocusshouldbeon‘making the business and the sector run’orwhethertospeciallyfocusonincludingthepoorerfarmersasmuchaspossible.

2.4 Institutions and social rules – traditional land rights

Besidesanalysingthestakeholdersandactorswhoinfluenceintervention,thePIAreflectedonhowformalorinformalinstitutionsinfluenceprojectimplementation.Weunder-stand‘ institutions as the set of rules, laws and the ‘the cultural practices that frame social behaviour and interaction, and en-compass for example social hierarchies....’25Theonlyinstitu-tionanalysedwithregardtotheirimpactontheinterventionandonpovertyoutcomeswastraditionallandrights,andthechangesithasundergonethroughthecommercialisationofagriculture.

Mostfarmershavecommunalorstool landorfamilylandownership.Indigenouspeoplehaveusufructuaryrightsandcannormallyexpandtheirlandonunusedstoolland.Migrantsandsettlersfromotherareashavetoasktheowneroffamilylandorthechiefstoobtainland.

25 OECDDAC(2007),

21 Therearetwoformsofcontractsbetweenalandownerandatenant:

Abunu systemintheforestzoneinwhichalandlordandafarmeragreetodividethefarmintotwoequalpartsaftertherehabilitation,renovationornewplantationoftreecrops(suchascocoa,oilpalmorcashew).Thefarmerwillhavetopayaregistrationfeetothelandlordandbearallcostsuntilthelandisdividedwhenthenewplantationbearsfruit(4-5yearsinthecaseofcashew).Thissystemallowsaccesstolandownershipforlandlessfarmers,butonlymediumcategoryfarmersorpoorfarmerswithhighlabourcapacitycanaffordtowork5yearsundertheseconditions.

Abusa system:Sharecroppingsystemintheforestcocoazoneinwhichthelandownerwillpayfortheinputsandtoolsandthesharecropperwillprovidelabour.Theproductionisshared(2/3forthelandowner,1/3forthesharecropper).Theshare-croppershavefreeuseofthelandtogrowannualcropstofeedtheirfamilies.

ThePIAteamcouldnotgetaclearpictureoftheinfluenceoftraditionallandrightsoncashewproduction.Ontheonehand,thetraditionalsystemisclearlypovertyoriented.Itassurescom-munalownership,securesownershipforthosewhoarecultivat-ingthelandandprovidesaccesstolandforyoungerhouseholdsornewsettlers.

Mostinterviewpartnersindicatedthataccesstolandisnotaproblemandthatthereisstillenoughlandtodistributeandlong-termmigrantsalsohaveacquiredlandandareplantingcashewlikeotherfarmers.26HoweverintheMOFA livelihood study,about25%ofthegroupofpoorerfarmersinsouthernGhanamentionedaccesstolandasaconstrainttohouseholddevelopment.Otherinterviewpartnerspointedoutthattradi-tionallandrightsmaybeaconstraintformigrantstoaccesslandforcashewcultivation,aslandownersorchiefsmaybeunwillingtopermittreecroppingformigranttenantsasthiswouldstabilisetheirlanduserights.27

ADFID studyonlandrightspointedoutthatthecommercial-isationofagriculturecouldhavenegativeeffectsonlandrightsandaccessforthepoor:28

ÿ Along-termmigrantfarmerwhoisatenantandwhohasplantedcashewmightfacetheriskofhavingalandownerorchiefdemandhighergroundrent.

ÿ Newmigranttenantfarmersmayfaceharderconditionstoleaseland.

ÿ Landownersandchiefsmayprefertorentoutuncultivatedlandtomigrantsalthoughthislandmayhaveoriginallybeenreservedforwomenoryouth.29

Althoughthesearelongerunderlyingprocessesthattheprojectcannotinfluence,therelevanceofsharecroppinginthecashewsectorshouldbefurtheranalysedandconsideredinthemoni-toringsystem.

26 LiketheinterviewedfarmersinTainandWenchidistrictswhomigratedheremorethan30yearsago,orwhoareinthethirdgeneration.27 InterviewinTaindistrict(NsawkawandCooperativeAssociationmem-bers).Prof.Diaby-Pentzlin,IntegratedLegalAdvisorattheGhanaNationalHouseofChiefs.28 SummaryprovidedbyProf.Diaby-Penzlin,internallegaladvisoroftheHouseofChiefs.29 Seealsowithregardtotheinsecurelegalsituationofwomeninthetra-ditionallandrightssystem:InternationalFinanceCorporationandMinistryforWomenandChildrenAffairs,Ghana(2007),p.12.

Mod

ule 2a

: S

umm

ary of

the ac

tors

and

targ

et g

roup

s, h

ow fa

r the

y su

ppor

t the

pro

-poo

r nat

ure of

the pr

ojec

t and

ris

ks th

at m

ay h

inde

r the

m fr

om b

enefi

ting

from

the pr

ojec

t

Stak

ehol

ders

(tar

get

grou

ps, i

nter

med

iari

es,

and

inst

itut

ions

)

Mai

n ro

les

and

acti

vities

/De

tails

of th

e gr

oups

Inte

rest

s an

d pr

o-po

or a

gend

a.

Asp

ects

/Co

nstr

aint

s th

at

may

hin

der t

hem

to b

enefi

t fr

om th

e pr

ojec

t

Rati

ng

of th

eir

pro-

poor

ag

enda

Rati

ng

of ri

sks/

co

n-st

rain

s

Mit

igat

ion

and/

or

rein

forc

ing

mea

sure

s

Info

rmat

ion

sour

ce,

gap

and

qual

ity

Small-scale cashew farmers Small-scale cashew farmers

Extr

eme

poor

ca

shew

farm

ers:

< 1

.6ha

(650

kg/

ha)

< 2.9

ha

(350

kg/

ha)

of c

ashe

w

plan

tati

onI

PSIA

II Po

or C

ompl

ex

Dive

rse

Risk

-Pro

ne

(PCD

R):

37%

in

Tran

sition

al

zone

.

88%

of

the

num

ber

of fa

rms.

Occu

py

2/3 of

the

cash

ew

area

un

der

prod

uc-

tion

III

To im

prov

e th

eir

inco

me an

d

soci

o eco

nom

ic

deve

lopm

ent b

y

prod

ucin

g ca

shew

.

ÿBu

sh fi

res

ÿBad

edu

cation

/illiter

acy

ÿLo

w yie

lds

ÿNo ac

cess

to in

form

atio

n ÿ

Rem

ote lo

cation

ÿLa

ck of m

oney

for h

ired

la

bour

and

(som

etim

es

lack

of a

cces

s to

land

?)

to exp

and th

eir c

ashe

w

prod

uction

ÿ

Dep

ende

ncy on

trad

ers

and ag

ents

.

+ +

– ÿ

Proj

ect s

houl

d pa

y sp

ecia

l att

ention

to

incl

udin

g po

orer

farm

ers, e.g

. in ag

ricu

l-tu

ral e

xten

sion

act

ivitie

s an

d tr

aini

ng to

re

alis

e th

eir p

oten

tial

and

impr

ove yi

elds

ÿ

Targ

etin

g re

mot

e ar

eas

ÿEn

sure

that

mar

ket i

nfor

mat

ion sy

stem

s an

d m

etho

ds a

re a

dapt

ed fo

r the

illite

rate

(e

.g. t

hrou

gh rad

io p

rogr

amm

es)

ÿIn

clus

ion of

thes

e po

orer

farm

ers th

roug

h th

e pr

omot

ion of

coo

pera

tive

s.

Int

ervi

ews

with st

ake -

hold

ers an

d es

tim

ates

from

co

untr

y st

udy.

Lac

k of

in

form

atio

n:

Land

dis

tri-

bution

am

ong

cash

ew fa

rmer

s Q

uality

of

info

rmat

ion is

m

oder

ate.

Poor

cas

hew

fa

rmer

s:

< 2.1 h

a (6

50 k

g/ha

)< 4

ha

(350

kg/

ha)

of c

ashe

w

plan

tati

onIV

–

Pove

rty

Line

P

over

ty L

ine

Pove

rty

Line

P

over

ty L

ine

Po

vert

y Li

ne

Pov

erty

Lin

e

Pove

rty

Line

P

over

ty L

ine

Po

vert

y Li

ne

Bett

er –

off

sm

all

to m

ediu

m s

cale

cash

ew fa

rmer

s:

> 2.1 h

a (6

50 k

g/ha

)> 4

ha

(350

kg/

ha)

Non

-Poo

r Com

-pl

ex D

iver

se

Risk

-Pro

ne

(PCD

R): 32

% Se

mi-

Com

mer

-ci

al s

mal

l sca

le

farm

ers: 2

6% in

Tr

ansi

tion

al

zone

.

Can be

fron

trun

ners

an

d le

ader

s in

coo

p-er

ativ

es.

ÿBu

sh fi

res

ÿNo

acce

ss to

loan

s be

side

Ca

shew

Dev

elop

men

t Pr

o-gr

am a

dmin

iste

red

cred

it

faci

lity

thr

ough

AgD

B ÿ

Lack

of c

redi

t for

hired

la

bour

and

to exp

and th

eir

cash

ew p

rodu

ctio

n ÿ

Dep

ende

ncy on

trad

ers

and ag

ents

.

++

Cond

uct t

rain

ing on

bus

h fir

e co

ntro

l.

Com

mer

cial

and

rich

ca

shew

farm

ers

12%

of t

he n

umbe

r of f

arm

s.

Estim

ated

that

they

occ

upy

1/3 of

the ar

ea und

er

prod

uction

.

ÿCa

n fu

nction

as

fron

trun

ners

an

d go

od exa

m-

ples

for g

ood

agricu

ltur

al

prac

tice

s ÿ

Empl

oy oth

ers in

th

eir f

arm

s.

ÿM

ainl

y in

tere

sted

in ow

n be

nefit

s ÿ

Pote

ntia

l com

petito

rs w

ith

smal

l-sc

ale fa

rmer

s ÿ

Bush

fire

s.

0+

Thes

e fa

rmer

s ca

n af

ford

to in

sure

th

eir f

arm

s ag

ains

t bus

h fir

es.

Info

rmat

ion

gap:

Cou

ld n

ot

asce

rtai

n th

e pe

rcen

tage

co

ntribu

tion

of

the gr

oup to

na

tion

al cas

h-ew

pro

duct

ion.

Hired labour

Farm

ers

in B

rong

Aha

fo w

ith

no c

ashe

w

Coul

d wor

k as

hired

labo

ur on

day-

to-d

ay b

asis

in th

e

cash

ew fa

rms (i.e. w

eedi

ng

and ha

rves

ting

), if

they

live

ne

arby

.

Inte

rest

ed in

ear

ning

ad

dition

al in

com

e th

roug

h em

ploy

men

t op

port

unitie

s.

ÿW

e as

sum

e th

at th

e po

or-

est f

arm

ers ar

e on

ly en-

gage

d in

sub

sist

ence

farm

-in

g an

d ha

ve n

o ca

shew

fa

rms

ÿEv

entu

ally, l

ong-

term

mi-

gran

ts m

ay n

ot b

e al

lowed

to

pla

nt cas

hew tr

ees on

th

eir l

and.

0 +

?In

clus

ion in

to cas

hew coo

pera

tive

s.

Info

rmat

ion ga

p :

long

-ter

m m

i-gr

ants

’ acc

ess

to la

nd te

nure

/tr

ee cro

ps.

Qual

ity of

info

r-m

atio

n: ver

y lo

w.

Seas

onal

mig

rant

s in

agr

icul

ture

Can wor

k as

hired

labo

ur on

day-

to-d

ay b

asis

in th

e

cash

ew fa

rms (i.e. w

eedi

ng

and ha

rves

ting

).

Econ

omic

com

pone

nt

of th

e live

liho

od sys

-te

m to

ens

ure av

ail-

ability of

cas

h to

buy

fa

rm in

puts

and

fi-

nanc

ial b

enefi

t and

au

tono

my du

ring

the

lean

sea

son.

ÿDiffic

ulties

acc

essi

ng

reso

urce

s an

d pa

rtic

ular

ly

diffi

cultie

s in

soc

ial i

nte-

grat

ion.

+ ?

?

Furt

her a

sses

s at

the ba

seline

the ro

le a

nd

rele

vanc

e an

d sa

lary

leve

ls of t

his gr

oup in

ca

shew

pro

duct

ion,

and

mon

itor

pos

sibl

e im

pact

s of

the pr

ojec

t on th

is g

roup

.

MOF

A-P

PMED

(2

006)

Qua

lity

: low

Empl

oyee

s in

th

e pr

oces

sing

co

mpa

nies

Prov

ide la

bour

for p

roce

ssin

g co

mpa

nies

. The

ass

umpt

ion

is th

at 9

5% of t

hese

em

ploy

-ee

s wou

ld b

e wom

en.

Inte

rest

ed in

em

-pl

oym

ent o

ppor

tuni

-ties

and

offer

ed

com

petitive

sal

a-ries

/or w

ages

.

ÿHig

h ra

te of e

mpl

oyee

ab

senc

e .

++0

Inst

itut

iona

lisa

tion

of d

ay off sch

emes

for t

he

empl

oyee

s (e

.g. 2

wee

ks w

ork,

2 w

eeks

bre

ak).

Inte

rvie

ws with

som

e st

ake-

hold

ers in

the

proc

essi

ng

sect

or.

Qua

lity

: goo

d.

Long

term

mig

rant

s/se

ttle

rs

Diffe

rent

form

s of

acc

ess to

la

nd: H

ave bo

ught

land

that

is

now ow

n fa

mily

land

, or a

re

wor

king

on sh

arec

ropp

ing

basi

s or

pay

ing gr

ound

ren

t.

ÿTo

impr

ove th

eir

inco

me an

d so

cioe

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t. ÿ

To sta

bilise

thei

r la

nd rig

hts.

ÿM

ay, n

ot b

e al

lowed

to

plan

t tre

e cr

ops on

thei

r la

nd, a

nd th

eref

ore be

m

argi

nalise

d fr

om cas

hew

prod

uction

ÿM

ay h

ave to

pay

hig

her

grou

nd ren

ts w

hen in

com

e in

crea

ses

ÿNew

mig

rant

s m

ay fi

nd

hard

er to

acc

ess ne

w la

nd.

+?

Wom

en in

Cas

hew

pr

oduc

ing

hous

ehol

ds

Gen

eral

ly, w

omen

hav

e le

ss

land

and

are

less

eng

aged

in

cas

hew p

rodu

ctio

n on

thei

r ow

n la

nd. M

ostly, w

omen

wor

k on

their h

usba

nds’

cash

ew fa

rms.

Land

rig

hts of

wom

en

seem

to b

e qu

ite

stab

le, m

en a

re n

ot

supp

osed

to ta

ke

over

cas

hew fa

rms

esta

blis

hed by

ent

ire

hous

ehol

ds or b

y wom

en.

ÿIn

tens

ive la

bour

bur

den fo

r wom

en. 30

+ (but

are

no

t re-

ally

tar-

gete

d)

–

Prom

otio

n of

co-

owne

rshi

p of

prim

ary

hous

ehol

d pr

oper

ty.

Mar

ried

cou

ples

in cas

hew h

ouse

hold

s m

ay

choo

se to

reg

iste

r the

ir la

nds with La

nd com

-m

issi

on a

nd /or

Adm

inis

trat

or of s

tool

land

.

Inte

rvie

ws with

mal

e ca

shew

fa

rmer

s, ex-

tens

ion of

ficer

s bu

t no in

ter-

view

with

wom

en.

Qua

lity

of i

nfor

-m

atio

n: lo

w.

Fem

ale

head

ed h

ouse

hold

Fem

ale-

head

ed h

ouse

hold

s in

Gha

na a

ppea

r to be

less

af

fect

ed b

y po

vert

y th

an

mal

e-he

aded

hou

seho

lds.

Inte

rest

ed in

ow

ning

ca

shew

farm

s as

se-

curity

for o

ld a

ge.

ÿSp

ecifi

c fa

rm ope

ration

s co

uld no

t be do

ne w

ell

witho

ut a

ssis

tanc

e fr

om

hire

d la

bour

.

+ (but

ar

e no

t re

ally

ta

rget

-ed

)

–

Mai

nstr

eam

ing ge

nder

-rel

ated

act

ivitie

s in

to

proj

ect a

ctiv

itie

s.

Exte

nsio

n se

rvic

es a

nd str

ateg

y to

impr

ove

acce

ss to

inf

orm

atio

n sh

ould

incl

ude/

targ

et

wom

en a

nd fe

mal

e-he

aded

hou

seho

lds .

Qua

lity

: low

.

Child

ren

(u

nder

15

year

s)

13%

of c

hild

ren ag

ed 7-1

4 ar

e ec

onom

ical

ly a

ctiv

e.

Am

ong ch

ildr

en w

orki

ng in

ag

ricu

ltur

e, 4

6% w

ork le

ss

than

20 ho

urs pe

r wee

k, 3

3%

betw

een 20

to 4

0 ho

urs pe

r wee

k, a

nd 2

0.7%

wor

k m

ore

than

40 ho

urs pe

r wee

k.

Thos

e who

are

eng

aged

for 6

0 ho

urs or

mor

e pe

r wee

k co

n-st

itut

e 3.

3% of a

ll w

orki

ng

childr

en. 31

Inte

rest

ed in

the op

-po

rtun

itie

s be

ing of

-fe

red by

ben

efitt

ing

from

the hi

gher

in

com

es of t

heir

fam

ilie

s to

mee

t so

me ed

ucat

iona

l ne

eds.

ÿM

ay h

ave to

wor

k m

ore on

fa

mily

land

, with ne

gative

ef

fect

s on

sch

ool a

tten

d-an

ce.

+?

Empo

wer

men

t of c

ashe

w fa

rm fa

milie

s to

br

oade

n th

e co

ping

mec

hani

sms ag

ains

t po

vert

y to

pro

vide

edu

cation

al req

uire

men

ts

for t

heir chi

ldre

n.

Qua

lity

of i

nfor

-m

atio

n: lo

w.22 23

Mod

ule 2a

: S

umm

ary of

the ac

tors

and

targ

et g

roup

s, h

ow fa

r the

y su

ppor

t the

pro

-poo

r nat

ure of

the pr

ojec

t and

ris

ks th

at m

ay h

inde

r the

m fr

om b

enefi

ting

from

the pr

ojec

t

Stak

ehol

ders

(tar

get

grou

ps, i

nter

med

iari

es,

and

inst

itut

ions

)

Mai

n ro

les

and

acti

vities

/De

tails

of th

e gr

oups

Inte

rest

s an

d pr

o-po

or a

gend

a.

Asp

ects

/Co

nstr

aint

s th

at

may

hin

der t

hem

to b

enefi

t fr

om th

e pr

ojec

t

Rati

ng

of th

eir

pro-

poor

ag

enda

Rati

ng

of ri

sks/

co

n-st

rain

s

Mit

igat

ion

and/

or

rein

forc

ing

mea

sure

s

Info

rmat

ion

sour

ce,

gap

and

qual

ity

Small-scale cashew farmers Small-scale cashew farmers

Extr

eme

poor

ca

shew

farm

ers:

< 1

.6ha

(650

kg/

ha)

< 2.9

ha

(350

kg/

ha)

of c

ashe

w

plan

tati

onI

PSIA

II Po

or C

ompl

ex

Dive

rse

Risk

-Pro

ne

(PCD

R):

37%

in

Tran

sition

al

zone

.

88%

of

the

num

ber

of fa

rms.

Occu

py

2/3 of

the

cash

ew

area

un

der

prod

uc-

tion

III

To im

prov

e th

eir

inco

me an

d

soci

o eco

nom

ic

deve

lopm

ent b

y

prod

ucin

g ca

shew

.

ÿBu

sh fi

res

ÿBad

edu

cation

/illiter

acy

ÿLo

w yie

lds

ÿNo ac

cess

to in

form

atio

n ÿ

Rem

ote lo

cation

ÿLa

ck of m

oney

for h

ired

la

bour

and

(som

etim

es

lack

of a

cces

s to

land

?)

to exp

and th

eir c

ashe

w

prod

uction

ÿ

Dep

ende

ncy on

trad

ers

and ag

ents

.

+ +

– ÿ

Proj

ect s

houl

d pa

y sp

ecia

l att

ention

to

incl

udin

g po

orer

farm

ers, e.g

. in ag

ricu

l-tu

ral e

xten

sion

act

ivitie

s an

d tr

aini

ng to

re

alis

e th

eir p

oten

tial

and

impr

ove yi

elds

ÿ

Targ

etin

g re

mot

e ar

eas

ÿEn

sure

that

mar

ket i

nfor

mat

ion sy

stem

s an

d m

etho

ds a

re a

dapt

ed fo

r the

illite

rate

(e

.g. t

hrou

gh rad

io p

rogr

amm

es)

ÿIn

clus

ion of

thes

e po

orer

farm

ers th

roug

h th

e pr

omot

ion of

coo

pera

tive

s.

Int

ervi

ews

with st

ake -

hold

ers an

d es

tim

ates

from

co

untr

y st

udy.

Lac

k of

in

form

atio

n:

Land

dis

tri-

bution

am

ong

cash

ew fa

rmer

s Q

uality

of

info

rmat

ion is

m

oder

ate.

Poor

cas

hew

fa

rmer

s:

< 2.1 h

a (6

50 k

g/ha

)< 4

ha

(350

kg/

ha)

of c

ashe

w

plan

tati

onIV

–

Pove

rty

Line

P

over

ty L

ine

Pove

rty

Line

P

over

ty L

ine

Po

vert

y Li

ne

Pov

erty

Lin

e

Pove

rty

Line

P

over

ty L

ine

Po

vert

y Li

ne

Bett

er –

off

sm

all

to m

ediu

m s

cale

cash

ew fa

rmer

s:

> 2.1 h

a (6

50 k

g/ha

)> 4

ha

(350

kg/

ha)

Non

-Poo

r Com

-pl

ex D

iver

se

Risk

-Pro

ne

(PCD

R): 32

% Se

mi-

Com

mer

-ci

al s

mal

l sca

le

farm

ers: 2

6% in

Tr

ansi

tion

al

zone

.

Can be

fron

trun

ners

an

d le

ader

s in

coo

p-er

ativ

es.

ÿBu

sh fi

res

ÿNo

acce

ss to

loan

s be

side

Ca

shew

Dev

elop

men

t Pr

o-gr

am a

dmin

iste

red

cred

it

faci

lity

thr

ough

AgD

B ÿ

Lack

of c

redi

t for

hired

la

bour

and

to exp

and th

eir

cash

ew p

rodu

ctio

n ÿ

Dep

ende

ncy on

trad

ers

and ag

ents

.

++

Cond

uct t

rain

ing on

bus

h fir

e co

ntro

l.

Com

mer

cial

and

rich

ca

shew

farm

ers

12%

of t

he n

umbe

r of f

arm

s.

Estim

ated

that

they

occ

upy

1/3 of

the ar

ea und

er

prod

uction

.

ÿCa

n fu

nction

as

fron

trun

ners

an

d go

od exa

m-

ples

for g

ood

agricu

ltur

al

prac

tice

s ÿ

Empl

oy oth

ers in

th

eir f

arm

s.

ÿM

ainl

y in

tere

sted

in ow

n be

nefit

s ÿ

Pote

ntia

l com

petito

rs w

ith

smal

l-sc

ale fa

rmer

s ÿ

Bush

fire

s.

0+

Thes

e fa

rmer

s ca

n af

ford

to in

sure

th

eir f

arm

s ag

ains

t bus

h fir

es.

Info

rmat

ion

gap:

Cou

ld n

ot

asce

rtai

n th

e pe

rcen

tage

co

ntribu

tion

of

the gr

oup to

na

tion

al cas

h-ew

pro

duct

ion.

Hired labour

Farm

ers

in B

rong

Aha

fo w

ith

no c

ashe

w

Coul

d wor

k as

hired

labo

ur on

day-

to-d

ay b

asis

in th

e

cash

ew fa

rms (i.e. w

eedi

ng

and ha

rves

ting

), if

they

live

ne

arby

.

Inte

rest

ed in

ear

ning

ad

dition

al in

com

e th

roug

h em

ploy

men

t op

port

unitie

s.

ÿW

e as

sum

e th

at th

e po

or-

est f

arm

ers ar

e on

ly en-

gage

d in

sub

sist

ence

farm

-in

g an

d ha

ve n

o ca

shew

fa

rms

ÿEv

entu

ally, l

ong-

term

mi-

gran

ts m

ay n

ot b

e al

lowed

to

pla

nt cas

hew tr

ees on

th

eir l

and.

0 +

?In

clus

ion in

to cas

hew coo

pera

tive

s.

Info

rmat

ion ga

p :

long

-ter

m m

i-gr

ants

’ acc

ess

to la

nd te

nure

/tr

ee cro

ps.

Qual

ity of

info

r-m

atio

n: ver

y lo

w.

Seas

onal

mig

rant

s in

agr

icul

ture

Can wor

k as

hired

labo

ur on

day-

to-d

ay b

asis

in th

e

cash

ew fa

rms (i.e. w

eedi

ng

and ha

rves

ting

).

Econ

omic

com

pone

nt

of th

e live

liho

od sys

-te

m to

ens

ure av

ail-

ability of

cas

h to

buy

fa

rm in

puts

and

fi-

nanc

ial b

enefi

t and

au

tono

my du

ring

the

lean

sea

son.

ÿDiffic

ulties

acc

essi

ng

reso

urce

s an

d pa

rtic

ular

ly

diffi

cultie

s in

soc

ial i

nte-

grat

ion.

+ ?

?

Furt

her a

sses

s at

the ba

seline

the ro

le a

nd

rele

vanc

e an

d sa

lary

leve

ls of t

his gr

oup in

ca

shew

pro

duct

ion,

and

mon

itor

pos

sibl

e im

pact

s of

the pr

ojec

t on th

is g

roup

.

MOF

A-P

PMED

(2

006)

Qua

lity

: low

Empl

oyee

s in

th

e pr

oces

sing

co

mpa

nies

Prov

ide la

bour

for p

roce

ssin

g co

mpa

nies

. The

ass

umpt

ion

is th

at 9

5% of t

hese

em

ploy

-ee

s wou

ld b

e wom

en.

Inte

rest

ed in

em

-pl

oym

ent o

ppor

tuni

-ties

and

offer

ed

com

petitive

sal

a-ries

/or w

ages

.

ÿHig

h ra

te of e

mpl

oyee

ab

senc

e .

++0

Inst

itut

iona

lisa

tion

of d

ay off sch

emes

for t

he

empl

oyee

s (e

.g. 2

wee

ks w

ork,

2 w

eeks

bre

ak).

Inte

rvie

ws with

som

e st

ake-

hold

ers in

the

proc

essi

ng

sect

or.

Qua

lity

: goo

d.

Long

term

mig

rant

s/se

ttle

rs

Diffe

rent

form

s of

acc

ess to

la

nd: H

ave bo

ught

land

that

is

now ow

n fa

mily

land

, or a

re

wor

king

on sh

arec

ropp

ing

basi

s or

pay

ing gr

ound

ren

t.

ÿTo

impr

ove th

eir

inco

me an

d so

cioe

cono

mic

de

velo

pmen

t. ÿ

To sta

bilise

thei

r la

nd rig

hts.

ÿM

ay, n

ot b

e al

lowed

to

plan

t tre

e cr

ops on

thei

r la

nd, a

nd th

eref

ore be

m

argi

nalise

d fr

om cas

hew

prod

uction

ÿM

ay h

ave to

pay

hig

her

grou

nd ren

ts w

hen in

com

e in

crea

ses

ÿNew

mig

rant

s m

ay fi

nd

hard

er to

acc

ess ne

w la

nd.

+?

Wom

en in

Cas

hew

pr

oduc

ing

hous

ehol

ds

Gen

eral

ly, w

omen

hav

e le

ss

land

and

are

less

eng

aged

in

cas

hew p

rodu

ctio

n on

thei

r ow

n la

nd. M

ostly, w

omen

wor

k on

their h

usba

nds’

cash

ew fa

rms.

Land

rig

hts of

wom

en

seem

to b

e qu

ite

stab

le, m

en a

re n

ot

supp

osed

to ta

ke

over

cas

hew fa

rms

esta

blis

hed by

ent

ire

hous

ehol

ds or b

y wom

en.

ÿIn

tens

ive la

bour

bur

den fo

r wom

en. 30

+ (but

are

no

t re-

ally

tar-

gete

d)

–

Prom

otio

n of

co-

owne

rshi

p of

prim

ary

hous

ehol

d pr

oper

ty.

Mar

ried

cou

ples

in cas

hew h

ouse

hold

s m

ay

choo

se to

reg

iste

r the

ir la

nds with La

nd com

-m

issi

on a

nd /or

Adm

inis

trat

or of s

tool

land

.

Inte

rvie

ws with

mal

e ca

shew

fa

rmer

s, ex-

tens

ion of

ficer

s bu

t no in

ter-

view

with

wom

en.

Qua

lity

of i

nfor

-m

atio

n: lo

w.

Fem

ale

head

ed h

ouse

hold

Fem

ale-

head

ed h

ouse

hold

s in

Gha

na a

ppea

r to be

less

af

fect

ed b

y po

vert

y th

an

mal

e-he

aded

hou

seho

lds.

Inte

rest

ed in

ow

ning

ca

shew

farm

s as

se-

curity

for o

ld a

ge.

ÿSp

ecifi

c fa

rm ope

ration

s co

uld no

t be do

ne w

ell

witho

ut a

ssis

tanc

e fr

om

hire

d la

bour

.

+ (but

ar

e no

t re

ally

ta

rget

-ed

)

–

Mai

nstr

eam

ing ge

nder

-rel

ated

act

ivitie

s in

to

proj

ect a

ctiv

itie

s.

Exte

nsio

n se

rvic

es a

nd str

ateg

y to

impr

ove

acce

ss to

inf

orm

atio

n sh

ould

incl

ude/

targ

et

wom

en a

nd fe

mal

e-he

aded

hou

seho

lds .

Qua

lity

: low

.

Child

ren

(u

nder

15

year

s)

13%

of c

hild

ren ag

ed 7-1

4 ar

e ec

onom

ical

ly a

ctiv

e.

Am

ong ch

ildr

en w

orki

ng in

ag

ricu

ltur

e, 4

6% w

ork le

ss

than

20 ho

urs pe

r wee

k, 3

3%

betw

een 20

to 4

0 ho

urs pe

r wee

k, a

nd 2

0.7%

wor

k m

ore

than

40 ho

urs pe

r wee

k.

Thos

e who

are

eng

aged

for 6

0 ho

urs or

mor

e pe

r wee

k co

n-st

itut

e 3.

3% of a

ll w

orki

ng

childr

en. 31

Inte

rest

ed in

the op

-po

rtun

itie

s be

ing of

-fe

red by

ben

efitt

ing

from

the hi

gher

in

com

es of t

heir

fam

ilie

s to

mee

t so

me ed

ucat

iona

l ne

eds.

ÿM

ay h

ave to

wor

k m

ore on

fa

mily

land

, with ne

gative

ef

fect

s on

sch

ool a

tten

d-an

ce.

+?

Empo

wer

men

t of c

ashe

w fa

rm fa

milie

s to

br

oade

n th

e co

ping

mec

hani

sms ag

ains

t po

vert

y to

pro

vide

edu

cation

al req

uire

men

ts

for t

heir chi

ldre

n.

Qua

lity

of i

nfor

-m

atio

n: lo

w.22 23

30

Am

ador

forc

ocoa

,cite

din

DIF

ID(2

001)

,p.9

7.31

G

hana

Sta

tistic

alS

ervi

ce(2

008)

:GLS

S,p

.65.

ID

epen

ding

on

the

yiel

d,6

50o

f350

kg/

ha.O

nly

extr

eme

poor

,ift

hey

culti

vate

cas

hew

exc

lusiv

ely

onle

ssth

an1

.8h

aw

ithn

oot

herf

ood

orm

onet

ary

inco

me

from

subs

isten

cea

gric

ultu

re.

II

Pov

erty

and

Soc

ialI

mpa

ctA

sses

smen

tdon

eby

the

Min

istry

ofA

gric

ultu

rea

ndfi

nanc

edb

yW

orld

Ban

k,a

naly

sing

pove

rty

impa

ctso

fthe

nat

iona

lstr

ateg

yto

mod

erni

sea

gric

ultu

re.

III

We

coul

dca

lcul

ate:

70,

000

cash

ewfa

rmer

sofw

hich

88%

hav

ele

ssth

an3

ha.

This

corr

espo

ndst

oap

rox.

61,

600

smal

l-sca

lefa

rmer

s.M

ultip

lyin

gth

isnu

mbe

rwith

thei

rmax

imum

land

size

(3ha

),th

enth

eyc

orre

spon

dto

max

.185

,000

ha

cash

ew(o

r70%

oft

hea

rea

forc

ashe

wc

ultiv

atio

n/pr

oduc

tion)

.12

%o

ffar

msh

ave

8-40

ha

=84

00fa

rms;

Mul

tiplie

dw

itha

min

imum

ofo

nly

10h

a,th

enth

eyc

orre

spon

dto

ato

tala

rea

of8

4,00

0ha

(abo

ut3

0%o

fthe

are

afo

rcas

hew

cul

tivat

ion/

prod

uctio

n).

Tota

lare

aof

cul

tivat

ion:

269

,000

ha

assu

mo

fbot

hgr

oups

.IV

O

nly

poor

(low

erp

over

tyli

ne),

they

hav

em

ore

than

2.3

ha,

with

no

othe

rfoo

dor

mon

etar

yin

com

efr

omsu

bsist

ence

agr

icul

ture

.

Mod

ule 2b:

Su

mm

ary of

sta

keho

lder

s an

d in

stitut

ions

and

how

far t

hey su

ppor

t the

pro

-poo

r nat

ure of

the pr

ojec

t int

erm

edia

ries

and

oth

er sta

keho

lder

s

Stak

ehol

ders

(int

erm

edia

ries

an

d in

stit

utio

ns)

Mai

n ro

les

and

acti

vities

/De

tails

of th

e gr

oups

Inte

rest

s an

d Pr

o-po

or a

gend

aAsp

ects

/Con

stra

ints

that

may

hi

nder

them

to h

ave

a pr

o-po

or

agen

da

Rati

ng

of th

eir

pro-

poor

ag

enda

(+

/-)

Mit

igat

ion

and/

or re

info

rcin

g m

easu

res

Info

rmat

ion

sour

ce,

gap

and

qual

ity

Chie

fsSe

rve as

trad

itio

nal r

uler

s

and cu

stod

ians

of s

tool

land

s.

ÿAre

inte

rest

ed in

de

velo

pmen

t in th

e

com

mun

ity

ÿFu

nction

som

etim

es

as in

terloc

utor

s ÿ

Act

as ar

bitr

ator

s

on la

nd is

sues

.

ÿIn

adeq

uate

con

sultat

ion

and pr

ojec

t int

erve

ntio

ns

not w

ell p

rese

nted

to th

em

ÿIn

tere

sted

in ow

n in

com

e fr

om th

e st

ool

ÿCo

uld be

unw

illin

g to

pe

rmit n

ew set

tler

s to

pl

ant t

ree cr

ops.

-?+

ÿIn

stitut

iona

lise

briefi

ng

sess

ions

with th

e ch

iefs

ÿAcc

ess to

info

rmat

ion

on p

roje

ct a

nd im

pact

s on

the live

s of

thei

r su

bjec

ts

ÿBa

sed on

the co

coa

stud

y, dis

cuss

if a stu

dy

on th

e in

tera

ctio

n of

ca

shew

pro

duct

ion an

d ac

cess

to and

sec

urity of

la

nd te

nure

is req

uire

d.

ÿIn

terv

iew

s with

chie

fs, e

xten

sion

of

ficer

s an

d co

n-su

ltan

ts on la

nd

issu

es a

nd

lite

ratu

re

ÿQua

lity

of

info

rmat

ion:

mod

erat

e.

Mun

icip

al/

Dis

tric

t Ass

embl

ies

Prom

ote pr

o-po

or p

rogr

amm

es

to a

ddre

ss spe

cific

nee

ds of

the po

or id

entifie

d am

ong th

e di

ffer

ent t

arge

t gro

ups.

ÿHav

e pa

rtic

ipat

ory po

vert

y m

aps to

defi

ne p

over

ty

pock

ets in

the di

strict

ÿ

Prom

ote ru

ral i

nfra

stru

ctur

e/fe

eder

roa

ds ÿ

Supp

ort c

oope

rative

s.

ÿIn

tere

sted

in cha

rgin

g

taxe

s an

d le

vies

on ba

gs

of raw

cas

hew n

uts to

in-

crea

se ow

n bu

dget

ÿIn

adeq

uate

con

sultat

ion

and co

ordi

nation

with

impl

emen

ting

par

tner

s.

-+

Join

t aw

aren

ess cr

eation

.

ÿIn

terv

iew w

ith

pers

onne

l fro

m a

dist

rict

ass

embl

y.

ÿIn

form

atio

n ga

p ex

-is

ts on le

vies

bei

ng

char

ged by

oth

er

dist

rict

ass

embl

ies

and le

gal b

asis

of

thes

e le

vies

ÿ

Qua

lity

: hig

h

Proc

essi

ng

com

pani

es

ÿTr

ansf

orm

raw

cas

hew

nuts

into

edi

ble pr

oduc

ts

ÿBu

y ra

w cas

hew n

uts

from

farm

ers

ÿEm

ploy

wor

kers

and

in

crea

se th

e na

tion

al

valu

e ad

ded of

Gha

naia

n

cash

ew exp

orts

.

ÿAre

inte

rest

ed in

low tu

rnov

er

of em

ploy

ees, a

nd th

eref

ore

have

to offer

goo

d wor

king

co

nditio

ns ÿ

Inte

rest

ed in

hig

h qu

ality nu

ts

and st

able

sup

ply an

d th

ere-

fore

wan

t to ha

ve clo

se rel

a-tion

ship

with ca

shew

farm

ers

ÿIn

tere

sted

in tr

acea

bility

with re

gard

s to

raw

cas

hew

nut s

uppl

y ÿ

Som

e pr

oces

sing

com

pani

es

are fir

mly

pro

-poo

r.

Hav

e to

mee

t the

mar

ket

requ

irem

ents

, qua

lity

as

sura

nce an

d to

com

pete

at

inte

rnat

iona

l lev

el

+

ÿIn

stitut

e tr

aini

ng p

ro-

gram

mes

to equ

ip th

eir

unsk

illed

em

ploy

ees to

im

prov

e qu

ality as

sur-

ance

so as

to m

eet

inte

rnat

iona

l mar

ket

requ

irem

ents

ÿFo

cus on

soc

ial s

tand

-ar

ds a

nd res

pons

ibili-

ties

in m

anag

emen

t tr

aini

ng.

ÿIn

terv

iew

s with

proc

essi

ng

com

pani

es.

ÿQua

lity

: hig

h.

Trad

ers an

d ag

ents

Serv

e as

inte

rmed

iaries

by

trad

ing ra

w cas

hew

nuts

bet

wee

n fa

rmer

s an

d

expo

rter

s.

Inte

rest

ed in

max

imis

ing pr

ofits

to

rem

ain in

bus

ines

s.

ÿW

orki

ng cap

ital

to b

uy

raw cas

hew n

uts fr

om th

e co

oper

ativ

es ÿ

Lack

of t

rans

pare

ncy in

tr

ansa

ctin

g bu

sine

ss w

ith

othe

r sta

keho

lder

s ÿ

Inte

rest

ed in

low

prod

ucer

price

s ÿ

Inte

rnat

iona

l tra

ders

ca

n ea

sily

switch

to oth

er

coun

trie

s.

-

Prov

isio

n of

upd

ated

fa

rm g

ate pr

ices

and

FOB

, Te

ma pr

ices

to p

rodu

cer

asso

ciat

ions

.

ÿIn

terv

iew

s with

farm

ers, in

ter-

nation

al tr

ader

s an

d di

strict

coo

p-er

ativ

es.

ÿQua

lity

of

info

rmat

ion:

med

ium

.

Exp

orte

rs

Sour

ce m

arke

ts a

nd tr

ade

cash

ews.

Mos

tly co

ncer

ned with hi

gh com

-pe

titive

price

s in

ord

er n

ot to

re-

duce

thei

r inv

estm

ent c

apital

.0

Ass

umpt

ions

.

MOF

A –

Cash

ew

Dev

elop

men

t Pr

ojec

t and

Dis

tric

t Agr

icul

-tu

ral D

evel

op-

men

t Uni

ts

ÿCo

llab

orat

e with th

e

impl

emen

ting

par

tner

s

in p

lann

ing,

impl

emen

ting

an

d m

onitor

ing pr

ojec

t ac

tivi

ties

ÿ

Prov

ide ag

ricu

ltur

al

exte

nsio

n se

rvic

es.

ÿRe

quire ex

tern

al fi

nanc

ing/

supp

ort f

or ext

ensi

on d

eliv

ery

ÿM

ostly co

ncer

ned with th

e ou

tcom

es of t

he g

oals

of t

he

proj

ect.

Dev

iation

s fr

om im

plem

enta

-tion

agr

eem

ents

sig

ned with

impl

emen

ting

par

tner

s.+ +

Join

t ow

ners

hip of

Cou

ntry

W

ork Pl

ans with im

plem

ent-

ing pa

rtne

rs.

Non

-Gov

ern-

men

tal O

rgan

i-sa

tion

s

(ADRA-G

hana

)

Prov

ide bu

sine

ss a

dvic

e an

d link

loca

l pro

cess

ors with

buying

and

ret

aile

r com

pani

es.

ÿM

ostly co

ncer

ned with

busi

ness

link

ages

ÿ

Supp

ort e

xten

sion

del

iver

y se

rvic

es.

Sust

aina

bility

of c

urre

nt

prog

ram

mes

due

to fi

nanc

ial

cons

trai

nts.

+

Impl

emen

ting

Pa

rtne

rs (G

IZ,

Tech

nose

rve, A

f-rica

n Ca

shew

Allia

nce an

d Fa

irM

atch

Sup-

port

)

Impl

emen

t the

pro

ject

so

as to

ach

ieve

its im

pact

.

Mos

tly co

ncer

ned with th

e

atta

inm

ent o

f pro

ject

goa

ls

and ob

ject

ives

.

ÿSh

ort t

imel

ine of

the pr

ojec

t re

duce

s in

cent

ive to

focu

s on

poo

r and

vul

nera

ble

grou

ps ÿ

Laxi

ty of a

ny im

plem

enting

pa

rtne

r(s)

may

direc

tly

affe

ct oth

er com

pone

nts of

th

e va

lue ch

ain.

0 to

+

Trad

itio

nal l

and

righ

ts:

(Abu

nu fo

r tre

e cr

ops)

ÿRe

gula

tes th

e ac

cess

, di

stribu

tion

and

owne

rshi

p of

land

ÿ

‘Chi

efs/

stoo

ls hol

d th

e la

nd

in tr

ust f

or th

e pe

ople

and

ar

e th

eref

ore re

spon

sibl

e fo

r lan

d ad

min

istr

atio

n or

di

stribu

tion

’ ÿ

Abun

u: P

eopl

e who

wan

t to

acce

ss new

land

and

to

plan

t tre

es h

ave to

ask

for

perm

issi

on fr

om th

e la

nd

owne

r or c

hief

, pro

vide

own

inpu

t. Af

ter t

he fi

rst h

ar-

vest

, the

tota

l cul

tiva

ted

land

is div

ided

, and

50%

go

es b

ack to

the ow

ner o

r st

ool a

nd 50%

to th

e ne

w

settle

r (ex

act r

ules

can

be

agre

ed upo

n an

d di

ffer

in

each

com

mun

ity)

.

ÿAny

one’ w

ho w

ants

can

acc

ede

land

if h

e as

ks th

e ch

ief (

land

is

ava

ilab

le)

ÿCr

eate

s op

port

unitie

s fo

r m

igra

nts an

d yo

unge

r peo

ple

ÿPr

otec

ts la

nd rig

hts fo

r sm

all-

scal

e fa

rmer

s an

d co

mm

uni-

ties

, as it is

bas

ed on th

e

conc

ept t

hat t

he la

nd b

elon

gs

to th

e who

le com

mun

ity.

Ther

efor

e it is

diffic

ult f

or b

ig

com

pani

es or i

nves

tors

to b

uy

land

on le

gally se

cure

term

s. ÿ

Als

o al

low

s (a

t lea

st in

theo

ry)

poor

er m

igra

nts fr

om th

e no

rth to

set

tle in

the ca

shew

re

gion

and

to obt

ain la

nd.

ÿSh

ift f

rom

com

mun

al/

collec

tive

land

ow

ners

hip

and on

ly cus

todi

al fu

nction

s of

the ch

iefs

to ‘o

wne

rshi

p’

of la

nd b

y th

e ch

iefs

, and

sh

ift t

o te

nant

– la

ndlo

rd

syst

ems

ÿPe

ople

who

are

not

indi

ge-

nous

, (lo

ng-t

erm

mig

rant

s or

set

tler

s) som

etim

es

have

to ren

t the

land

or

have

to cul

tiva

te th

e la

nd

on p

erm

anen

t sha

recr

op-

ping

bas

is (Abu

sa)

ÿPo

ssib

le b

arrier

for

mig

rant

s an

d no

n-

indi

geno

us p

eopl

e to

pl

ant c

ashe

w.

+ -

Key

for m

odul

es 2

a+b

+++

0-

--

Stre

ngth

/dir

ecti

on o

f im

pact

high

ly p

ositiv

epo

sitive

not s

igni

fican

tne

gative

high

ly n

egat

ive

Qual

ity

of in

form

atio

n an

d an

alys

isex

cellen

tgo

odad

equa

teso

me us

epo

or

Sign

ifica

nce

of th

e ri

sks an

d co

nstr

aint

s fo

r thi

s gr

oup

no ris

ks at a

ll, w

ill

profi

t fro

m th

e pr

ojek

tno

ris

ks at a

ll, w

ill

profi

t fro

m th

e pr

ojek

tm

oder

ate

high

extr

eme

24 25

28 3 Analysis of Transmission Channels and Results

Module 3providesanoverviewofthelinksbetweentheprojectinterventionsandtheoutcomesforthetargetgroupbymeansoftransmissionchannels.Thus,transmissionchannelsdescribetheroutesbywhichtheinterventionproceduresaffectandinfluencethestakeholders.Seventransmissionchannelshavebeenidentified:

ÿ Pricesÿ Employmentÿ Transfersÿ Accessÿ Assetsÿ Authorityÿ Productivity

3.1 The employment channel

Itistheintervention’ssecondmostimportanttransmissionchannelthatwillsupportthecreationofnon-agriculturalemploymentinprocessingcompanies.Furthermorebyincreasingproductivityoncashewfarms(see productivity channel 3.3),itwillprobablyhavesecondaryeffectsontheemploymentofhiredlabourinthecashewfarms(generatingagriculturalwageearning).

Theproject’sobjectiveofincreasingnationalprocessinginGhanafrom500t/yearto10,000t/yearwouldresultinup to 2,125 additional employees in the processing compa-nies.32Women(95%)willmainlybenefitwhenthenationalprocessingcapacityisincreased.Itcanbeassumedthatmostoftheseemployeesoriginallycomefrompoorhouseholdsandhavelittleeducation(tobemonitoredinthebaselinestudy).Analysesfromthefieldstudiesestimatedthatanincreaseincashewproductioncanleadtoincreasedemploymentofhiredworkersforweedingandharvesting.Ifaroughestimationismadethatonehectareofcashewgeneratesabout40man-daysofhiredlabouronthefarm,33acultivatedareaofabout25,000 hectares would make cashew production an im-portant employment source for hired labour asitcouldbeestimatedtorequirenearly1millionman-days.Iftheprojectwantstoincreasetheproductivityofexistingcashewfarmsby100%,wecanassumethatmorelabourwillbehired,lead-ingtoadditionalemploymentofseasonallabour,evenifsomestepsaremechanised.The labour force is provided by poor and extremely poor households in the area who do not own cashew farms, or by seasonal migrants from the north. TheTransitionalzoneinvolvingpartsofBrong-Ahafoisattractivetoseasonalmigrantswhoarenormallyhiredforseasonaljobs.MigrationhasbecomepartofthelivelihoodsystemandstrategyofmosthouseholdslivinginthepoorestareasofnorthernGhana.Theagriculturesectoremploys

higherproportionsofmalemigrantswhilethenon-agricul-turesectoremploysahighproportionoffemalemigrants(MOFA-PPMED, 2006).Thiscomparativeemploymentben-efitsmigrantsandpoorandextremelypoorfarmersintheareafortheshortandmediumterm.Howeveritwillnotlastinamoreorganisedandformalmarketeconomyandwillnotbesufficienttoliftsomeruralhouseholdsoutofpovertyandhunger.

Toasmallextenttherearesecondaryemploymenteffectsonsemi-skilledorskilledlabourindistributioncompaniesbecauseoftheneedforcomprehensiveexportandlogisticsinfrastruc-tureorequipmentfabricatorsproducingcuttermachines.How-evertheymaynotbesignificant.Negativeeffectsincludein-creasedworkburdenforwomenwhohelptheirhusbandsontheircashewplantations.Thiscouldresultinlesstimeavailablefortheirownplots.

3.2 The price channel

Farmgatepriceswillincreaseasaresultofthedirectsalespremiumofferedbytheprocessingcompanies.Ithasbeenestimatedthattaxesmayobtainapriceincrementofbetween10-20%contrary34to30%estimatedintheprojectdocument(Grant proposal, 2008).Risksincludefarmersnotgettingin-formationondirectsalesandtheirprices.

Theformationofwell-structuredFarmer Cooperative Associa-tions mayoffertheopportunityforhigherbargainingpowerthroughbulksellingwhichwillresultinpriceincreases.ThecooperativeinWenchiobtainedhigherpricesinthemarketthroughbulksellingcomparedtowhattheprocessingcompa-niescouldoffer.Oneriskcouldbethatifthecooperativesarenotwellorganised,theremaybenegativeresultsduetomis-appropriationofincomethroughmismanagement.

ThedifferentprocessingcompaniesandtradersofrawcashewwillpaymorethantheaverageifRCNqualityisimprovedandorganiccertificationproceduresarefollowed.Thisisapositiveimpactintheshorttermbutisgenerallyinsignificantwithre-gardtoincomeandtothemajorityofcashewfarmers.MigrantsmayflocktotheTransitionalzonesingreatnumbersresultinginasurplusoflabour.Thiscouldpromptbusinessestoreactbyofferinglowerwagerates.Thiswouldworsenthelivingconditionsofthemostvulnerablepeopleinthemediumandlongterm.

3.3 The productivity channel

Highproductivityperunitareacouldbeobtainedthroughprojectimplementation.Thereisthepotential to increase yields between 123-228%.Howeverthemajorriskisthe

32 Calculatingwith0.25workplacespert(PersonalcommunicationwithMr.MritunjaDas,OLAM).33 30to40man-daysperyearperhaforweeding(2seasons)and10to30man-daysperhaperyearfortheharvest.34 In2009,MIMoffered0.45Cedi/kgcomparedtotraderswhoofferedbetween0.30and0.45Cedi/kgdependingontheseason

29 increaseinthevolumeofengagementofextensionserviceproviders.Asdiscussedonpage 16,thepoorerfarmersarelikelytoliveinthedistrict’sremote and inaccessible areas(‘poverty pockets’).Theextensionserviceshoulddevelopastrategyonhowtoincludetheseremotecashewfarmersintheiroperationalschemes.

Theprocessing companiescanplayanimportantroleinin-formingfarmersaboutqualitystandards.Buttheycannotprovideintegralsupporttofarmersregardingthewholecycleofcashewproductionandgoodagriculturalpractices.Itisrecommendedthatthe roles and expectationsbe clarifiedwithregardtoextensionservicesbetweentheprocessingcom-panies,theAfrican Cashew initiative andotherpossiblepart-nerssuchasMOFA’s Cashew Development Project.Itshouldbeensuredthatat least 20% of trainees are womenasstipu-latedintheGIZ project proposal (2008).Thiswillimproveproductivityamongfemalefarmersandenhancetheecono-miccapabilitiesofruralwomen.

3.4 The access channel

Increased access to marketsispositiveintheshorttomediumtermfornationalprocessingcompanies.Thiswillhavepositivesecondaryeffectsonemploymentandonpricesforrawcashewnuts.Actuallyaccesstomarketsdoesnotseemtobeaproblemforthecashewfarmers.Manytraderscometotheregionandsothereseemstobeover-demandratherthanoversupplyofcashew.Buttheexistingmarketisfragile,aschangesinquality,pricesandcurrencyratesmayeasilydiminishcompetitivenessontheworldmarketandresultinawithdrawalofinternationaltraders.Nationalprocessingschemeswouldreducevulnerabili-tytotheseinternationalfluctuations.

Theavailability of information on prices and quality re-quirementswillcontributetoimprovedlivingconditions.Accesstoincomeduringtheleanseasonwillimprovethelivelihoodstrategiesofvulnerablepoorfarmers.Thestrategytoimproveaccesstoinformationshouldconsiderthatnearly40%ofthemenandmorethan60%ofthewomeninRuralForestzonesareilliterate(see Chapter 1).Radiosarecommoninallhouseholds,butonlyfewhouseholdshavemobilephones.35MIM Companycommunicatestheirpricestothefarmersviaradio.Howeveralimitingfactoristhattherearedifferentradiostationsineachcommunity.

Access to creditwillhelpfarmersacquirefarminputsandhirelabour.Forexample,whenintensifyingtheagriculturalpracticesincashewproduction,morefinanceisneededforseedlings,pesticidesandqualitymanagementequipmentlikecalibratingmachinesandweighingscales.Alimitingfactoristhatloansmayonlybegrantedontheconditionthatco-operativesareformed.

3.5 The assets channel

Privatesectorinvestmentinprocessingcompanieswillboostlocalandnationalproductionbyopeningupnewmarkets.Thesettingupofcashewappleprocessingplantswillbenefitthepro-pooragendaandhaveapositiveeffectontheincomeoftheruralpopulation.Theimplementationoftheprojectwillimprove25,000farmers’cashewplantationsinthemediumtolongterm.Acriticalfactorisiftheprojectmanagestoestablishsufficientqualityassuranceprocedurestoensurethatthefarm-ingcommunitiesproducequalityproducts.Thedirectinterna-tionalinvestmentincashewprocessingwillassisteconomicactivityeveninareasoutsidethecashewgrowingbeltsthroughtricklingdowneffectsinthelongterm.Thepromotionofgoodagriculturalpracticewillimprovethequalityofthecashewplantationsandimprovethefarmers’assets.

3.6 The authority channel

WellorganisedfarmercooperativeassociationsgivefarmersbargainingpoweragainsttradersandprocessorsaswellasagainstactorssupportingthemattheDistrictAssembliesandtheCashew Development Initiative.However,abuseofpowerinthecooperativescouldjeopardisethesepositiveeffects.Thedirectrelationshipbetweenfarmersandcashewprocessingcompaniesappearsnottohavecreateddependencyassupposed,buthasincreasedthefarmers’bargainingpowerinthemarket.Theeffectsofcashewpromotiononaccesstoandsecurityoflandisambiguous.Theplantingoftreecropscouldimprovelandsecurity.Thegeneralcommercialisationofagricultureandincreasedprofitsofsomefarmerscouldhoweverincreasepressureonland(despitetherebeingenoughnow),andinthelongtermreduceaccesstolandforwomenandvulnerablegroups.ThedevelopmentoftheLand Administration Projectshouldbeobserved,asthisprojectmayinfluencethelandrightsofcashewfarmers.

3.7 Transfers

SomedistrictschargeleviesofaboutGNC0.1to0.2perbagofrawcashewnutsthatleavesthedistrict.36Theinvestmentintheprocessingsectorcoupledwiththeanticipatedincreaseinyieldsfromcashewfarms,willprovideanopportunitytomunicipal/districtassembliestoincreasetheirlocalbudgetsthroughlevycollection.Municipal/districtassembliesfacetherisksoflevyevasionandbribesbybusinessmenandindividualsduetotheirinabilitytounderstandandmasterthenewrevenuebase.Withthecreationofemploymentincashewproducingcompaniesandincreaseinhiredlabourandopportunitiesforseasonalmigrants,therewillbeageneralincreaseinincomeandthere-foreadirecteffectonthevolumeofremittancestorelatives,althoughthesemaybeinsignificant.

35 Inthesampleofthelivelihoodstudyabout80%ofthefarmerhouseholds,includingthepoorhouseholds,havearadioandamedianof9%ofthehouseholdshavemobilephones(4%poor,12%mediumand15%ofthebetter-offhouseholds).MOFA(2001),Annex3.36 Personalcommunication,TainDistrictPlanningandCoordina-tionUnit.

Module 3: Analysis of transmission channels

Details of the change initiated by the intervention Details & risks that may influence effectiveness of this channel

Results by Transmission Channel RatingRisks that the results will not be achieved

Quality Information and analysis

Pric

es

Direct sales premium by selling directly to processors

Producers may obtain between 10-20% price increase contrary to 30% estimated in the grant proposal.

+

ÿ Very little margin for processing companies

ÿ Some farmers will not get information on direct sales and their prices.

good information

Price increase through higher bargaining power of cooperatives

Farmers belonging to cooperatives may improve their income through bulk selling to processors.

0

ÿ Cooperatives may not be well organised

ÿ Abuse and mis-management of cooperatives

ÿ Bad leadership in cooperatives.

some use

Differentiated prices by quality and certification premium

It is estimated that ¼ of farmers could obtain 22% increment due to differential prices offered as a result of improvement in quality and certification.

+ excellent

Prod

uctivi

ty

Productivity of farmers will increase

Potential for increase in yields by 123% to 228%.

+ + Increase in volume of engagement for extension service providers.

good

Empl

oym

ent

Seasonal employment in Cashew farms

Increased productivity of existing cashew farms by 100% will lead to additional employment of seasonal labour. (Actual cultivation of 25,000 ha could be equiva-lent to about one million man-days of hired labour.)

++ adequate

Women working on their husbands’ land

19.7% of rural women in Ghana work more than 40 h on their main job, compared to 29% of rural men. 37

0Increase in volume of engagement for extension service providers.

some use

Children working in the family farms

Temporary employment for children to acquire basic education needs.

0 some use

Employment in processing companies

It is estimated that there will be 2,120 additional employees (mostly women) in processing when national processing capacity is increased.

++Required working capital to expand the national processing capacities.

excellent

Tertiary and secondary employment

Not significant although employment can be generated from tertiary and secondary levels (e.g. fabricating workshops for manufacturing cutters).

0 some use

Marginalisation of traders Not significant. Does not affect the poor. 0 poor

Aut

hori

ty

Direct relationship with processing companies

Increase in farmers’ bargaining power as processors depend on them for supply, and there are still enough traders.

+Trust within the cooperatives .

adequate

Organisation of farmer cooperatives

Bargaining power against traders and processors.

++ some use

Abuse of power in cooperatives through bad leadership.

- - adequate

Changes in land rights through cashew planting

ÿ Could reduce land access for youth, women tenants and subjects

ÿ Could increase land rights of farmers-- +

Through negotiation, tree cropping can increase land rights for migrants.

some use

30

37 GhanaStatisticalService(2008):GLSS4:Mainreportp.63.

Details of the change initiated by the intervention Details & risks that may influence effectiveness of this channel

Results by Transmission Channel RatingRisks that the results will not be achieved

Quality Information and analysis

Ass

ets

Physical

Improvement of cashew farms through pruning and thinning.

++ excellent

Private sector will invest in increased processing capacities in the country.

+ + excellent

FinancialDirect international investment in cashew processing.

+ +

ÿ Little margin for processing companies

ÿ High labour costs in the country.

good

Acc

ess

Access to informationProcessing companies directly inform farmers about prices and quality requirements.

+ good

Access to income sources outside the season

Generation of income during the lean season.

+ + good

Access to credit for farmers

Well structured cooperatives may access credit using cashew trees as possible collateral.

0

ÿ Depends mainly on the formation of cooperatives

ÿ Traditional land rights make banks reluctant to give credit.

some use

Using investments and working capital to access credit.

+ some use

Access to market for processors

Increase access to markets for national processing companies.

+ some use

Access to market for farmers

Farmers already have access to markets. 0 adequate

Access to markets for cashew apples. + adequate

Tran

sfer

s

Levies (and bribes)

Municipal/district assemblies are charging levies per bag of raw cashew nuts leaving the assemblies.

- some use

Attempt by COCOBOD – Quality Control Division to collect levies on quality certification.

- some use

Private remittances Not significant. 0 poor

Key for module 3 ++ + 0 - --

Strength/direction of impact highly positive positive not significant negative highly negative

Quality information and analysis excellent good adequate some use poor

Significance: of the risks and assumption to results moderate high extreme

31

33 4 Analysis of Stakeholders’ and Target Groups’ Capabilities

Thestakeholdersandtargetgroupshaveallbeenreviewedandthepositiveresultsoftheprojectregardingtheirvariouscapa-bilitieshavebeenevaluated.Therearefiverecognisedcapabil-itiesforescapingoravoidingpoverty(accordingtotheOECD/DAC capability framework).

Theseare:ÿ economiccapabilitiestouseassetstoattain

andpursueasustainablelivelihoodÿ humancapabilities(i.e.includinghealthand

participationincommunitylife)ÿ capabilitiestoparticipatepoliticallyÿ socioculturalcapabilitiesforinclusioninsocial

andculturallifeÿ protective/securitycapabilitiestolessen

vulnerabilityandtowithstandeconomicshocks.

Thefollowingmainoutcomescanbeexpectedwithregardtostakeholderandtargetgroupcapabilities.

4.1 Smallholders (extremely poor–, poor- and better off – cashew farmers)

Thesmallholdercashewfarmerscouldexperienceeconomic gainsinthemediumtermthroughincreased income levelsduetoincreasedproductionlevelsthroughtheadoptionofgoodagriculturalpracticesandpossibleexpansionoftheirfarms.Nonpoorandbetter-off farmers will probably be the first to adapt new agricultural practicesandwillhavethenecessaryfinancialresourcesandlabourcapacitytoim-plementthem.Thepoorfarmerswillfacemoreconstraints.The remote farmers and the poorest farmers living in the poverty pockets will probably lack labour capacity and financial resources, may be marginalisedbyextensionservicesifnotespeciallytargeted,andhavelessaccesstoin-formationandbetterprices.Cooperatives could help to include poorer farmersintheprojectastheyfacilitatethetransferofgoodagriculturalpracticesfrombetter-offfarmerstopoorerfarmersandsupportthemingainingaccesstoin-formationandmarkets.Uptonow,wellorganisedcoopera-tives have had higher impact on prices and income than the linkage to processing companies.Theyhoweverfacetheriskofbadmanagement.

Apositiveeconomicimpactonemploymentcouldbeexpect-edfor the poor and extremely poor ontheirownproductionsystemsoras workers for other economic agents. Outsourcingpartsoftheprocessingcycle(crackingthenuts;onlythepeel-ingisdoneattheprocessingcompany)andsellingtofarmers’cooperativescouldcreateadditionalemploymentandincome

forpoorfarmersandwomen.Howevertheselocalpre-proces-sorsmaynotfulfiltherequiredstandardsforhygieneandquality.

The establishment of local processing companiesintroducesnewbuyerstotheregionalcashewmarketandcreatesgreatercompetitiononthedemandside.Asmostofthecashewpro-ductionwillstillbemarketedbyinternationaltraders,nationalprocessingcompaniesconstituteonlyonealternativeforthecashewfarmerandwillnotcreatedependency.Theeffectwillbeincreasedbargaining powerandabetterpositionagainsttradersespeciallyforthebetter-offandrichcashewfarmers,andthoseorganisedincooperatives(improved sociocultural capabilities).ThePIAteamhadnoinformationonthesocialsituationofwomen(e.g.iftheyweremarriedandsupportingormaintainingafamily,oriftheyhavechildren,oriftheyaremainlyyoungsinglewomenwithoutchildren).Itwouldbeinterestingtoincludethesegroupsofemployeesinthetargetgroupanalysis,toobservetheindirectpovertyeffectsoftheiremploymentviathemonitoringsystem.

Somefarmersindicatedthatcashewproductionisveryim-portantforthemasitcreatesaccess to income outside of the normal harvesting seasoninOctoberandNovember,andaftertheirexpenditureforChristmasfestivities.Thefarmers’capabilities to lessen vulnerabilityandtowith-standincomefluctuationswillbeincreased,ascashewpro-videsout-of-season income and thereby more regular in-come during the year.Nationalprocessingwouldprovideatleastatemporaryfilterforchangesonworldmarketpricesandreducethevulnerabilityofcashewfarmers.

Ifthesmallholdersarenotsupportedbyprojectinterventions,sociocultural exclusion and inequality would increase incomparisontotheothersegmentsofthetargetgroups.Evenifthesmallholder’sinterestsareconsideredintheprojectim-plementation,additionalconstructionmeasures–forexampletheconstructionoffeederroadsbytheDistrictAssemblies–wouldsupportthepositivesocioculturalimpact.Thisisbe-causecurrentlythereislittleornoroadaccessandotherin-frastructureintheremoteplaceswheremostoftheextremepoorcashewfarmerslive.

4.2 Commercial and rich cashew farmers

Commercialandrichcashewfarmersareexpectedtoimprovetheireconomiccapabilities,astheywillenjoyincreasesinpro ductivity, employment and income.Theywillprobablytrytoexpandtheirproductionareas.Howevertheseimpactsoncommercialoperatorsmaywidentheinequalitiesintheprojectzone.Improvingtheinequalitylevelintheprojectzonesmayrequiremitigatingsocialpolicieswhichmightbebeyondtheproject’sinterventions.

Table 4.1: Worlkload during the lifecycle of woman and men in rural Ghana

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

010 20 30 40 50 60 70 807

Hou

rs

Men Woman

Age

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

010 20 30 40 50 60 70 807

Hou

rs

Men Woman

Age

Total Work Paid Work

34 4.3 Hired labour (farmers with no cashew farms, sea-sonal migrants, employees in the processing centre)

Intheshortandmediumterms,thevariouscategoriesofhiredlabourprofitfromthegrowthofthecashewsector,strength-eningtheireconomiccapabilitiesthroughseasonalemploy-mentoncashewfarmsandmorestableworkatprocessingcompanies.Howevertheemployeesintheprocessingcompa-nieswhohavebeenofferedtheopportunitytoimprovetheireconomicsituationwouldhavetocopewiththevarioustrain-ingprogrammestoincreasetheirlabourproductivity.Onepossiblenegativehumanimpactcouldbefamilyormaritalproblemsamongseasonalmigrantswhohavelefttheirori-ginalsettlements.

4.4 Women (women employed in processing companies, women in cashew producing households and female-headed households)

Womencouldimprovetheireconomiccapabilitiesthroughincreased household incomes fromcashewproductionandwillbeeconomicallyempoweredthroughemploymentinprocessingactivities.

Theincreaseofnationalprocessingcapacitiescouldcreateem-ploymentforabout2000persons,mainlypoorwomenwithlittleformaleducation(see chapter 3.1 on page 28).Theemploy-mentisonaday-to-daybasis.Besidescreatingemploymentandincome,thisalsoreducestheirvulnerabilityassomecompanies(tobemonitored)coverthehealthinsuranceofemployeeswhoworkformorethanthreemonthsinthecompany.

Womenincashewfarminghouseholdsprofitfromtheincreasedincomeandwell-beingofthefamily.Thedistributionofin-comewithinthehouseholdshouldbemonitored.Iftargetedwellbytheproject,somewomenmayevenimproveproduc-tivityontheirowncashewplantations.Apossiblenegativehumanimpactcouldalsobethattheintensivelabourburdenonthesewomencoupledwithotherdomesticchorescouldreducethetimespentontheirownplots(insituationswherewomenownland).Ariskmaybethatthecommercialisationofagriculturecom-binedwiththeadaptionofthetraditionallandrightssystemtothiscommercialisationcouldreducewomen’saccesstoandsecurityoflandinthelongterm.38Thisshouldbeobservedinthequalitativesurveysofthebaselineandmonitoringsystemastherewasdifferentandcontradictinginformationregardingthisissue.

4.5 Children (under 15 years)

Childrenwillbenefitfromtheirfamilies’higherincomes.Thismaycreateopportunitiesforbetternutritionandhealth.Thechildrenmayhaveaccesstobettereducationbecausetheycanaffordtosupplementeducationalandtextbookfeespaidbytheirparents.Thiswillimprovetheirhumancapabilitylevelinthelongterm.

Howevercashewfarmingcouldincreasetheworkloadonchil-drenandmayleadtomanydroppingoutofschool.

Non-linear estimation using Ghana living standards survey 4 (1998–1999), Tsukada, Raquel and Silva Elydia (2009)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

010 20 30 40 50 60 70 807

Hou

rs

Men Woman

Age

Unpaid Work

35

38 PersonalcommunicationwithProf.Diaby-Penzlin;andDFID(2001).InternationalFinanceCorporationandMinistryforWomenandChildrenAf-fairs,Ghana(2007),p.12.

4.6 Municipal/district assemblies

Themunicipal/districtassembliesmaybenefitslightlyinthemediumtermthroughtheleviescollectedon80kgtareweightofrawcashewnutsleavingtheassemblies.Atthepoliticalcapabilitylevel,theinternallygeneratedrevenuefromtheseleviesshouldbeutilisedtoprovidephysicalprojectstosup-porttheagriculturalsector,e.g.rehabilitationoffeederroadsandconstructionofdistrictmarkets.Nonetheless,thebudgetcouldsufferifthetargetedproducersarenotsupportedthroughthesustainableprovisionofinfrastructure,anenablingenvi-ronmentandaccesstomarketinformation.Theprojectshoulddiscussruraldevelopmentissueswithmunicipal/districtassem-bliesanddebatetheirroleinthevaluechainapproach.

4. 7 Other stakeholder and intermediaries

Theassessmentoftheintermediariesandimplementingpart-nersreferstotheenhancementoftheircapabilitiestobettersupporttheprojectinterventionandcontributetoachievingtheproject’sgoalsandobjectives.Italsoreferstowhethertheprojectwouldbeacceptedandintegratedintothesocietiesofthetargetedimplementationareas.

Mod

ule 4:

Tabl

e su

mm

aris

ing th

e im

pact

of t

he p

roje

ct cap

abilitie

s of

sta

keho

lder

s an

d ta

rget

gro

ups

Stak

ehol

ders

Outc

omes

in te

rms

of c

apab

iliti

es

Qual

ity

ofin

form

atio

nEc

onom

ic (+

/-)

Hum

an (+

/-)

Politi

cal (

+/-)

Soci

o-cu

ltur

al (+

/-)

Prot

ecti

ve s

ecur

ity

(+/-

)

shor

t te

rmm

ediu

m te

rmsh

ort t

erm

med

ium

term

shor

t te

rmm

ediu

m

term

shor

t te

rmm

ediu

m te

rmsh

ort

term

med

ium

term

Mai

n Ta

rget

Gro

ups

Extr

emel

y po

or c

ashe

w fa

rmer

s0

0+ Pric

es0

00

00

- ?

Mar

gina

lisa

tion

0

0po

or

Poor

cas

hew

farm

ers

0+ ?

Pric

es0

+ ?

Know

ledg

e

good

agr

. pr

actice

s

00

0+ ?

(If c

oop. w

ere

prom

oted

)0+

+ ?

mod

erat

e

Bett

er-o

ff –

sm

all-

scal

e to

med

i-um

cas

hew

farm

ers

0

+ +

Inco

me

prod

uctivi

ty

Pric

es

0

+ Know

ledg

e

good

agr

. pr

actice

s

00

0

+ Coop

erat

ives

/ba

rgai

ning

pow

er

Acc

ess to

info

0

+ Bet

ter d

istr

ibu-

tion

of i

ncom

e ov

er th

e ye

ar

satisf

acto

ry

Com

mer

cial

and

ri

ch c

ashe

w fa

rmer

s0

+ +

Inco

me

prod

uctivi

ty

Pric

es

0+

+ Know

ledg

e

good

agr

. pr

actice

s

00

0

+ Coop

erat

ives

/ba

rgai

ning

pow

er

Acc

ess to

info

0

+ Bet

ter d

istr

ibu-

tion

of i

ncom

e ov

er th

e ye

ar

satisf

acto

ry

Poor

farm

ers

in B

rong

-Aha

fo (n

o ca

shew

) wor

king

as

hire

d la

bour

0++ Se

ason

al

empl

oym

ent

00

00

00

00+

som

e us

e

Seas

onal

mig

rant

s0+

+ Seas

onal

em

ploy

men

t0

00

00

00

0so

me us

e

Empl

oyee

s in

the

proc

essi

ng

com

pani

es (m

ainl

y w

omen

)+

+ +

Empl

oym

ent

00+

00

00

0+ Hea

lth

insu

ranc

ego

od

Wom

en in

cas

hew

pro

duci

ng

hous

ehol

ds0

+ Fam

ily

inco

me

0- W

orkl

oad

00

0- ?

Redu

ced

acce

ss to

land

?0+

+ Bet

ter d

istr

ibu-

tion

of i

ncom

e ov

er th

e ye

ar

poor

Fem

ale-

head

ed h

ouse

hold

s (r

ural

: wit

h ca

shew

? ur

ban:

as

empl

oyee

s in

pro

cess

ing?

) 0

+ ?

00

00

0+- ?

Redu

ced

acce

ss to

land

?0+

0+

poor

Child

ren

(15

year

s ol

d)0

0-

+ Bet

ter

nutr

itio

n?0

00

00

0so

me us

e

36 37

Stak

ehol

ders

Outc

omes

in te

rms

of c

apab

iliti

es

Qual

ity

ofin

form

atio

nEc

onom

ic (+

/-)

Hum

an (+

/-)

Politi

cal (

+/-)

Soci

o-cu

ltur

al (+

/-)

Prot

ecti

ve s

ecur

ity

(+/-

)

shor

t te

rmm

ediu

m te

rmsh

ort t

erm

med

ium

term

shor

t te

rmm

ediu

m

term

shor

t te

rmm

ediu

m te

rmsh

ort

term

med

ium

term

Mai

n Ta

rget

Gro

ups

Chie

fs (w

ith

cash

ew?)

0+?

00+

00

0+0+

0+0+

good

Mun

icip

al/d

istr

ict A

ssem

blie

s0+

+0

00

00

?0+

0+go

od

Proc

essi

ng c

ompa

nies

0++

++ Kn

owle

dge

00

0+ +

Nat

. & in

t. Net

-wor

ks0

?ad

equa

te

Trad

ers

and

agen

ts0

0+0

00

00

?0

0go

od

Expo

rter

s +

++0

00

00

00

0go

od

MOF

A-C

ashe

w D

evel

opm

ent

Proj

ect &

Dis

tric

t Agr

icul

tura

l De-

velo

pmen

t Uni

ts0+

0+0+

0+0

00+

+?0+

0+ex

cellen

t

Non

-Gov

ernm

enta

l Or

gani

sati

ons

0+0+

0+0+

00

0++?

0+0+

good

Impl

emen

ting

par

tner

s0+

++0+

0+0

00+

++0

0ex

cellen

t

Key

for m

odul

e 4

+++

0+0

---

+ ?

- ?

Stre

ngth

/ di

rect

ion

of im

pact

Hig

hly po

sitive

Posi

tive

Som

e wha

t pos

itiv

eNeu

tral

or n

ot sig

nific

ant

Neg

ativ

eHig

hly ne

gative

Sign

ifica

nce

of ri

skVe

ry lo

w

Low

Low

Mod

erat

e Hig

hVe

ry h

igh

Qual

ity of

info

rmat

ion

and

anal

ysis

Exc

elle

ntGoo

dSa

tisf

acto

ryM

oder

ate

Som

e us

ePo

or

36 37

Contribution to MDG 1: Reduction of extreme poverty and hunger

Table 5.1: International targets and indicators

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Target 1.A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day

ÿ Proportion of population below USD 1 (PPP) per day ÿ Poverty gap ratio ÿ Share of poorest quintile in national consumption

Target 1.B: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people

ÿ Growth rate of GDP per person employed ÿ Employment-to-population ratio ÿ Proportion of employed people living belowUSD 1 (PPP) per day ÿ Proportion of own-account and contributing family workers

in total employment

Target 1.C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

ÿ Prevalence of underweight children under-five years of age ÿ Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy con-

sumption

Indicators should be monitored differentiated by sex and urban/rural areas

Table 5.2: National indicators:


Indicator: ÿ Reduce poverty from 39% to 32% ÿ Reduce extreme poverty from 27% to 21% ÿ Reduce poverty among food farmers from 59% to 46%.

38 5 Analysis of the expected Results in Relation to the MDGs and National Level Strategic Goals

CashewpromotionhasthepotentialtocontributetotheachievementofseveralMillennium Development Goals(MDGs)andthesuccessfulimplementationofthenationalstrategyforreducingpoverty.Sincethisstudyhasbeenun-dertakensoearlyinrelationtotheintervention,thereare

someassumptionswhichmustgointoeventhesimplestas-sessmentofwhetheracontributionwillbemadetoachiev-ingtheMDGs.Eveniftheinterventiondoesnotaddressex-tremepovertyandhunger,itmainlycontributestoMDG 1(Eradicateextremepovertyandhunger),MDG 8(Developaglobalpartnershipfordevelopment),andtoalesserdegreeMDG 3(Promotegenderequalityandempowermentofwomen)andMDG 7(Ensureenvironmentalsustainability).Tables 5.1 and 5.2summarisethecontributionofthisinterven-tiontotheachievementoftheMDGsandnationalstrategicgoalsasenshrinedintheGPRS IandII.

39 Creationofwealththroughtheemployment,priceandpro-ductivitytransmissionchannelswillpromotepro-poorgrowthandcontributetoMDG 1.Theprojectwillnotreducehungerandextremepoverty,asitneithertargetsthepoorestareasnorthepoorestfarmers.Howeveritpromoteslabourintensiveagri-culturalgrowth.Itincreasestheincomeofthosejustaboveorbelowthepovertyline.IndoingsoitreducespovertyinruralareasaspreviouslyachievedinGhana.Theprojectwillpro-videdecentemploymentinagro-processingindustriesinruralareaswithremunerationaboveUSD1perday.Theprojectwillnottargetthepoorestquintileinnationalconsumption,butwillreduceinequalitybyincreasingincomeinruralareasandinthelessprivilegedpartsoftheGhanaiansociety.

Theprojectdoesnotaddressfoodfarmers,butpromotesex-portorientedagricultureandcashcrops.Howeverannualcropsusedasintercropsincashewfarmsprovideadditionalproductsthateventuallydoincreaseincomeandlessenthevulnerabilityoffoodfarmers.Theprojectwillprobablynothaveasignificantimpactonthelevelofhungerandthenumberofunderweightchildren.

Contribution to MDG 3: promote gender equality and empowerment of womenBasicallyitisanticipatedthattheprocessingcompanieswillemploywomentoprocesstherawcashewnuts.Thistransmis-sionchannelwouldcontributetotheireconomicempowermentandincreasetheirstatusathomeandinsociety.Womenfarm-erswillbetargetedfortrainingingoodagriculturalpracticesandfemalestaffwillbeselectedforextensionservices.Thissupportsfemalecashewfarmersandcontributestowardsmoregenderequalityintheagriculturalsector.

Contribution to MDG 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Incorporatingcashewtreesinthefarmingecosystemsensurestheintegrationofeconomicactivitywithnaturalresourcemanagementandcontributestocarbonsequestrationandcombatsdesertification.Theprojectstrengthensthecashewsectorassuch,butdoesnotstrictlypromotetheplantationofnewcashewtrees.

Contribution to MDG 8: Develop a global partnership for development.Improvingthebusinessenvironmentwillincreasetherateofinvestmentinthecountry.Investorswillhaveconfidenceininvestingintheeconomysinceanenablingenvironmentwillbecreatedtoconductbusinesswithoutfearandcodeswillensurefairnessandjustice.

Mod

ule 5:

Im

pact

sum

mar

y ta

ble

Stra

tegi

c De

velo

pmen

t Goa

lsIm

pact

of A

fric

an C

ashe

w in

itia

tive

Sour

ces

of

Info

rmat

ion

and

Relia

bility

of

Info

rmat

ion

MDG

GPRS

Posi

tive

Ele

men

tsRi

sk

Ass

essm

ents

STM

T

MDG

1

Erad

icat

e ex

trem

e po

vert

y

and

hung

er. I

ndic

ator

: > R

educ

e po

vert

y fr

om 3

9% to

32%

> Red

uce ex

trem

e po

vert

y

from

27%

to 21%

> Red

uce po

vert

y am

ong fo

od

farm

ers fr

om 5

9% to

46

Stra

tegi

c or

ient

atio

n:

Crea

tion

of w

ealth fo

r pro

-poo

r gro

wth

Goal

: ÿ

To fo

ster

an at

trac

tive

env

iron

men

t and

pro

mot

e in

vest

men

t ÿ

To in

tens

ify ad

just

men

t withi

n bu

sine

sses

ÿTo

incr

ease

the em

ploy

men

t int

ensi

fy of g

row

th.

Indi

cato

r: ÿ

Rat

e of

inve

stm

ent

ÿNum

ber o

f job

s cr

eate

d ÿ

Incr

ease

in in

com

e.

Prod

ucer

s m

ay o

btai

n be

-tw

een

10 -2

0% in

crea

se in

pr

ices

.

Incr

ease

d pr

oduc

tivi

ty a

nd

inco

me

of fa

rmer

s.

Add

itio

nal j

obs

crea

ted

in

the

proc

essi

ng c

ompa

nies

an

d pr

oduc

tion

sec

tor.

Very

litt

le m

argi

n fo

r pr

oces

sing

com

pani

es.

Requ

ired

wor

king

cap

ital

to

exp

and

the

nati

onal

pr

oces

sing

cap

acit

ies.

Bush

fire

s, in

crea

sed

by

clim

atic

cha

nge.

+ ++

GPRS

I &

GPRS

II.

Gran

t pr

opos

al

++

00

0 +

0 +

MDG

2.

Targ

et: E

nsur

e pr

imar

y ed

ucat

ion

for a

llIn

dica

tor: P

ropo

rtio

n of

pup

ils who

co

mpl

ete pr

imar

y ed

ucat

ion

Stra

tegi

c or

ient

atio

n: M

ore ra

pid ac

cess

to b

asic

soc

ial s

ervi

ces.

Goal

: To de

velo

p pr

esch

ool e

duca

tion

and

pro

mot

e co

mpl

etio

n of

ele

men

tary

and

prim

ary ed

ucat

ion.

00

MDG

3.

Targ

et: P

rom

ote ge

nder

equ

ality an

d em

power

wom

enIn

dica

tor: E

lim

inat

e ge

nder

dis

parity

at

all le

vels

Stra

tegi

c or

ient

atio

n: S

ocia

l wel

fare

, pre

vent

ion

and m

anag

emen

t of r

isks

.

Goal

: To pr

omot

e ge

nder

equ

ity an

d eq

uality

.

Indi

cato

r: L

evel

of i

nvol

vem

ent o

f wom

en a

nd ext

ent t

o whi

ch

thei

r act

ivitie

s ar

e ta

ken in

to con

side

ration

.

Prov

isio

ns m

ade fo

r in-

volv

ing wom

en in

pr

oces

sing

act

ivitie

s.

Sele

ctio

n of

fem

ale st

aff

for a

gric

ultu

ral e

xten

sion

an

d ta

rget

ing on

fem

ale

farm

ers.

Insu

ffici

ent t

rain

ings

sp

ecifi

c to

wom

en a

nd

supp

orting

thei

r cou

rses

.+

+

MDG

4.

Targ

et: R

educ

e ch

ild m

orta

lity

Indi

cato

r: R

educ

e th

e un

der-

five

mor

tality

rat

e by

two-

thirds

Stra

tegi

c or

ient

atio

n: M

ore ra

pid ac

cess

to b

asic

soc

ial s

ervi

ces.

Goal

:To im

prov

e m

ater

nal a

nd in

fant

-juv

enile he

alth

.

Indi

cato

r: ÿ

Vacc

inat

ion le

vels

ÿW

eigh

t pro

files

(wei

ght/

age ra

tio)

of c

hild

ren ag

ed 0 to

5.

00

MDG

5.

Targ

et: Im

prov

e m

ater

nal h

ealth

Indi

cato

r: M

ater

nal m

orta

lity

rat

e is

re

duce

d by

thre

e-qu

arte

rs

Stra

tegi

c or

ient

atio

n: M

ore ra

pid ac

cess

to b

asic

soc

ial s

ervi

ces.

Goal

:To im

prov

e m

ater

nal a

nd in

fant

-juv

enile he

alth

.

Indi

cato

r: P

ropo

rtio

n of

birth

s at

tend

ed b

y sk

illed

per

sonn

el.

00

MDG

6.

Targ

et: C

omba

t HIV

/AID

S, m

alar

ia

and ot

her d

isea

ses

Indi

cato

r: The

spr

ead of

HIV

/AID

S,

mal

aria

and

oth

er m

ajor

dis

ease

s is

ha

lted

Stra

tegi

c or

ient

atio

n: M

ore ra

pid ac

cess

to b

asic

soc

ial s

ervi

ces.

Indi

cato

r: ÿ

Sani

tation

cov

erag

e ra

te m

aint

aine

d ÿ

Inci

denc

e of

HIV

(AID

S).

00

40

Stra

tegi

c De

velo

pmen

t Goa

lsIm

pact

of A

fric

an C

ashe

w in

itia

tive

Sour

ces

of

Info

rmat

ion

and

Relia

bility

of

Info

rmat

ion

MDG

GPRS

Posi

tive

Ele

men

tsRi

sk

Ass

essm

ents

STM

T

MDG

7.

Targ

et: E

nsur

e en

viro

nmen

tal s

us-

tain

ability

Indi

cato

rs: T

he p

rinc

iple

s of

sus

tain

-ab

le d

evel

opm

ent a

re in

tegr

ated

into

na

tion

al p

olic

y an

d th

e cu

rren

t tre

nd

of lo

sing

env

iron

men

tal r

esou

rces

is

reve

rsed

Stra

tegi

c or

ient

atio

n: M

ore ra

pid ac

cess

to b

asic

soc

ial s

ervi

ces

Targ

et:

ÿEn

sure

impr

oved

acc

ess to

app

ropr

iate

, de

scen

t ara

ble la

nd.

ÿIm

prov

e th

e ru

ral a

nd u

rban

env

iron

men

t.In

dica

tor: P

ropo

rtio

n of

the ur

ban an

d ru

ral p

opul

atio

n with ac

cess

to la

nd.

Plan

ting

of c

ashe

w tr

ees

may

hel

p to

com

bat d

e-se

rtifi

cation

and

con

trib

-ut

e to

veg

etat

ive co

ver.

Bush

fire

s0 +

0 +

GPRS

I &

GPRS

II.

Gran

t pr

opos

alM

DG 8

.Ta

rget

: Dev

elop

a glo

bal p

artn

ersh

ip

for d

evel

opm

ent

Indi

cato

rs:

> Sat

isfa

ctio

n le

vel r

egar

ding

the

prin

cipl

es of g

ood go

vern

ance

> Lev

el of p

ublic as

sist

ance

for

dev

elop

men

t

Stra

tegi

c or

ient

atio

n: G

ood go

vern

ance

and

dec

entr

alis

ed,

part

icip

ator

y de

velo

pmen

t .Ta

rget

: To ex

tend

judi

cial

ref

orm

and

impr

ove

the bu

sine

ss env

iron

men

t. In

dica

tor: R

ate of

inve

stm

ent.

Buildi

ng of t

rade

cap

acity

(Ind

. 8.9)

Publ

ic –

Priv

ate -P

artn

er-

ship

app

roac

h fo

r the

im

plem

enta

tion

of t

he

proj

ect.

Prom

otio

n of

fair tr

ade

cert

ifica

tion

and

direc

t m

arke

t lin

kage

s link

ages

.

In cas

e an

y pa

rtne

r doe

s no

t sho

w com

mitm

ent

to th

e pr

ojec

t, oth

er

part

s of

the ch

ain m

ay

be a

ffec

ted.

+ +

+ +

Key

for m

odul

e 5

+++

0 +

0-

--

Degr

ee/d

irec

tion

of i

mpa

cthi

ghly

pos

itiv

epo

sitive

som

e wha

t pos

itiv

eno

t sig

nific

ant

nega

tive

high

ly n

egat

ive

41

44 6 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

ÿ The project does not target the poorest regions or poor-est farmers of Ghana since most cashew farmers and cashew farming areas seem to be at a rather similar pov-erty level as that of the national average of 29%,whilemostpovertyinGhanaisconcentratedinthenorthernpartofthecountry(UpperEast,UpperWestandNorthernre-gions)wherepovertyincidencereachesupto88%,whichisequivalentto40%ofoverallpovertyinGhana.Theregionwithmajorcashewproduction–Brong-Ahafo–contrib-utes10%tonationalpoverty.

ÿ Cashew farmers were not seen by the interview partners as the poorest farmers in the Brong-Ahafo region.EveniftheinformationobtainedbythePIAteamisnotstatisti-callyrepresentative,itindicatesthatcashewfarmersinBrong-Ahafotendtohavebiggerfarmlandthantheaver-agefarmerinBrong-Ahafo.TheresultsofthelivelihoodstudybytheMinistryofFoodandAgriculturesuggestthatonlymediumandbetter-offfarmersproducecashew.

ÿ Multi-dimensional poverty in the region: Besideseco-nomicpoverty,manyfarmerssufferfromhealthproblemsandareconstrainedbylow education levels.About12%oftherespondentsinterviewedfortheGhanaLivingStand-ardssurveyreportedthattheyhadtostoptheirregulareconomicactivitiesbecausetheyarecurrentlyill.Thedis-tance of a village from marketing centresiscriticaltothepovertysituationofhouseholds,asidentifiedbytheparticipatorypovertymappingsofthedistricts.Iftheprojectwantstoincludethepoorerfarmers,itshouldtrytotargettheseremoteareasandusepovertyasonecri-terionfortheselectionoftheprojectregions.

ÿ Onethirdofcashewproductionmaycomefrombiggerfarms.Thesefarmersarelikelytobenefitfromlargermarketingopportunitiescreatedbytheproject.

ÿ The general project idea to increase rural incomes via export crops seems viable.Farmersgrowingexportcrops,mainlycocoa,havesignificantlyreducedtheirpovertylevelsoverthepast15yearsinGhana.HowevercriticalreviewsofGhana’sagriculturalpoliciesshowthatthisexport-ori-entedagriculturalpolicyneglectstheproblemsandneedsofthefood-producingpoorernorthernpartofthecountry,therebyneglectingtheissueoffoodsecurityofthecountry(OECD DAC 2008).

ÿ Themajor effects on poverty reductionresultfromtheincrease of productivityofthecashewplantationsinthesmallholderfarmsandfromthecreation of employment in processing companies. Theprojectproposaloveresti-mates the potential of direct sales premiums,andun-derestimatesthepotentialoftheincreaseinproductivity.

ÿ Increase of cashew production will probably have ad-ditional poverty impacts through hired labour in cash-ew farms.Hencetheincreaseinproductionindirectlybenefitsthepoorandextremelypoorfarmersorseasonalmigrantsintheregion.

ÿ Cooperatives can play an important role in two ways: First,theycanachieve higher prices for raw cashew nuts, evenhigherthanthosepricesthatcouldbeachievedbylinkingfarmerstoprocessingcompanies.Second,cooper-ativescanbea vehicle to include poorer cashew farmersintheprojectandensurethattheyequallybenefitfromtheproject.Howevercooperativemanagementstructuresintheregion–withsomegoodexceptions–areveryweakandfacetheriskofmisuseofcooperativefunds.

ÿ ThePIAteamhadfoundno signs that small farmers will be driven out by big commercial plantations(‘there is enough land’);howeveritwasnotclarifiedifchangestothetraditionallandrightssystemcombinedwiththecom-mercialisationofagriculturemayreducetheaccessofvulnerablegroupstolandorincreaserentsfortenantsandsettlersorlong-termmigrantsworkingundersharecrop-pingconditionsandwhodonotownland.

45 6.2 Monitoring needs, information gaps and potential risks to be monitored

Theprojectshouldespeciallymonitortherisksandcriticalcom-ponentsthatmightjeopardiseitssuccess.Theseincludethesitua-tionofthepoorestfarmers,migrants,employmentopportunities(forthelandless,migrants,women),genderbias,landdistribution,processingproblems(efficienttechnologyandequipment,effi-ciencyoflabour)cooperativesandmarketdevelopment.Thefol-lowingfactsandfiguresshouldbeestablishedthroughabaselinesurveytoassesspovertyimpactsandmustbemonitoredduringprojectduration:

ÿ Povertystatusofcashewproducingfarmersdisaggregatedbyfarmsizeandproductivitylevelandothersocioeconom-icallyrelevantvariables(suchasage,gender,sexofhouse-holdhead,educationlevel,proximitytoroadsandmarkets,migration,formoflandtenure,etc.)andcomparisonofthesecashewproducingfarmerswiththeotherfarmersinthisregion.

ÿ Effectsofcashewproductionontheworkloadofwomenandonotheragriculturalactivitiesontheirownfarms.

ÿ Employmenteffectsofcasuallabouronfarmsandinprocess-ingbefore,duringandaftertheprojectperiod;disaggre-gatedbykeysocioeconomicvariablessuchasgender,age,background,education,placeofpermanentresidenceandoforigin,povertystatusofthelabourers,wages,regularityofpayment,jobsecurity,etc.

ÿ Pricemarginsandtheirdistributionalongthevaluechainandthedifferentmarketingchannels.

ÿ Existenceoffarmerbasedorganisationsandcooperativesorientedoncashewproduction,andselectedinformationontheiroperationandimpactoncashewproduction(number,sexandregionaldistributionofmembers,typeoforganisation,accountabilitymechanisms,implementa-tionofauditing,amountofcashewboughtandsoldbythecooperativeandpricesachieved,etc)

ÿ Distancetomarketsandtheiraccessibilityforfarmersbyroad.

ÿ Bushfiresaffectingthecashewplantations.

Thegeneralimpactmonitoringshouldensurethatthedataiscollected,processedandreportedcategorisedbysex,geograph-icalarea(region,district,andaccessibleversusremoteareas)andsocioeconomicgroups(poor,medium,rich)andwithre-gardtothetypeoflandownership.Thereshouldbespecialfocusontheeffectsonandopinionsofwomen.Thesecondarypovertyeffectsofemploymentincashewprocessingcompaniesshouldbefurtherexplored.ItisrecommendedthataPovertyImpactAssessmentbeconductedduringthemid-termevalua-tionoratthefinalevaluationattheendoftheproject’sfirstphase.Thisistoevaluate(basedontherealdatagatheredbytheM&E system)theproject’povertyoutcomesandtoverifythejudgementsandhypothesesofthisex-anteassessment.

6.2.1 Information gaps

ÿ Situationofthepoorestfarmersandpovertypockets.ÿ Landdistributionandsecurityoflandtenure,especially

situationoflong-termmigrantsorsettlers,andtheirac-cesstolandtenureandtreecropping.

ÿ Genderaspects:Incomedistributionwithinthehouse-holds,landsecurityforwomen,accessoffemale-headedhouseholdstocashew,etc.

46 6.2.2 Potential risks

ÿ Capacity gap –Nothavingenoughqualifiedstaffinthefieldtopromotemoreproductivity.

ÿ Financing risks–Insufficientsupplyofloanstoproces-sorsforcrucialinvestmentintoprocessingfactories.

ÿ High labour turnover and limited human capital–Highlabourturnoverintheprocessingcompanies(e.g. Mim Products Ltd., Kona Processing Ltd).

ÿ Affordability of farm inputs–Inputssuchascashewseedlings(grafts),pesticides,highlabourcostmaynotbeaffordabletothetargetgroups.

ÿ Uneven distribution of price gains–Processingcompa-niesnormallyreceivesmallmarginsfromtheiropera-tionsanditispossiblethatproducersmaynotobtainappreciablesharesoftheprofit,leadingtoreducedmotivationamongfarmers.

ÿ Volatility of market prices–Cashewpricestendtofluctuatedependingonworldmarketpriceswhichdestabilisestheentirevaluechain.

ÿ Price decreases in concordance with productivity gains–WithincreasingproductivityandgrowingsupplyontheGhanaiancashewmarket,pricesforrawcashewnutsmaydecline,evenifcompetitionfortherawproductincreasesneedforgoodbargainingpoweroffarmers/cooperatives.

ÿ Unclear situation of land tenure system–Commercial-isationofagriculturemayreducevulnerablegroups’ac-cesstoland(informationgap).

ÿ Bush fires–Althoughmostfarmershavebeentrainedtoconstructfirebeltstominimisebushfiresduetoneg-ligence,cashewfarmsarelostthroughbushfiresduringtheharmattanseason.

6.3 Recommendations

ÿ Increased attention to on-the-ground support for cash-ew farmers to increase productivity and promote good agricultural practices. Asincreasedproductivityisexpectedtohavemajoreffectsonthehouseholdincomesofcashewfarmingfamilies,thisworkstreamiscriticalfortheproject’spovertyoutcomes.SinceGhanahashadanumberofcash-ewfarmingpromotionprojects,the ACineedstobuildontheseprojects’successes,particularlyonthepovertyimpactsknownsofar.Inordertomultiplyandscaleuptheproject,thereisaneedforqualifiedstaffandintermediariestoim-plementtheprojectinthefield.Forinstance,MOFA’s Cashew Development ProjectandsomeNGOs(e.g. ADRA)arealreadyworkingintheregionssupportingcashewpro-duction.TheACishouldanalysehowitcancooperatewiththemandwhatwouldbethebestdivisionoflabouramongtheseexistinginitiatives.Itisrecommendedthatthe roles and expectations be clarifiedwithregardtoextensionservicesbetweentheprocessingcompanies,theCashew Development InitiativeandotherpossiblepartnerssuchastheCashew Development ProgrammeandMOFA.Thisisbecausetheprocessingcompanies’rolemaybelimitedtoprovidinginformationonqualityrequirementsandnotcoverintegralgoodagriculturalpractices.

ÿ Inclusive project strategy:Theprojectshoulddevelopastrategyandcriteriaonhowtoincludethepoorerfarmersinitsagriculturalextensionservices.Itshouldtrytotar-get these remote areasandusepovertyasonecriterionfortheselection of project regions.Projectstaffneedtobesensitisedinquestionsofpovertyrelevance,inclusionandgender.Thegoodexperiencesofpreviousprogrammeswithotherinstitutionsshouldbecontinuedandstepped

47

up(e.g.collaborationwithdecentralisedgovernmentex-tensionstaff).AcriticalassessmentshouldbemadeastowhethertheUpperWestandNorthernregionscouldbeincludedasprojectregions(analysingcurrentcashewpro-ductionperregion).

ÿ Gender Sensitivity:Ensureduringimplementationthatwomenproducingcashewandfemale-headedhouseholdsarenotmarginalised.Theprojectsetsprocessaswellasimpactindicatorstoensurethatwomenareincludedinprojectactivitiesandwillalsobenefitfromtheproject.Theprojectshouldpayspecialattentiontofulfillingthesetargets,andmonitorcomplianceaftertwoyears.Itisrec-ommendedthatagenderstudybecommissionedinthesecondyearoftheprojecttodeepentheunderstandingofgenderrelationsincashewfarming.

ÿ Cooperatives as vehicles to include poorer farmer:Theprojectshouldreflectonandcriticallydiscusstheprosandconsofpromotingfarmer-basedorganisationsandco-operativesintheirprojectstrategy.Cooperativescanbeeffectivevehiclestoincludepoorfarmers.Howeverspe-cialattentionshouldbepaidtostrengtheningcooperativeassociationmanagementstructuresandimprovingaccounta-bilitysystems.

ÿ Access to information:Informationsystemsaimedatin-formingfarmersonpricesandmarketcriteriashouldtakeintoaccountthatabout66%ofwomenandabout38%ofmenintheruralforestzoneareilliterate.Mostfarmers,eventhepoor,haveradios.Howeveraccesstoinformationviaradioisconstrainedbythefactthatnearlyeverydis-tricthasadifferentradiostation.

ÿ TheGovernmentofGhanaandtheregionalandmunici-palbodiesmustcreateanenablingenvironmenttoen-couragecashewprocessingcompaniestoplaymoreactiverolesintheeconomicactivityoftheruralcommunities(e.g.supportindifferentwaystomakethemmorecom-petitiveasinthecaseofNigeria).

49 List of Acronyms

ACi AfricanCashewinitiative

ACA AfricanCashewAlliance

CDP CashewDevelopmentProgram

DFID DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment

DPCU DistrictPlanningCoordinatingUnit

FGP FarmGatePrice

FOB FreeonBoard(Price)

GLSS GhanaLivingStandardsSurvey

GNC NewGhanaianCedi

GPRS GrowthandPovertyReductionStrategy

GSS GhanaStatisticalService

GIZ GesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeitGmbH(GermanInternationalCooperation)

MDG MillenniumDevelopmentGoals

MOFA MinistryofFoodandAgriculture

NGO Non-GovernmentalOrganisation

OECD DAC EconomicCo-operationandDevelopment;DevelopmentAssistanceCommittee

PIA PovertyImpactAssessment

PPG Pro-PoorGrowth

PPMED Policy,Planning,MonitoringandEvaluationDirectorate

RCN RawCashewNut

SRID Statistical,ResearchandInformationDirectorate

USD UnitedStatesDollars

Glossary

Abunu: acustomarysharecontractarrangementbywhichtheharvestorthelandisdividedintotwoparts–oneforthelandlord,oneforthetenant.

Abusa anoldercustomarycontractarrangementbywhichsharesineitherthecroporthelandaredividedintothreeparts;andthetenantreceivestwo-thirdsofthecropinreturnfordevelopingthewhole.

Tenant apersonwhoisgrantedtherighttouseanotherperson’sland(orapartofit)underagreedterms.

50

Literature

Coulombe, Harold, Wodon, Quentin (2007):Poverty, Livelihoods and access to basic services in Ghana, Partialandpreliminarydraftforreview.UpdateJune11,2007,WorldBank.

DFID Ghana’s Rural Livelihoods Program (2001):Land security and the poor in Ghana. Is there a way forward? A land sector scoping study.By:LizAldenWilyandDanielHammond.

Ghana Statistical Service (2007):Pattern and Trends of Poverty in Ghana 1991-2006.Accra.

Ghana Statistical Service (2008):Ghana Living Standards Survey – Report of the Fifth Round (GLSS 5). Accra,September2008.

GIZ Support for Decentralisation Reform Program (n.y.):District Poverty Profiling and Mapping –TrainingManual.Accra.

Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate (2007):Preliminary livelihood study for MOFA Outcome and Impact Indicators and Data Base.Draftdocument.Fieldstudy2006.StudyelaboratedbyLaurentChazee,M&EAdvisorPPMED/MOFA.

OECD DAC (2007):A practical guide to ex-ante Poverty Impact Assessment – promoting Pro-Poor-Growth.Paris.

OECD DAC (2008):Business For Development. Ghana – Agriculture Is Becoming A Business.ByDeniseWolter.Paris.

Tsukada, Raquel and Silva Elydia (2009):Age and Gender Bias in Workloads during the Lifecycle: Evidence from Rural Ghana.UNPolicyGenreforInclusiveGrowth;one-pagerNo.88,Brasilia.

World Bank (n.y):Poverty and Social Impact Assessment (PSIA) on Economic Transformation of the Agricultural Sector. Accra.

International Finance Corporation and Ministry for Women and Children Affairs, Ghana (2007):Gender and Economic Growth Assessment for Ghana 2007 – A gender perspective on legal, institutional and administrative barriers to investment and economic growth in Ghana. SurveyimplementedbyEagleGroup,EditedbyMaryAgbol.Accra,Ghana.

Currency Exchange Rates and Calculations of Land Sizes (as of 20th of September 2009)

1 New Ghanaian Cedi (GNC) = 10 000 Old Ghanaian Cedi (GHC)

1 US-Dollar (USD) = 1.4714 731

New Ghanaian Cedi (GNC)Old Ghanaian Cedi (GHC)

1 Euro (EUR) = 2.17 New Ghanaian Cedi (GNC)

1 USD (US-Dollar) = 0.6799 Euro (EUR)

1 Acre ≈ 0.4 ha

1 ha ≈ 2.5 acre

Inthefollowingstudy,allpricesarequotedeitherinUSDorGNC.

Team members: Seth Osei- Akoto and Claudia Gottmann

Day Name Place

Monday, 7 September

Shakti Pal – Business Advisor (Technoserve) Accra

Mr Samuel Asante- Mensah (Project Manager) and Mr Anthony Mainoo- ADRA/MIDA Agric Project

Accra, ADRA Office

Peter Keller, Team Leader , GIZ- ACi Accra, GIZ Office

Tuesday, 8 September

Ms. Audrey, GIZ, SfDR. Accra, GIZ Office

Prof. Friederike Diaby-Pentzlin, Internal legal advisor, House of Chiefs Accra

Dr Lothar Diehl, Programme director, Team leader, GIZ-MOAP Accra, GIZ Office

Agnes Otoo Yeboah, Tipcee – Export Bus. Dev. Operations Manager Accra, Tipcee Office

Wednesday, 9 September

Mr Francis K. Korankye, Sunyani MOFA ,IT Departmentand Mr Oppong-Dankwah, MOFA M&E Department

Sunyani/Brong-Ahafo Region MOFA Office

Ines Wiedeman; DED Advisor and Regional Coordinator for the MOAP programme in Brong-Ahafo, Sunyani

Sunyani/Brong-Ahafo Region MOFA Office

Thurday,10 September

Mr Lars Wallevik, Mim Processing Company Mim/Brong-Ahafo Region

Meeting with farmers and Mr Adjei Boahen (ADRA officer & Ex MOFA staff Techiman)

Tanoboase/Brong-Ahafo Region

Nana Owusu Gyareb (Cashew farmer, chief and Managing Director of Premier Agro Forestry Ventures, Techiman)

Techiman/Brong-Ahafo Region

Friday,11 September

Meeting with members of the Wenchi farmers’ cooperative, Mr Kwaku Aidoo, (Chairman) and Mr Wayne Tilton, Peace Corp Volunteer, USA

Wenchi, Brong-Ahafo Region

Meeting with members of the Nsawkaw cashew processing cooperative Tain, Brong-Ahafo region

Mr Samu, Tain district planning coordination unit Tain, Brong-Ahafo region

Saturday,12 September

Rev. Fr. Giles Conacher (Monastery, Tanoboase) Monastery –Tanoboase near Techiman

Monday,14 September

Julius Spatz – Programme for Sustainable Economic Development Accra, GIZ office

Dr Bernard Agbo, technical advisor cashew production, GIZ, ACi Accra, GIZ office

Ms Abena Osei-Akoto, Ghana Statistical Services Accra, GSS Building

Venessa Adams – Director, West Africa Trade Hub (USAID) and Frank Gyabaah, office manager, African Cashew Alliance

Accra, West African Trade Hub Office

Tuesday,15 September

Martin Poku, Ghana Statistical Service GSSAccra, GSS Building

Jackline Anum, Ghana Statistical Service GSS

Mritunja Das, OLAM, Cashew trader/Exporter Accra, West African Trade Hub Office

Wednesday, 16 September

Preparation for stakeholder workshop

Thursday, 17 September

Stakeholder Workshop to present preliminary findings Accra, GIZ Office

Friday, 18 September

Review and analysis of information. Interview with Cashew Development Project ( MOFA), Mr James O.K. Larbi

Cashew Development Project (MOFA) Accra

Saturday, 19 September

Departure to Germany (Claudia Gottmann)

51 Annex I: Schedule of the PIA Mission “African Cashew initiative – Ghana”

w

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

Goals and Targets (from the Millennium Declaration) Indicators for monitoring progress


Target 1.A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day

ÿ Proportion of population below USD 1 (PPP) per day40

ÿ Poverty gap ratio ÿ Share of poorest quintile in national consumption

Target 1.B: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people

ÿ Growth rate of GDP per person employed ÿ Employment-to-population ratio ÿ Proportion of employed people living below USD 1 (PPP) per day ÿ Proportion of own-account and contributing family workers in total employment

Target 1.C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

ÿ Prevalence of underweight children under-five years of age ÿ Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

Target 2.A: Ensure that, by 2015, children every-where, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling

ÿ Net enrolment ratio in primary education ÿ Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach last grade of primary ÿ Literacy rate of 15-24 year-olds, women and men

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women

Target 3.A: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015

ÿ Ratios of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education ÿ Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector ÿ Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality

Target 4.A: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate

ÿ Under-five mortality rate ÿ Infant mortality rate ÿ Proportion of 1 year-old children immunised against measles

Goal 5: Improve maternal health

Target 5.A: Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio

ÿ Maternal mortality ratio ÿ Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel

Target 5.B: Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health

ÿ Contraceptive prevalence rate ÿ Adolescent birth rate ÿ Antenatal care coverage (at least one visit and at least four visits) ÿ Unmet need for family planning

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

Target 6.A: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS

ÿ HIV prevalence among population aged 15-24 years ÿ Condom use at last high-risk sex ÿ Proportion of population aged 15-24 years with comprehensive correct

knowledge of HIV/AIDS ÿ Ratio of school attendance of orphans to school attendance of non-orphans

aged 10-14 years

Target 6.B: Achieve, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it

ÿ Proportion of population with advanced HIV infection with access to antiretroviral drugs

Target 6.C: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases

ÿ Incidence and death rates associated with malaria ÿ Proportion of children under 5 sleeping under insecticide-treated bed nets ÿ Proportion of children under 5 with fever who are treated with appropriate

anti-malarial drugs ÿ Incidence, prevalence and death rates associated with tuberculosis ÿ Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and cured under directly observed

treatment short course

52 Annex II: Official List of MDG Indicators

All indicators should be disaggregated by sex and urban/rural as far as possible.Effective 15 January 2008

40 Formonitoringcountrypovertytrends,indicatorsbasedonnationalpovertylinesshouldbeused,whereavailable.

w

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

Goals and Targets (from the Millennium Declaration) Indicators for monitoring progress

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources

ÿ Proportion of land area covered by forest ÿ CO

2 emissions, total, per capita and per USD 1 GDP (PPP)

ÿ Consumption of ozone-depleting substances ÿ Proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits ÿ Proportion of total water resources used ÿ Proportion of terrestrial and marine areas protected ÿ Proportion of species threatened with extinction

Target 7.B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss

Target 7.C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation

ÿ Proportion of population using an improved drinking water source ÿ Proportion of population using an improved sanitation facility

Target 7.D: By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers

ÿ Proportion of urban population living in slums41

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development

Target 8.A: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and finan-cial system

Includes a commitment to good governance, devel-opment and poverty reduction – both nationally and internationally

Some of the indicators listed below are monitored separately for the least devel-oped countries (LDCs), Africa, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States.Official development assistance (ODA) ÿ Net ODA, total and to the least developed countries, as percentage of OECD/

DAC donors’ gross national income ÿ Proportion of total bilateral, sector-allocable ODA of OECD/DAC donors to ba-

sic social services (basic education, primary health care, nutrition, safe water and sanitation)

ÿ Proportion of bilateral official development assistance of OECD/DAC donors that is untied

ÿ ODA received in landlocked developing countries as a proportion of their gross national incomes

ÿ ODA received in small island developing States as a proportion of their gross national incomes

Market access ÿ Proportion of total developed country imports (by value and excluding arms)

from developing countries and least developed countries, admitted free of duty ÿ Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural products and

textiles and clothing from developing countries ÿ Agricultural support estimate for OECD countries as a percentage of their

gross domestic product ÿ Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity

Debt sustainability ÿ Total number of countries that have reached their HIPC decision points and

number that have reached their HIPC completion points (cumulative) ÿ Debt relief committed under HIPC and MDRI Initiatives ÿ Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and services

Target 8.B: Address the special needs of the least developed countries

Includes: tariff and quota free access for the least developed countries‘ exports; enhanced programme of debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous ODA for countries committed to poverty reduction

Target 8.C: Address the special needs of landlocked developing countries and small island developing States (through the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Develop-ing States and the outcome of the twenty-second special session of the General Assembly)

Target 8.D: Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term

Target 8.E: In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries

ÿ Proportion of population with access to affordable essential drugs on a sustainable basis

Target 8.F: In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications

ÿ Telephone lines per 100 population ÿ Cellular subscribers per 100 population ÿ Internet users per 100 population

53

TheMillenniumDevelopmentGoalsandtargetscomefromtheMillenniumDeclaration,signedby189countries,including147headsofStateandGovernment,inSeptember2000(http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm)andfromfur-theragreementbymemberstatesatthe2005WorldSummit(Resolution adopted by the General Assembly – A/RES/60/1,

http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/RES/60/1).Thegoalsandtargetsareinterrelatedandshouldbeseenasawhole.Theyrepresentapartnershipbetweenthedevelopedcountriesandthedevelopingcountries‘to create an environment – at the national and global levels alike – which is conducive to develop-ment and the elimination of poverty’.

41 Theactualproportionofpeoplelivinginslumsismeasuredbyaproxy,representedbytheurbanpopulationlivinginhouseholdswithatleastoneofthefourcharacteristics:(a)lackofaccesstoimprovedwatersupply;(b)lackofac-cesstoimprovedsanitation;(c)overcrowding(3ormorepersonsperroom);and(d)dwellingsmadeofnon-durablematerial.

54 Further Acknowledgement

Wewishtoacknowledgetheassistance,timeandvaluableinformationprovidedbyourmanyinterviewpartners,especiallythefarmersinTanoboase,WenchiandNsawkawintheBrong-Ahaforegion,thedifferentrepresentativesfrominstitutionsandprivatecompaniesengagedinthecashewsectorinGhana,andtheGhanaStatisticalServiceforitssupport.

WewouldalsoliketothankMsDenniceOkrahwhoarrangedourmeetingsandinterviewsinAccraandintheBrong-AhaforegionandMrPeterKeller,GIZTeamLeaderoftheAfricanCashewinitiative,foractivelysupportingthismission.

WehavelearntmuchfromourdiscussionswiththestakeholdersoftheCashewValueChain,andourmeetingswithcashewfarmersintheBrong-Ahaforegion.HowevertheopinionsexpressedinthisreportdonotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsofGIZ.Theresponsibilitylieswiththeconsultantsandauthorsofthisreport.

Notes

Published by:

Deutsche Gesellschaft fürInternationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH

International Foundations

Postfach 518065726 Eschborn, Germany

poverty impact assessment – pia case study ghana · · 2011-03-11poverty impact assessment –...

Documents