School for International Training

Study Abroad- Ghana: Social Transformation and Cultural Expression

Spring 2011

“By All People, At All Times”

The Ministry of Food and Agriculture and the War against Food Insecurity
in the Northern Region

Alexandra Giselle De la Rosa

(University of Illinois at Chicago)

Project Advisor: Dr. Edward Salifu Mahama

University for Development Studies
Tamale, Ghana

Academic Director: Dr. Olayemi Tinuoye

Abstract
 Title: “By All People, At All Times”: The Ministry of Food and Agriculture and the War
against Food Insecurity in the Northern Region.
 Author: Alexandra Giselle De la Rosa (adelar2@uic.edu; University of Illinois at Chicago)
 Objective: The objective of this project was fivefold:
i. Gain a better understanding of food security (FS) issues and the coping strategies in five
selected communities in the Northern Region (NR).
ii. Outline the various types of initiatives that tackle food insecurity (FiS) the NR
iii. Understand the challenges and barriers of implementing FS programs in the field.
iv. Assess the implementation of the initiatives of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture
(MoFA) by the experience of its clients in the selected communities.
v. Work with community members and non-governmental organizations to determine
suggestions for improvement in implementation of MoFA programs.
 Methodology: A combination of observation, participation, and group and individual interviews
with farmers, market traders, other rural community members and leaders, and representatives
of NGOs and MoFA were used. Although there was difficulty accessing MoFA at a regional
level, representatives at the district level were interviewed as well as those from seven major FS
NGOs working in a total of over 700 communities in the NR. I personally visited five farming
communities: two in the Tamale Metro district: Kpanvo and Bamvim staying in each two days
and three days, respectively, and three villages in the nearby Tolon/Kumpungu district:
Bogunayili, Mbanayili and Nwogu, staying in Bogunayili for one week and day-visits to
Mbanayili and Nwogu. During my village stays, I observed and participated in the cooking and
rationing of food among household members, and the various income generating activities
women partake in an attempt to ensure FS. I also interviewed a total of 180 community
members (73 male, 97 female), including 80 farmers. Most community interviews were done in
group format, separating males and females to avoid gender bias, and with the translating help
of a local community member in each village.
 Findings: The reality of FiS observed in these communities is a cycle of debt that traps small-
scale subsistence farmers between the seasonal nature and mounting costs of harvesting, and
producing enough food for their families’ consumption and additional expenses. It was very
clear that women play a critical role in the survival of farming communities through the lean
season, their ingenious ways of cooking and rationing food and resources, and finding activities
of additional income make them the fuel in fighting FiS at the grassroots level. There are a
wide variety of initiatives both by MoFA and NGOs tackling several aspects in the complex
issue of FS. While the direct benefit of NGO programs come and go, the impact of NGO in
boosting leadership, morale, and group formation in communities is evident, as they spend
significant proportion of their efforts in successful implementation and building relationships
with communities. MoFA, however, faces the never-ending task of reaching millions of farmers
with astounding understaffing and under-funding from a central level. To improve MoFA
implementation there must be a higher prioritization at the central level and sufficient and
timely funding placed towards it. Furthermore, the incorporation of small-scale farmers in the
process of planning and assessing programs is integral for their effects to reach those that need it
most. At the regional and district levels, more collaboration must occur between NGOs and
MoFA to effectively reach more communities and avoid duplication of services. Lastly, farmers
and communities must too change their mindset away from subsistence to business farming so
they may plan and harvest for maximum profit and be able to break the cycle of FiS.
 Conclusion: Despite the time and language limitations, the study met the objectives with
potential for expansion. Future studies better integrated with MoFA and a thorough analysis of
the MoFA Block Farming scheme could be keys in expanding knowledge in the area and
enhancing MoFA’s effect in ensuring FS for all.

i
Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….i

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………..iii

List of Figures & Tables………………………………………………………………….…..v

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………….……..vi

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….……..1

Methodology………………………………………………………………………………….5

1- In the Trenches: The Reality of Food Insecurity………………………………………….10

2- Fighting Food Insecurity: Programs & Initiatives…………………………………….…..15

3- The Battle for Implementation……………………………………………………..…..…19

4-Winning the War: Recommendations for Improvement……………………………..……23

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….……..29

Additional Figures…………………………………………………………………..….…....35

References……………………………………………………………………………....…...36

Informants………………………………………………………………………….………..38

ii
 Acknowledgements
It has been an extraordinary journey the last 15 weeks to get to this point, and there are a number of
people and groups that I would like to show my devout appreciation, for without them, this project
would be simply impossible:

o First and foremost, the villages of Bogunayili, Mbanayili, Nwogu, Kpanvo and Bamvim~ their
remarkable and truly radical hospitality lies at the center of this study. Thank you for opening your
communities, households, and personal stories to me, for teaching me how to stir TZ, tie a baby to
my back, extract groundnut oil, collect firewood, and so many other things. Your sincere dedication
to progress your communities in the face of so much deprivation is genuinely humbling; you’ve
given me a personal and emotional knowledge that cannot ever be given justice in a 30-page report.

o MoFA Tamale Metropolitan Office~ For your sincere revelations and contributions that allowed
me to just scratch at the surface of the immense challenges faced in your duty. I sincerely
commend you in your relentless efforts to bring the best services to your communities despite the
criticisms and logistical challenges you face all around.

o OIC, CLIP, BIBIR, Grameen Ghana, WFP, ADRA and ActionAid Ghana~ For sharing your
time, information, perspectives, contacts, and challenges that helped me understand what a true
battle ensuring food security is. The work each of you does is remarkable and inspires and propels
thousands towards a more secure livelihood.

o Fuzzy~ All the logistical credit for the completion of this project goes entirely to you. Your
coordination of transportation, housing, meals, translations, interviews, activities, computer access,
and everything else was simply excellent. You went above and beyond any call to make this project
what it is and make me as comfortable as possible, even while it meant significant sacrifices for
yourself. And for that, I could never thank you enough.

o Dr. Salifu~ Your academic guidance was invaluable in the building of this project, thank you for
your availability and patience in working with me through this endeavor.

o Dr. Yemi~ On our first day in Ghana you welcomed us by saying “culture is not taught, it’s
caught”. Of course, ‘catching’ Ghana is a lot easier said than done! Thank you for your persistent

iii
 and hilarious academic guidance for the last 15 weeks. ‘Life in this Ghana’ has been a roller
coaster of everything, and your empathy and flexibility has allowed me to keep my sanity and
discover this culture with remarkable insight.

o Papa Attah~ I will never have enough words in my vocabulary thank you for your extraordinary
parenting of the last four months. From your nursing skills when I was sick to your hysterical
anecdotes and comments, you are the amazing spirit of Ghana embodied in a person. Because of
you I will always have a sincere love for fufu and the heart to remember to ‘enjoy your life!’

o Kokroko~ I don’t know what Ghana would be without your philosophical discussions on life, love,
leadership, and more. Your calming, sincere wisdom I will take to heart for years to come.

o Kwame, Veronica, Simon, Auntie Grace, Kwakutse, Auntie Fati, and all other SIT staff~ At
every step of this experience there has been exceptional people entirely devoted to making me
happy and successful. I wish I had the space to give you all the sincere thank you you deserve.

o SIT Spring 2011 classmates~ Getting through this Ghana roller coaster of laughter and tears was a
heck of fun with your communal support. Each one of you has extraordinary experiences and
perspectives that have taught me more than I honestly ever expected. Wherever life takes you next,
I can only wish you all the best. The resilience and spirit that got us here and back is one will
undoubtedly take us through anything that comes next. Enjoy your life!

o UIC Study Abroad Office and UIC Honors College~ For the financial and logistical support that
made this entire Ghana expedition a possibility.

o Friends, family and blog readers~ Thank you for following me in this journey, for providing me
with the amazing support that makes me the person I am, and empowers me to get through every
challenge Ghana or anyplace or anyone else throws at me. You are the silent gears that drive me
forward and keep me grounded in love.

iv
List of Figures and Tables

Table 1: Food Insecurity and Vulnerability by Region………………………………………3

Table 2: Community Members Interviewed By Village……………………………………..7

Figure 1: Map of Food Insecurity Rates by Region………………………………………….3

Figure 2: Girls preparing TZ (Kpanvo)………………………………………………………35

Figure 3: TZ & Soup……………………………………………………………………........35

Figure 4: Drying rice for processing (Nwogu)………………………………………….........35

Figure 5: Rationing bingari (rice + millet dish) among family members (Bogunayili)……...35

Figure 6: Extracting groundnut oil (Bogunayili)……………………………….…...……......35

v
List of Abbreviations
AAB- “Agriculture as a Business” Program

AEA- Agricultural Extension Agent

EWB- Engineers Without Borders- Canada

FAO- Food and Agriculture Organization

FS- Food Security

FiS- Food Insecurity

GHC- Ghana Cedi

MoFA- Ministry of Food and Agriculture

NGO- Non-Governmental Organization

NR- Northern Region

SSA- Sub-Saharan Africa

UN- United Nations

USD- United States Dollar

WFP- World Food Programme

vi
Introduction
I came to Ghana with the interest of studying nutrition and public health issues. Upon

my arrival, seeing and experiencing the fascinating cuisine of Ghana and its people, that

interest only flourished- the oily, starch-laden and fried dishes rapaciously consumed by

every roadside and in every chop-bar across the country, with little public or personal

concern for the health damage it may cause. “The Mystery of the Absent Vegetables” as fall

2009 SIT alumni, Megan Goldsmith called it, is one that she uncovered to be a complex array

of agricultural, educational, economic and cultural barriers that keep Ghanaians below their

nutritional health potential. Ultimately, what we put into our bodies is the fundamental and

foremost requirement for the development of an individual and a nation. Without proper

nutrition, children are socially, physically and mentally stunted, and adults fall short of their

potential, living prone to disease, and a detriment to society as a whole.

I soon realized, however, that the relationship between most Ghanaians and food is far

more crucial than a recommended level of calories and nutrients. Traveling through the rural

Northern Region, it is painfully evident that the question of food for many Ghanaians is not a

matter of healthy or not, but whether it’s procurable at all. Trapped in a cycle of staggering

poverty, a guaranteed next meal is simply a luxury many don’t have. From the slums of

Accra to the farming villages of the Upper East regions, food insecurity is a reality for 1.2

million people in Ghana, another 2 million people are considered vulnerable to becoming

food insecure as their consumption patterns are defenseless towards shocks and seasonal

changes of food prices (WFP, 2009, p. 13-14).

Food security’s most well-known definition is that given by the World Bank in 1986

as “access by all people, at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life”. This

declaration highlights the many different aspects of FS- the availability of enough food, the

distribution so it is accessible to all at all times, and the consumption patterns for individuals

-1-
to lead active, healthy lives. FiS is a complex matter that can manifest in many different

ways, but is generally categorized as either chronic or temporary. Chronic undernourishment

or FiS is the persistent inability of households to acquire enough food. It’s structural in

nature and arises through insufficient resources being available and/or accessible to people.

Temporary FiS comes as a result of natural or man-made shocks that create food shortages

for all or part of a country’s population. Often cyclic in nature, temporary FiS, comes as a

result of logistical, technical, and financial limitations associated with the shortage of food or

the lack of resources to access it, and it has the invariable risk of scaling up to chronic FiS.

Food security, as Executive Director of the UN’s World Food Programme once said,

“is not an absence of hunger; it is the ability of a nation to manage it”. The fact of the matter

is that the issue of FS is not solely an individual battle for guaranteed food, but the

responsibility of a nation to ensure all its citizens have regular and sufficient access to this

basic need. In Ghana, this responsibility lies in the hands of the Ministry of Food and

Agriculture (MoFA). While the missions of MoFA are many, FS is listed as its first objective

in all official statements. Nevertheless, the task of battling FiS throughout all of Ghana is an

immense one, and MoFA is joined by a variety of international, national, and local NGOs that

work to improve the livelihoods of food insecure households.

FiS around the world is mostly considered an issue of poverty and Ghana is no

exception. Although Ghana has been the ‘rising star’ of SSA in economic development and

poverty reduction, with a substantial economic growth rate reaching 6.2% in 2008, and the

only SSA country to have met the UN’s Millennium Development Goal 1 of halving its

poverty rate by 2015 (WFP, 2009, p.11).

While the rate of poverty may have been reduced, the depth of it has worsened,

spreading into urban areas in the face of rapid development, and keeping prominent regional

differences. The newly reduced poverty rate of 28.5% hides the striking reality that 18.2%

-2-
are considered to live in extreme poverty (less than 0.78 GHC/day , approx. 0.53 USD), and

that the 70% of the poor live in the three northern regions (NR, Upper East, Upper West). In

fact, 54% of the extreme poor live in the NR alone, which is home to only 17.2% of the

national population (WFP, 2009, p.29).

Table 1: FiS and Vulnerability by Region Figure 1: Map of FiS Rate by Region

Source: WFP, 2009 Source: WFP, 2009

In the case of FiS, this regional difference could not be more obvious (See Table 1 &

Figure 1) as the highest rates of FiS are entirely concentrated in the three northern regions.

While there is certainly a growing number of urban poor that are food insecure and require

effective policy attention, the war against FiS led by MoFA is mainly fought in the

agricultural sectors of the deprived north. However, the funding and planning of MoFA

initiatives is mainly done in offices in cosmopolitan Accra (FiS rate: 1-2%), worlds away

from the lives of those they are intended to help. A 14 to 23 hour drive away exactly, on

ravaged unpaved roads, completely different cultures, languages and customs that give FiS a

reality the Accra offices rarely see. With these exorbitant disparities in economic, social and

cultural practices, I was driven to focus my project on understanding the first-hand reality of

-3-
FiS by living in a few of these communities, and assessing the implementation of MoFA

programs by the experience of these vulnerable farming households in the NR.

Specifically, the study objectives were to:

• Gain a better understanding of FS issues and the coping strategies in five selected

communities in the NR.

• Outline the various types of initiatives (both by MoFA and NGOs) that tackle FiS in

the NR

• Understand the challenges and barriers of implementing these FS programs in the

field.

• Assess the implementation of MoFA’s initiatives by the experience of its clients in the

selected communities.

• Work with community members and NGOs in field to determine the key suggestions

for improvement in implementation of MoFA programs and policies.

-4-
Methodology
I aimed at gaining an understanding of both the first-hand reality of food insecurity

and vulnerability at the household and community level, as well as the official approaches

and stances of MoFA and other organizations working in the field. Thus, facing a limited

time constraints and access to reach a wide scope of communities while being able to reach

offices and directors I stayed within the NR’s Tamale Metro and nearby Tolon/Kumpungu

districts. I used a combination of observation, participation, and group and individual

interviews to gather as much information as I could on this complex issue and its

management from farmers, market traders, crop processors, other community members and

leaders, and representatives of NGOs and MoFA.

To determine the current initiatives aiming to ensure FS, I interviewed representatives

and reviewed the information literature of MoFA along with seven major organizations

working on this issue throughout the NR: Opportunities Industrialization Centres (OIC),

Community Life Improvement Programme (CLIP), BIBIR-Ghana, Grameen Ghana, World

Food Programme (WFP), Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) and

ActionAid Ghana. With their help connecting me with field contacts, I was able to select

communities to visit to gain a first hand insight on the FiS issue and the reality of

implementation of programs.

I lived in the farming village of Bogunayili in the Tolon/Kumpungu district for one

week observing and participating in village life and completing focus groups and individual

interviews with farmers and other community members. I was able to acquire a lot of

firsthand information from community members on their challenges to FS and experiences

participating in MoFA and/or NGO initiatives. Moreover, immersing myself in the daily life

of the population, particularly during the lean season allowed me to better comprehend the

role of food in daily life and the vulnerability these households face.

-5-
 Because I visited as the dry season was finishing, no farming was undergoing in the

village at the time, although there was some land preparation commencing. However, female

farming was especially rare in the communities. Thus, in following with cultural practices, I

was not able to participate in farming, but I did partake in the various activities women do to

ensure food security for households. I took part in the extensive process of cooking and

providing food for families from the collection of firewood and water to preparation of meals

and rationing of every serving among household members. I also participated in the variety

of activities women are involved in for additional household income such as shea butter and

groundnut oil extraction, rice processing, and collecting of wild foods and herbs to sell.

During my week in Bogunayili I was able to make day-visits to nearby villages of

Mbanayili and Nwogu to complete focus groups and individual interviews. Both of these

villages had greatly different histories working with MoFA and NGO initiatives than

Bogunayili, so it allowed me to diversify my sources of information. On that same note,

upon my return to Tamale and consulting with Action Aid Ghana, I selected two more

farming communities to visit in the Tamale Metro district, Bamvim and Kpanvo. During my

three-day and two-day stay, respectively, in each village, I once again observed and

participated in village life and conducted interviews. These communities had farmer groups

that specifically worked under ActionAid’s rights-based approach programs and theoretically

had more defined relationships with MoFA. Furthermore, their proximity to the market

central of Tamale, allowed me to expand my source of informants to include market traders

and sellers. Although I did encounter female farmers in Bamvim and Kpanvo, there wasn’t

any land preparation taking place during my stay, and once again I did not have the

opportunity to participate in farming.

Apart of individual interviews with NGO and MoFA representatives, most of the

village interviews were conducted in group format. Per the advice of previous literature

-6-
(Tollens, 2000), and due to the strong governance of gender roles in these Islamic

communities, I separated groups by gender to minimize gender bias and inquire on the

different aspects of food security men and women handle in rural households. In the end, I

was able to speak with dozens of groups totaling 180 community members over the five

villages, 80 of which were farmers (See Table 2- Community Members Interviewed by

Village).

Table 2: Community Members Interviewed by Village

Village Men Women Total No. Farmers

Bogunayili 11 41 52 9
Mbanayili 15 10 35 15
Nwogu 13 4 17 17
Kpanvo 18 21 39 22
Bamvim 16 21 37 16
Total 73 97 180 80

Local community members in each village served as translators for interviews, and

aided in giving a thorough explanation of my background, the study, and the purpose of the

data I was collecting. Upon receiving verbal consent of participants, I recorded notes on all

interviews as well as field notes of observations in a hand written notebook, and later

analyzed the information using coding and memoing techniques. I chose the three field

methods of observation, participation, and group interviews because it allowed the project to

have a sense of informality and facilitated me in building rapport as a complete outsider to

these communities. However, a short written survey collecting specific consumption and

production data of participants may have suitably expanded the data by providing concrete

statistics that could be more directly compared to previous research.

There were some challenges and limitations faced with the selected methods. The

most obvious one is having little knowledge of Dagbani created a significant language barrier

-7-
in the villages. While this was not a problem by carefully briefing translators for group

interviews, it was a certain challenge with the observation and participation techniques.

The group interview format was optimal in creating discussion among members and

acquiring a variety of opinions, but they often ran the risk of being dominated by one or two

individuals. In the only gender-integrated farmers group interview in Kpanvo it was obvious

that the choice to separate males and females was necessary to ensure female opinions could

be voiced. The gathering of ‘spectators’ around the groups during interviews threatened

these dynamics for discussion. However, with few exceptions, the gender separation was

respected by community members, and males stayed away from female groups, as females

stayed away from males’.

Having no background in agriculture or economics posed a challenge in

understanding the literature and diverse issues and policies of the field of food security.

Nonetheless, I was focused on understanding the social reality of the issue, and in the process

managed to learn a great deal about the agricultural, economic, and political sides of it.

The major challenge to the study design was gaining enough access to MoFA for

interviews and even just information. Facing a lot of bureaucracy at the regional level I was

sent from one person to another, to fill one form or the other, to receive information.

Furthermore, at this regional level, I received nothing substantial to direct me to identify

communities or challenges to investigate; this is why consulting NGOs became imperative in

recognizing the major challenges, and reaching specific communities for the study. Upon

consulting ActionAid who works closely with MoFA, I received contacts at the Tamale

Metro district level that proved incredibly helpful in understanding the internal workings of

MoFA, and most crucially, the challenges of implementation from an inside perspective.

Unfortunately, this was towards the end of the study period, leaving much potential to delve

into these contacts and expand my dealings with MoFA at various levels. For future studies,

-8-
it would be suitable to begin working with MoFA at the district level and develop from there.

Nonetheless, the vital information received at the district and regional levels, as well as

former MoFA employees, and NGO partners of MoFA, allocated plenty of information to

pursue the main study objective of assessing the ground implementation of its programs.

-9-
1- In the Trenches: The Reality of Food Insecurity

Observing the first-hand reality of FiS in the rural families of the NR gives a

perspective to the issue that can simply not be measured by statistics. These families are

mostly farmers and their wives who live off their crops for consumption and income. They

are at the mercy of their land and vulnerable to the costs and unpredictability of nature that

come with it. Because the area is generally too dry, and under a complete dearth of irrigation

dams to farm in the dry season, it is only farmable half of the year, and the dry season

consequently becomes a time of insecurity. Food insecure families are often caught between

the mounting costs of farming and the costs of school fees, additional food, healthcare, and

other expenses.

In the five villages studied, farming is the main occupation and source of income for

almost all men, women’s source of income is generally the processing of shea butter,

groundnut oil, and/or rice for sale. However, both of these enterprises face two major

obstacles in the reality of a small rural village- a lack of access credit and reliable, consistent

markets for their products.

As the push to ‘modernize’ farming sweeps across Ghana with MoFA fuel, the

undeniable rise in farming costs comes with it. Tractor services, fertilizer, insecticides, seeds,

all have a substantial cost, and become a considerable burden when farming is being done for

mere subsistence. Besides a few select NGOs granting credit (in kind or in cash) for farmer

groups, there is no source of standard credit for these households, and they find themselves in

constant struggle each harvest season to get enough inputs to maximize production, yet

having to decrease their cultivation size and amount of inputs to lower costs. Consequently,

lowering the amount of food they will have to eat in the dry season, and almost eliminating

any possible income for other needs. A similar situation exists for female driven enterprises

of crop processing (See Fig. 4 & 6). The costs associated with them (water, firewood,

- 10 -
grinding mills, storage, etc) are often hefty in the face of an unreliable market, and without a

source of credit, women are forced to minimize their production, and thus their profits.

Commonly, families are forced to informally borrow food or money to get by. In

something termed the “advance system,” farmers borrow bags of food (or the equivalent

price) from a fellow more secure farmer and must pay back twice as much with his next

harvest. Essentially it is a loan at 50% interest. Every single one of the 80 farmers I spoke

with, in every single village confessed to using this system in order to buy farming inputs and

at times the food and dress of their families. Even with NGO or MoFA help, the costs of

farming is tremendous compared to its output at a small-scale. And so, these farmers are

caught in a cycle of debt and insecurity with every harvest and dry season that comes by.

Although programs help to reduce some of the burden or improve their production, at the end

of the day, nature and harvest yields can be cruel, programs come and go, and the reality is

simply too tremendous for any single program to entirely fix.

To further aggravate the already diminished production of these households is their

complete vulnerability to a fluctuating market for their products. The processed goods by

women simply don’t have a demand in local markets for an improvement in profits, but

without a connection to wider source of buyers, there is simply no way for these women to

expand their industries. In the case of agriculture and the constant astounding debt associated

with it, subsistence farmers have to sell more and more of their harvests to pay back loans,

the risk of spoilage and social indebtedness to lenders or service providers further obliges

them to sell immediately after harvest, when prices are lowest. As a result, when the dry

season arrives they find themselves with no crops, no farming, and no source of income to get

by when food runs out or life shocks hit. To further aggravate the FS situation, during the dry

season they are at the mercy of the higher market prices when purchasing food for their own

families. And so, the cycle of poverty and FiS continues year after year without a way out.

- 11 -
 Although previous research showed around 70% of NR small-scale farmers keep and

sell livestock or fowls as a coping mechanism to FiS during the dry season (Quaye, 2008, p.

340), my observation showed a lack of knowledge and cultural obstacles to rearing livestock

that keep it from becoming an effective means towards FS. Although animal rearing can be

an extremely profitable venture, cattle, goats or sheep are seen as a form of savings to be

sacrificed religiously, killed at funerals or weddings, or in very desperate times to buy food.

Thus, this very profitable venture potential is completely overlooked in most communities,

and animals are left to roam free, their excrements with huge value as fertilizer untapped, and

their breeding rarely practiced as a means of regular income.

I was able to visit the villages at the turn of the seasons as the rainy season is

beginning and at the height of FiS and vulnerability. The time when most food stocks of last

harvest have depleted or spoiled, but there is not yet land to harvest. Speaking with and

participating in the lives of the women, it was remarkably evident the crucial role women

play in food and development issues of communities. Numerous previous literature has

shown (WFP 2009; Quaye, 2008; FAO 2010), what Eric Tollens avowed in his monumental

analysis of FS issues around the world that “rural women are the key to ending hunger”

(2000, p.45). Women hold on them all the responsibilities to feed and care for families, and

by directing their potential and earnings towards the needs of the larger household, they

become the glue and fuel that keep households together and moving forward in lean times.

Every single man interviewed mentioned turning to their wives for income as a

coping strategy when agriculture is not at its prime. When it comes to feeding, women

simply “must manage” and get by rationing every piece of food for all to eat (See Fig 5).

Every woman mentioned cooking less and doing smaller portions during lean times.

Interestingly enough, most men interviewed said they ate generally the same amount all year

round unless they were facing extreme deprivation, and accused the women of lying.

- 12 -
However, in observing serving practices it is obvious that even during shortages, men receive

the most food, followed by children (boys first), and lastly the women. So it could be very

well that only the women are eating less in times of shortages. This poses a danger given

women’s own vulnerability when pregnant and lactating, that with the NR’s fertility rate of

seven children per woman this is a very common situation (National Population Council 2004).

Women find ingenious ways of stretching their menu and earning additional incomes

to get through the lean season. If they must purchase food, they mix crops and buy

alternative less-expensive options. Although TZ, a starchy meal made of maize flour, is by

far the preferred meal of villagers (See Fig 2 & 3), when maize runs out or is too expensive,

women described how they cook rice and beans which are not necessarily less expensive, but

more satisfying for a lesser quantity. In this way they find cunning ways to earn additional

income in the face of an unforgiving market for their shea butter/rice/groundnut processing

revenue- they collect and sell wild mangoes, firewood, grinded cassava leaves (which are

used as animal feed) or become ‘market women’ going from village to village buying at

credit whatever crops remain to sell in town markets for slight profit. Their priorities are

substantially different than men, as are the resources at their disposal, but they are, without a

doubt, the reason communities survive in the face of insecurity.

The most worrisome characteristic of FiS shared and observed by these communities

is the palpable feeling of neglect and hopelessness that comes with getting by harvest to

harvest with constant worry and no security- particularly in the face of so many nationwide

initiatives and media hype over development. Every single farmer group voiced a sense of

abandonment by MoFA, and feeling entirely separated from the MoFA success stories

occasionally highlighted in the media. “The government is a stranger to us” (Bamvim

farmer). There is a general belief that MoFA works only for the benefit of ‘big farmers’ and

they are ‘at the bottom of the list’ and the last to benefit from initiatives. Unfortunately this

- 13 -
is rather true, in the words of the Director of the Tamale Metropolitan MoFA Office,

Kwamina Arkorful, “it is all about economics of scale… it’s unfortunate that small-scale

farmers are often squeezed out”. It is then important to point out that small-scale subsistence

farms, defined as less than 2 hectare (approx. 5 acres) of land, make up 90% of farm holdings

of the country and contribute 80% to Ghana’s total agricultural output (WFP, 2009, p.35) If

90% of farm holdings are being ‘squeezed out’ then these programs need to be refocused to

reach them more effectively.

Moreover, there is a tremendous lack of communication between these communities

and MoFA staff which further aggravates the grievances and mistrust of the farmers towards

MoFA. The understaffing of AEAs and dearth of operational funds for their mobility and

continued training, result in inconsistent visits and minimal knowledge of new initiatives and

opportunities being brought to farmer groups. Farmer groups feel that MoFA comes and

goes, sending representatives to ‘assess needs’ yet never delivers improvements. For

example, MoFA in an effort to fight corruption recently made a drastic overhaul of their

fertilizer subsidy program changing from a coupon system to working directly with suppliers

and subsidizing all fertilizer sold nationwide. While the move has been successful in

guaranteeing access for all farmers, no explanation or communication was clearly made to

every AEA and consequently to farmers. Thus, farmers in all five villages felt undoubtedly

upset by the removal of the coupons, what they perceive as the only real [material] support by

MoFA, without explanation or reasoning. They were unaware that MoFA was in fact still

helping them as they were all paying the subsidized fertilizer price, and removed the coupons

as a way of improving the program. Instead they perceived that the coupons were just not

being delivered to them and were going to benefit ‘big farmers’. Instances like these worsen

the disheartened fatigue farmers feel of working with MoFA, and seriously hinder the

effective reception, and consequently, implementation of their initiatives.

- 14 -
2- Fighting Food Insecurity: Programs & Initiatives

It goes without saying that FiS is an awful reality that needs to be alleviated for all of

Ghana to truly develop. Furthermore, it is a complex issue that has many different aspects,

and thus many possible angles to approach with a solution. There are a vast number of

initiatives on the part of MoFA and NGOs currently attempting to tackle the many areas of

this issue. Although assessing MoFA is the main objective behind this study, NGOs play a

crucial role in the management of FiS and have decades of history working in the field, long

before most of MoFA’s current initiatives. Upon consulting eight major NGOs working in

FS in over 700 communities throughout the NR, along with MoFA’s own programs, it could

be determined there are certain patterns in initiatives and programs that exist aiming to

improve FS in communities.

The most common approach to fighting FiS and MoFA’s main vision consists of

providing support for the agricultural sector. Because farming is the main source of income

and food for households prone to FiS in the NR, providing direct aid to farmers is the most

evident form of improving FS. NGOs as well as MoFA work on bringing new technology

and training to communities to improve agricultural production. They also work to subsidize

credit or grant input materials to farmers. As voiced by all 80 farmers interviewed, farming is

expensive: fertilizer, tractor services, seeds, agrochemicals, etc. Providing help in this area

allows the farmers to lessen their perpetual indebtedness situation, expand their production,

and have more food or potential income for their families. Besides MoFA’s main role to

bring new agricultural technologies and training to farmers in every district nationwide, a

recent more prominent example of this type of scheme is MoFA’s Block Farming program

started in 2009. It’s an in-kind credit system to create new farming jobs for rural youth,

MoFA provides land preparation, seeds, agrochemicals, and fertilizers while communities

supply labor and a block of land that can house several farms. Upon harvesting, the

- 15 -
beneficiaries are to pay back in-kind the inputs MoFA gave, and ideally have enough crops

left over for income and consumption.

Following the trend of agricultural support exists programs that focus on post-harvest

loss management. MoFA estimates that Ghana is only functioning at a 20% agricultural

potential. Many farmers voiced the vast amount of crops that are lost which can be attributed

to improper storage facilities, rotting, insects and/or climate shocks. Depending on the crop,

farmers interviewed voiced a loss rate of 25-70% to spoilage. This contributes to the early

sale of crops at below profitable prices. Initiatives exist to provide credit, advance payments,

widen market potential, and storage facilities as well as training to preserve crops. With

storage, and delay in sales or sales at higher prices to new markets, farmers ideally make

enough profit to bay back loans and save. The largest and most ‘successful’ of these

programs nationwide, according to MoFA, is the National Food Buffer Stock Company

(NAFCO) established in 2009. This initiative consists of MoFA buying crops directly from

farmers at a guaranteed price, and stores and distributes them for the needs of the nation such

as the school feeding programme, prison system, and building emergency food stocks for

future disasters, or sells them to major market buyers. This ideally gives farmers a market

with guaranteed profit, and allows for the state to benefit.

Another way to reduce post-harvest loss of product and income is to further process

and add value to crops. By helping farmers link with processors or providing processing

materials and training directly, communities are able to add value to their crops and avoid

losing them to spoilage. Things like drying and grinding chili peppers into pepper seasoning

or processing rice for consumption are examples of these initiatives. MoFA’s Rice Sector

Support Project (RSSP) is a larger scheme founded in 2008 to improve domestic rice

production and consumption and includes the component of linking local groups of rice

- 16 -
processors to groups of farmers to train and increase production for both, and facilitate the

market access of local rice.

Even with all the support to the agricultural sector, there still exists 4 to 5 months of

FiS as the dry season takes away farming as an income and food provider. And although

there are few initiatives to support or pilot dry-season farming, most communities do not

have the knowledge, irrigation resources, or means to purchase agriculture inputs at the much

higher dry-season price when all MoFA subsidies are exhausted. Therefore, the majority of

farmers in their current state simply cannot farm during the crucial dry season. It is because

of this that NGOs have initiatives to support alternative forms of income for vulnerable

families. The most common one, also supported by MoFA’s Livestock Development Project

is the development of animal rearing. Providing training and loans to purchase and properly

care for animals, they allow farming families to have a ‘back-up’ plan during the dry season

or in times of severe climate change. Poultry or livestock gives a potential income, savings

and/or food in the event of a poor harvest.

On the same note of additional income stems the support of microenterprises outside

of farming. Usually geared towards women, NGOs provide credit, training and materials for

activities such as shea butter or groundnut oil extraction, beekeeping, gari production, and

rice processing. All initiatives are geared towards women not only because these are

culturally female dominated enterprises, but because it is in line with the astounding literature

and copiously evident upon observation that women really are the key to ending FiS. In

charge of cooking, rationing and providing food for the entire family, school expenses and

needs of children, and support for their husbands, women’s income translates to an

investment in the entire family’s wellbeing.

The final type of support to fight FiS, and arguably the most important one, is

advocacy and awareness of FS issues, programs, and policies. An immediate observation that

- 17 -
can be deduced upon entering most FiS or vulnerable villages is just how separated they are

from MoFA’s initiatives and programs, unaware of the functioning of their own providers.

Organizations like ActionAid work to group, advocate, and lobby these farmers to demand

their right to FS. They work closely with MoFA to help them reach communities better and

organize groups and meetings between MoFA and farmers, advocate on their behalf and

teach them how to demand and hold their government accountable.

The initiatives tackling FiS are numerous and widespread with each organization

having their particular approach, and thus impossible to enumerate all in this short report. It

is clear that there is a lot of effort to help these communities gain FS, nevertheless, the real

challenge behind these schemes is their successful implementation. Not in the source of

numbers or outputs, but in the day to day lives of those that are to benefit.

- 18 -
3- The Battle for Implementation

Just as farmers face challenges in ensuring FS, NGOs and MoFAs face a battle

themselves in trying to help them. Despite the fact that programs are meant to reach and aid

these vulnerable families, the truth is simply that they often fall through the cracks.

Although NGOs’ initiatives face serious challenges, they are by and large specifically

targeted and well funded for the length of their existence; they have a comprehensive

approach to working with communities, and strategies for empowering farmers and

sustaining the programs after their departure. With the exception of Kpanvo, four of the five

communities studied had previous or current experiences with NGOs in FS. While the direct

benefits of credit and inputs came and went with the NGOs, the knowledge, facilities, and

group formation they create within the communities are unmistakably long lasting. In

Bogunayili, I encountered several community groups and astonishing achievements in

development in areas of education, shea butter production, hygiene and sanitation, all of

which occurred without a single source of outside funding or coordination, but with the

inspiration and community-wide organization left by NGO programs now gone for over a

decade. However, as previously mentioned, NGO programs simply cannot do it all, and will

always face a challenge of not reaching every single person or every single issue thoroughly

enough to eradicate FiS, but they surely work to help the situation, and usually meet the

specific intended targets they are funded to meet. More importantly, though, they create

connections with communities and the outside world that boosts morale and drive among

members. None of the NGOs consulted declared having a single issue entering or

encountering resistance from communities. On the contrary, they too frequently had

communities approach them for help, and too much demand for their services. As the

Director of BIBIR, Joseph Osei puts it “communities have confidence in NGOs, they’re not

like politicians that talk and don’t deliver”, or representative of Granmeen Ghana, Adam

- 19 -
Abdul-Razak “every community wants an NGO to work with them because an NGO means

development, tangible or intangible, NGOs leave development.”

On the other hand, MoFA holds on its shoulders the responsibility to cater for

millions of farmers all across the nation, and bring them continually changing new

technologies and schemes with an exceedingly limited budget, a truly unattainable feat. The

centralized funding of MoFA from Accra through the regional, district, and then the

operational areas containing a single AEA for several communities poses a great burden to

reaching areas consistently and efficiently. Just last year, per Kwamina Arkoful, Director of

Tamale Metropolitan MoFA Office, MoFA nationwide did not release funds at all for an

entire quarter (personal communication, 27 April, 2011). As a result, for three months of the

year, all ten regional and 138 district offices functioned without any central funding,

countless communities that were to be reached, schemes to be implemented, data to be

gathered, none could really be done without resources. At the time of this writing (May

2011), the funds for 2011 second quarter have yet to be released for the district level, despite

the second quarter being halfway through. The staff working on the field and at lower

administrative levels, in many ways have tied hands when it comes to bringing improvement

and innovation to implementation. They simply do not have the logistical support from

above to do it.

While the farmers interviewed that were working with MoFA AEAs were content

with the knowledge and technology they bring, there is simply not enough staff and mobility

for it to occur at an ideal matter. AEAs number and time of visits to the villages fluctuate

tremendously, from every week to once a year. In the case of Nwogu, the farmers had not

even seen their AEA in years, and just received occasional communication when they left

messages in the nearby Bogunayili and Mbanayili communities. Sometimes visits occur too

late in the season for the knowledge or technology to be put into effect properly, and are then

- 20 -
futile to the farmers’ livelihood. Furthermore, not a single visit from an AEA is made during

the dry season, leaving the communities completely unconnected to MoFA for half of the

year, and at the most critical time of FiS.

The understaffing of MoFA field staff was by far the most cited issue by NGOs and

current and former employees of MoFA as the single biggest challenge to implementation.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) recommends a 1:500 maximum

extension agent to farmer ratio for effective implementation of government agricultural

schemes (FAO, 1999, p.54). For most of MoFA’s districts this ratio is around 1:1500 to

1:2000, even getting up to 1:4000 (personal communications, Alhassan, 14 April 2011;

Fuseini, 26 April 2011; Arkoful, 27 April 2011). AEAs are simply stretched too thin to

reach all farmers, and there is no active scheme at a higher level to alleviate this. At the

moment, as it has been for years, there is an AEA hiring freeze, and no new ones are hired

unless there is a vacancy due to retirement or renouncement. This leaves the most remote

villages already deprived in so many ways, with no access to new knowledge and technology,

especially, when the second major obstacle to implementation is faced: mobility.

Within the funding delays and shortcomings of MoFA in general, is the funding for

motorbikes and fuel costs of AEAs. While ideally, MoFA is to fund both of these, the reality

is the delay and minimal funds for this purpose fall incredibly short of what is necessary.

Motorbikes brake without ever being repaired, and AEAs often face the challenge of having

to provide their own fuel out-of-pocket to cover beyond their allowance or while waiting for

release of funds. Development officers, supervisors to AEAs have even less recognized

MoFA means for mobility. Therefore, it can be questioned, and it was even inferred by

former and current MoFA employees and supervisors that wish to remain anonymous, that

this critical shortcoming for effective implementation may be occasionally hidden under

pristine reports of AEAs that may have actually never visited communities they report on.

- 21 -
 However, these troublesome issues only serve as a buttress for the larger dilemma of a

prodigious disconnection between the central government that funds and runs MoFA and the

beneficiaries of its services in villages worlds away from the offices in Accra. This

disconnection is absent from the brochures and press releases of MoFA’s success. For

example, the farmers interviewed that sold their crops to the NAFCO scheme last harvest,

while they did receive a guaranteed price for profit; they reported inconsistently waiting

anywhere from one to five months for checks for the purchase. Months that these households

were left with no crops and no money- exacerbating the FiS situation instead of alleviating it.

However, this program is deemed a complete success in improving rural livelihoods and

ensuring FS, with a recent press release of its marvel purchase numbers. Whereas countless

farmers continue to wait without any guarantee time for their checks that once received, the

‘profits’ will mainly go to paying the debt amounted while they waited for the check in the

first place.

Effective implementation is not an easy task with the enormous pressures MoFA

encounters from the top and the bottom. However, there are attainable changes farmers,

communities, NGOs, and MoFA at every administrative level can carry out to better execute

their schemes. Because in the end, it is not in actuality a matter of numbers, grants, or

subsidies, but about uprooting the FiS enemy in a comprehensive and sustainable manner,

and creating an environment when a guaranteed next meal is accessible “by all people, at all

times”.

- 22 -
4- Winning the War: Recommendations for Improvement

It is clear that there needs to be considerable changes at the MoFA national level in

order to prevail past the ample current implementation and monitoring issues. A stark

prioritizing of implementation is critical for the genuine development of programs, additional

and timely funds need to be allocated for implementation to meet the logistics of reaching the

scores of farmers in need of MoFA services.

However, there is an even more fundamental change of approach at the

national/regional level MoFA must undertake to truly tackle FiS. Programs and policies need

to be planned and sustained ‘from the bottom up’ with the small-scale vulnerable farmers at

the forefront of program design. There needs to be genuine efforts to include the voices of

small-scale farmer groups in every step of program planning from designing to monitoring

and assessment. Programs must be refocused so they effectively reach the farmers who need

them, in order to do so, their input is essential.

For example, the recent acclaims on MoFA’s website of the Block Farming program

creating 47,000 new jobs for rural youth, and 80 Agriculture Mechanizations Service Centers

(AMSC) opened, when looked at ‘from the bottom’ are essentially complete lies. The Block

Farming program, a great model for a credit scheme to lessen the tremendous financial

burden of farming inputs and hypothetically create agricultural jobs for youth, actually

became by and large a program benefiting already existing farmers (Tetteh, 2010). Although

the program’s blueprint tackles a vital issue of FiS, and holds tremendous potential, its

intended target population was simply not monitored correctly to be deemed successful at the

ground level. In the case of AMSC, its objective is to sell multiple subsidized tractors for

individuals to open garages and make tractor services available for hire to the small-scale

farmers who can’t afford to purchase a tractor themselves. The reality is that these

individuals do not use their tractors in the intended areas or for the intended beneficiaries,

- 23 -
instead, during high demand times, they move towards the large size or more arable lands

that give bigger profits, returning to plow for the small-scale ones past the prime of

cultivation. Of the five AMSC centers claiming to be opened in Tamale Metro district, not

one is actually open and active as proposed.

By far, the most critical need that is to be seriously tackled by MoFA at the top levels

to end FiS, is the establishment of a concrete, sustainable credit scheme for small-scale

farmers. Until this constant pit of debt farmers dig themselves in and out in every harvest

trying to simply purchase agricultural inputs is genuinely dealt with, small-scales farmers will

never be able to ensure complete FS. Although MoFA probably does not have the financial

resources and certainly not the societal capital in communities to fund it itself, it has the AEA

data of production and existing farmer groups, and potential to identify farmers and funnel a

credit scheme through the private sector- as suggested by District Director Arkorful. The

NGOs consulted that have been giving loans for years have been doing so with fairly

successful return rates, showing that agricultural credit is possible and immensely helpful to

communities, but needs to be tackled in a sizeable and sustainable manner beyond NGOs’

few years of grant funding.

At the lower regional and district levels, the most important way for FS initiatives to

be improved is for more collaboration to occur between MoFA and NGOs. The understaffing

and budget constraints of MoFA will always prevail, but communities could be better reached

if MoFA takes advantage of the vast resources and relationships NGOs have with local

communities, and NGOs learn from the expertise and large scale data MoFA garners.

In interviewing NGO and MoFA agents, a sense of rivalry could be detected between

the two. NGOs criticizing MoFA’s implementation and isolation from other FS program

providers, MoFA complaining of the duplication of services and lack of aid from NGOs in

requesting their help, but ultimately they all work with the same goals in mind, and without

- 24 -
open communication and partnerships with each other, there will always be a sense of a

divided force that benefits no one. MoFA districts must understand that NGOs too face

funding challenges and work under the pressure to meet grant targets, and NGOs must face

that MoFA’s task is monumental and under outrageous budget constraints. NGOs must come

to partner with MoFA during the planning stages of initiatives and keep in mind that MoFA

will always undoubtedly fall short monetarily. MoFA should be regarded as a partner in

implementation and sharing of reports and findings, rather than a quick source for production

and other entry statistics.

Small-scale farmers will undoubtedly always be at a loss as agriculture continues to

modernize, expand, and they get pushed to the edges. No amount of NGO or MoFA program

is going to change that reality. However, there is an immense power in unity and enterprise

that transcends the size of an individuals’ land. As long as small-scale farmers continue to

have this sustenance, way-of-life mentality to agriculture- borrowing here, selling there, not

keeping records, or thoroughly planning to get by, not much improvement will be made to

this reality. Unless the mindset of the vulnerable farmer changes to approach their situation

and their limitations with a modern ‘business’ mind, no significant change will ever come.

That is not to say there are still not basic needs beyond their control that need to be

better met by MoFA. However, an empowered group of farmers that unites with the sole

purpose of bettering their economic situation could flourish tremendously and have a genuine

chance at escaping the cycle of FiS. There has to be initiative on the part of farmers to take

advantage of the MoFA resources that unfortunately will never realistically become more

accessible to them. When I asked farmers how they went about dealing with delayed MoFA

funds for the NAFCO programs they said they did nothing and just waited because they

“know government can’t cheat them”. It is this sedentary mentality that ultimately hurts their

situation more so than the physical poverty. If that group of farmers would have shown up at

- 25 -
their MoFA district office, someone would’ve listened. Unlike the regional office where

implementation meets bureaucracy, as I personally discovered, district offices’ objective is to

“ensure the development and effective implementation of agricultural programs” (“District

Directorates”, MoFA Official Website).

MoFA Tamale Metro Director, Arkorful, shared the story of the farmer who had

shown up at the office asking why his village had not seen an AEA in a while, claiming that

no one was visiting his community, but were visiting all the surrounding ones. The office

investigated and discovered that surely enough, that particular community lied on a boundary

of two operational areas, so the AEA of one assumed the AEA of the other was going, and

vice versa, and so the community had been essentially left out of receiving extension

services. The problem was amended and clearly labeled which area and AEA it belonged to.

But if it wasn’t for that farmer showing up at the district office there was no way MoFA

would’ve ever realized the error. Arkorful claims that if a group of farmers were to organize

a program wanting to learn new farming techniques or initiatives in their communities, and

invite MoFA to speak with them, AEAs and district offices will be more than willing to

arrange something, but ultimately, farmers need to reach out to MoFA themselves if they find

what MoFA provides them is not enough.

Back in Nwogu in the Tolon/Kumbungu district where an AEA has also not been

seen in years, no one has done anything to claim this to MoFA. Interestingly enough, nearby

village, Bogunayili, even within a walking distance from Nwogu, these small-scale farmers

have a solid relationships with MoFA and its initiatives, as well as several NGOs currently

and in the past. They are home to 2009’s Best Pepper Farmer as chosen by MoFA, and a

group of farmers from the community even had an accepted application to receive one of the

MoFA highly coveted subsidized tractors with a 3-year payment plan. Unfortunately, they did

not have the resources for the 50% required deposit (600 GHC, approx. 400 USD), and were

- 26 -
unable to actually receive the tractor- citing the importance of revamping these programs to

meet the needs of small farmers that really need them. However, the situation gives rise to

the reflection of the power of grouping farmers and empowering them with the voice for

‘two-way’ communication in order to achieve any real sustainable prosperity.

A small partnership between a few MoFA districts in the NR and Engineers Without

Borders-Canada (EWB) started in 2008 and began a program called “Agriculture as a

Business” (AAB). This model is not funded through MoFA, but MoFA helps identify

community farmer groups, and link EWB volunteers with AEAs to implement. AAB is a

ten-module curriculum training that aims at shifting farmers’ view from farming for survival

to farming as a business. The ten modules include topics that help the farmer groups learn

issues of viable group formation and dynamics, opening of a savings account and the

importance of regular contributions by all members, planting, risk and profit analysis,

culminating in the writing and implementing of a group business plan. It seeks to help

farmers see the power of group-formation not just as a form of accessing credit, but to make

strategic decisions that ensure their income, and a stable future for their families. AAB gives

an opportunity to “make farmer own his life” and keep the market in the back of his mind so

they can “grow what they can sell…and they’ll be able to buy what they can eat” (personal

communication, Arkorful, 27 April 2011).

Theoretically, if implemented hand in hand with a solid credit scheme, AAB can

make an absolute sustainable difference in the FS situation of these communities, as it tackles

one of the fundamental concerns that keep farmers trapped in the FiS cycle- the mindset of

poverty that weakens their self-view of potential. In its two years, AAB is having several

impressive success stories. However, the program runs the risk of many other great ideas if

FS management. It is relatively unknown to other organizations that would be the key to its

expansion. And unless MoFA buys into it a national level, or other NGOs in the field

- 27 -
collaborate with MoFA and also adopt the model, it will vanish as its funding depletes, and

its impact will be limited to the few it reaches.

The answer to winning the messy war of FS management is not a plain single one.

And although there are chief modifications that need to occur at the top levels of MoFA to

truly begin to meet the multifaceted needs of vulnerable communities. There is a lot of

potential in the lower levels of management to collaborate and partner with NGOs, keeping in

mind that despite logistical differences, they all avow the same purpose of ending FiS in a

grassroots sustainable manner.

- 28 -
Conclusion

No one can deny the primal role food plays in the development of healthy individuals,

and consequently, healthy nations. An access to enough food is a fundamental human right

that no one should have to go without. Even so, around the world today there are 925 million

hungry or chronically food insecure people today, that figure is up 20% since 1995 despite

there being a reduction in world wide poverty and an increase in food production (FAO,

2010). However, the issue of FiS management is structural in nature and requires the need

for state organizations to tackle the root causes of FiS in their countries with a focus on the

grassroots reality of the people it affects.

In Ghana, there are 3.2 million food insecure and vulnerable people today. While the

causes of FiS are diverse across regions and populations, it undeniably appears hand-in-hand

with poverty, disproportionably affecting the rural Northern communities that have

historically been underdeveloped and deprived of resources and trade. However, the state

initiatives intended to tackle this issue are generally prepared, funded, and monitored in the

central MoFA offices in Accra, utterly too distant from the reality of the FiS situation. This

study was aimed at understanding the FiS issue and assessing the implementation of MoFA

programs from a ground level by living and interacting with select rural communities in the

NR. Eventually, with the help of the communities and NGOs working in the field, be able to

delineate recommendations for MoFa’s implementation improvement.

Upon visiting five farming villages in the Tamale Metro and Tolon/Kumpungu

districts of the NR I was able to interview 180 members of FiS and vulnerable communities,

80 of which were farmers, on their experiences attempting to ensure FS, and their

relationships with MoFA and other program-providers aimed at helping their situation.

Along with group and individual interviews, I was able to shortly reside in three of the five

communities and experience first hand the reality of FiS. I observed the coping techniques of

- 29 -
households in the face of food shortages, and participated in the various activities women

partake to ensure income and meal access to all household members. To assess the formal

standpoint of FS programs, I consulted representatives of seven NGOs working in the field of

FS, as well as MoFA current and former employees to determine the existing initiatives and

challenges faced implementing programs.

I found that my stay in the villages showed an arresting face to FiS that is missing

from MoFA’s official programs and stories of success. In fact, the communication between

the villages and MoFA was deplorable, and a strong feeling of neglect and mistrust of MoFA

overcame most farmer groups consulted. The reality of FiS for these small-scale subsistence

farmers is persistently being caught between the rising costs of farming inputs, and the little

crop production they do to last for consumption, income, and debt repayment. Without a

dependable source of credit or an adequate secure market, they have to resort to informal

high-cost credit schemes with other farmers and service providers, and when harvesting

comes, immediately repay mounting debts with their proceeds, and leave less for their own

consumption and basic household needs.

Furthermore, like 98% of food-crop farmers nationwide, they are solely dependent on

rainwater for cultivation (WFP, 2009, p.14), and have no means of farming or income during

the dry season. It is during this time that the FiS situation is aggravated and the challenge to

get by is the hardest as stocks of harvested crops spoil and deplete, and the prices to purchase

any additional food are highest. Although the majority of households had some form of

animal rearing practice, this was not ventured for its potential steady source of income, but

was culturally viewed as a type of savings to be sold or eaten only in emergencies and to

meet cultural and religious customs. The most evident thing about the coping mechanisms of

communities was the impressive role women play in combating FiS. While women’s

presence in farming is not very significant in these villages, they consistently partake in

- 30 -
resourceful ways of supplementing their household income. More importantly, they place

great effort and dedication in budgeting of food and resources, often putting themselves last,

and ensuring husbands and children are taken care of.

Numerous programs currently exist targeted at these types of communities to combat

the multifaceted issue of FiS. While there are simply too many by MoFA and consulted

NGOs to list all, there are recognizable patterns in the approaches. The most common, and

MoFAs main task, is to create support for the agricultural sector. Bringing new technology

and trainings as well as crediting, granting or subsidizing farming inputs, these initiatives are

all geared towards improving the farming production, and securing enough food for

consumption and sale profit. Similarly, there are programs focused on reducing post-harvest

loss of product and income potential by providing better storage facilities, training and

materials on the preservation or further processing of crops, and advance credit or guaranteed

market prices to allow sales at a maximum profit. In addition to enriching agriculture there

are initiatives the grant support to the additional sources of income vital to the survival

through the dry season. Livestock development and micro-enterprises such as shea butter

extraction and beekeeping receive economic and technical support from MoFA and NGOs to

expand and alleviate some of the hardships that come from a lack of steady year-round

income. Lastly, are the approaches geared towards advocacy and empowerment. These step

away from giving a direct material benefit, but work to group, train and give voice to farmers

to work with each other and MoFA and claim their right to FS.

Implementing these various initiatives across the country reaching millions of people

poses difficult challenges for MoFA. While NGOs face pressure of meeting grant targets

under time limitations, they generally have solid well funded implementation approaches, and

successful strategies for entering and integrating their programs into communities. By the

narratives and observations during the visits to the villages, it was shown that although the

- 31 -
direct benefit of NGO programs come and go, they leave discernible lasting effects on the

morale, group formation, and leadership of community members.

MoFA, on the other hand, faces the staggering reality of under-funding and

understaffing hindering successful implementation. Furthermore, the structure of centralized

planning and endowment results in delays and insufficient resources at the regional and

district levels to efficiently reach all the intended farmers. Essentially leaving the

implementers with their hands tied, and inadequate tools to improve the situation and do their

duty. The disconnection between central MoFA and the field level MoFA leaves program

designs without the complete resources for its valuable field-level monitoring of results.

Thus, the realities of program effects are hidden under “success” statistics, at times even

causing more harm than good.

With this recognition, it is clear that to truly improve MoFA’s implementation;

changes need to occur at the central national level. There is a need for serious prioritization

of the logistics for implementation and monitoring, with adequate and timely funds being

dedicated for this purpose. If not, the logistical problems will always stand in the way of

significant changes at the community level. At the national and regional level, there also

needs to be a stronger focus in incorporating small-scale farmers into the design and

assessment of policies. Making up 72% of food-crop and 43% of cash-crop farmers

nationwide (WFP, 2009, p.162), this critical population of small-scale farmers is the most

deprived, and needs to be at the forefront of MoFA’s approach. On that note, the most

critical need this population faces, and must be met by central MoFA, is a reliable and

nationally concrete credit scheme to help them get out of the cycle of debt and low

production that fuels FiS.

At the lower regional and district levels of MoFA, the challenge lies in forming more

significant collaborations and partnerships with NGOs. MoFA must recognize that NGOs

- 32 -
face their own funding concerns and targets to meet for their continued existence, and NGOs

must take advantage of the technical expertise, and sizable network of accessible

communities and production numbers that MoFA offers. Partnership is essential through the

entire process of building, sustaining, and reporting of initiatives, and NGOs must recognize

that MoFA will never have the financial capabilities to be an ‘equal’ partner or the resources

to lead networks and collaborations, but it has an incredible knowledge and potential to bring

to the building of sustainable schemes.

Lastly, the critical and at risk part of the FS management is the food insecure farmer

himself, and at this grassroots level there is a fundamental capability that needs to be

awakened for the ripple of change to reach Accra. Farmers must unite more and confront the

mindset of poverty and subsistence, exchanging it for one of business and progress in order to

take claim and advantage of the resources available, and climb out of the helplessness of FiS.

NGOs and MoFA can come together and strengthen programs like AAB that empower

farmers and give authentic hope for reaching FS from within.

While I was able to reach a good number of people and generally meet the objectives

I set out to reach in this small study, there were unquestionable limitations that could be

amended and expanded to develop this project in the future. The most obvious drawback is

the constraints that come from completing an entire analysis in 30 days, a wider scope of

villages and households and longer visits could absolutely give this review a stronger

capacity. Also, a more through collaboration with MoFA from the beginning, with a focus on

the district and AEA levels, would have given a great factor to truly understanding the

implementation challenges it faces.

Given that farming stands at the core of the FiS situation of the targeted communities,

an opportunity to observe and participate in this activity first hand would give a more

complete field-based dimension of the problem. Furthermore, a handle of the Dagbani

- 33 -
language would unquestionably appease the dynamics of rapport of studying a community as

an outsider. Nevertheless, I found that rapport was a surprisingly minimal barrier for the

study; the selected communities were extraordinarily receptive to the project and me. I built

wonderful relationships with community members at all levels, and experienced a reality that,

even with a language barrier, I came to understand fairly well.

Despite limitations, the findings raise interesting possibilities for future study.

MoFA’s Block Farming initiative, directs efforts to what I found to be the most critical issues

in FiS: access to credit, a reliable market, and teaming of farmers. While deficiencies in its

implementation have already been recognized by internal, official and external voices of

MoFA (“Lessons from past projects”; Tetteh, 2010; personal communication, Arkorful, 27

April 2011), a thorough and systematic analysis of its implementation from the ground up,

could prove to be useful in its sustainability and expansion, and propel a comprehensive

initiative to tackling FiS. More imperatively, future field studies of this type need to work

more closely with MoFA to be able to exhaustively analyze the complexity of

implementation challenges it faces. The arms of MoFA will probably always be too short to

reach the too many Ghanaians facing FiS. Even so, with its potential and existing partners in

farms, villages, NGO offices, and abroad, a stronger army can be built so that access to

enough food “by all people, at all times” becomes a reality.

- 34 -
- 35 -
References

“District Directorates”. Retrieved 28 Apr, 2011, from

http://www.mofa.gov.gh/district_agric_development.html

Dormon, E., Adjei-Nsiah, S., Sakyi-Dawson, O., & Abade Debra, K. (2009). Food security in
Ghana: Identifying opportunities for enhancing food security in the UWR of
Ghana. Proceedings of the first CoS-SIS international conference, Elmina, Ghana.
70-74.

EWB. Rural Agriculture-Ghana. Retrieved 25 Apr, 2011 from

http://www.ewb.ca/en/whatwedo/overseas/projects/agricultureghana.html

FAO (1999). The FAO field programme and agricultural development in Asia and the
Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO.

FAO (2010). The State of food insecurity in the world: Addressing food insecurity in
protracted crises. Rome, Italy: FAO

Goldsmith, M. (2009). The mystery of the absent vegetables: A critical look at the Ghanaian
diet with a focus on malnutrition. ISP Fall 2009.

“Latest Achievements”. Retrieved 2 May, 2011, from

http://www.mofa.gov.gh/achievements.html

“Lessons from past projects”. Ghana Interactive Food Security Forum (GIFSEF)-MoFA.
Retrieved 18 Apr, 2011 from http://mofafoodsecurity.wordpress.com/lessons-
from-past-projects/

Mawugbe, M. (2010). Media and food security: The coverage of agriculture in the Ghanaian
media. Proceedings of the 2010 Harmattan School, Tamale, Ghana. 105-118.

Maxwell, D., Levin, C., Armar-Klemesu, M., Ruel, M., Morris, S. & Ahiadeke, C. (2000)
Urban livelihoods and food and nutrition security in greater Accra, Ghana.
Research Report #112, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,
DC.

Maxwell, S., Frankenberger, T. (1992). Household food security concepts, indicators, and
measurements. New York, NY, USA: UNICEF.

Montfort, P. (2009, 27 Apr 2009) Ghana between food insecurity and the financial crisis.
Momagri - World Organization For Agriculture. Retrieved from
http://www.momagri.org/UK/focus-on-issues/Ghana-Between-Food-Insecurity-
and-the-Financial-Crisis_484.html

National Population Council. (2004). “Fact Sheet No. 11-Population of Ghana: Regional
Trends”

Nyanteng, VK., Asuming-Brempong, S. (2003). The role of agriculture in food security in

Ghana. A paper presented at Roles of Agriculture Project International

- 36 -
 Conference 20-22 October, 2003 Rome, Italy. Organized by Agricultural and
Development Economics Division (ESA) Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations.

Quaye, W. (2008). Food security situation in northern Ghana, coping strategies and related
constraints. In African Journal of Agricultural Research. 3(5), 334-342.

Strauss, A., Corbin J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury, California: Sage Publications.

Tetteh, SM. (2010, 15 Aug 2010). Block Farming initiative already crippling farmers and
ehading the way of the PSIs? MyJoyOnline News. Retrieved from
http://news.myjoyonline.com/features/201008/50735.asp.

Tollens, E. (2000). Food security: Incidence and causes of food insecurity among vulnerable
groups and coping strategies. Food insecurity in ACP countries (pp. 27-50).
Ariane, France: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA).

WFP (2009). Comprehensive food security and vulnerability analysis (CFSVA)- The
Republic of Ghana. Rome, Italy: WFP.

World Bank (1986). Poverty and hunger: Issues and options for food security in developing
countries. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank.

- 37 -
 Informants

 Abdul-Fatawa, Abdulai. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges

and experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Abdul-Rahaman, Azara. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Abdul-Rahaman, Mariama. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms

for ensuring FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Abdul-Razak, Gyamila. Formal Interview. “WFP initiatives and implementation challenges”.

WFP Sub-Office, Tamale. 15 Apr 2011. (gyamila.abdul-razak@wfp.org,
02464311288)

 Abdulai, Adam. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Abdulai, Adam. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Abdulai, Amadu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Abdullai, Abukari. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bogunayili. 14 Apr 2011.

 Abdullai, Zabaga. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Abukari, Alitmatu. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Abukari, Memunatu. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Abukari, Samaya. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Adam, Abdulsomed. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Adam, Iliasu. Programme Coordinator, CLIP. Formal Interview. “CLIP initiatives and
implementation challenges”. CLIP Office, Tamale. 8 Apr 2011.
(adam_iliasu@yahoo.com, 0208161295).

 Adam, Sanalu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

- 38 -
 Adim, Aminu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Adisa, Abubakari. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Adishefu, Iussif. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Akapire, Edward. Formal Interview. “ActionAid initiatives and implementation challenges”.

ActionAid Office, Tamale. 21 Apr 2011. (Edward.akapire@actionaid.org )

 Alhassan, Abdul Rahaman. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences
with MoFA and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Abdul-Rahaman. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences

with MoFA and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Abdullah. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Abukari. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Adam. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Amadu. Consultant, National Capacity Strategy Team (NSCT), MoFA and NGO
former employee. Formal Interview. “FS program implementation challenges”.
Nwogu. 14 Apr 2011. (amadu60@yahoo.com , 0242175360).

 Alhassan, Atifs. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Awabal. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Mariama. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Mohammed. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Mohammed. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Mohammed. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

- 39 -
 Alhassan, Mohammed [2]. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges
and experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Mohammed. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Takubu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Zakaria. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Zeinabu. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Alhassan, Zelia. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Amadu, Mohammed. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Amadu, Zakaria. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Aminu, Adahanatu. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Aminu, Alhassan. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Andaratu, Abubakari. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Arkorful, Kwamina. Director, Tamale Metro District MoFA. Formal Interview. “MoFA
challenges in implementation.” Tamale. 27 Apr 2011. (kwaminark@yahoo.com ,
0209374140, 0244599648).

 Asana, Ibrahim. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Ayi, Ibrahim. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring FS
at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Ayisha, Lukunum. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Ayishatu, Abdul-Rahaman. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms

for ensuring FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

- 40 -
 Azara, Abdulait. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Azaratu, Alhassan. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Baba, Tahiru. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA and
NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Bamani, Alhassan. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Barilaisu, Osman. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Bariyam, Solomon K. Agricultural Officer, OIC. “OIC initiatives and implementation

challenges”. OIC Food Security & Nutrition Training Centre, Kumpungu. 7 Apr
2011. (bariyamk@yahoo.com , 0244479104).

 Ernest, Mr.Informal Interview. “MoFA programs and initiatives”. MoFA Regional Office,
Tamale. 11 Apr 2011. (ernie.dwamena@yahoo.co.uk )

 Fati, Alhassan. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Fuseini, Adamn. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Fuseini, Baba. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Fuseini, Fatima. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Fuseini, Mohamed. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Fuseini, Tohiru. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Fuseini, Wombei. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Fuseini, Zakaria. Development Officer, Tamale Metro MoFA. Formal Interview. “MoFA
challenges in implementation.” Tamale. 26 Apr 2011. (kfzackfus@yahoo.com ).

 Ibrahim, Abdul Magidu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

- 41 -
 Ibrahim, Fuseini. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Ibrahim, Zilata. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Iddi, Damata Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring FS
at household level”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011

 Iddisu, Abdul-Rahaman. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges

and experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Idirisi, Immoro. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Idirisu, Abdul Somed. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bogunayili. 14 Apr 2011.

 Iddirisu, Amadu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Iddirisu, Samata. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Iddirisu, Zakaria Abdulai. Agricultural Program Manager, OIC. Formal Interview. “OIC
initiatives and implementation challenges”. 7 Apr 2011. (zabdulai@oici.org ,
024447937)

 Issah, Alhassan. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Bogunayili. 14 Apr 2011.

 Issah, Fuseini. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Bogunayili. 14 Apr 2011.

 Issah, Mohammed. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Issah, Salifu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA and
NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Issah, Zuwera. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Issahaku, Alhassan. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bogunayili. 14 Apr 2011.

 Issahaku, Mutawakira. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

- 42 -
 Issahaku, Rukaya. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Issahaku, Sana. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Issahaku, Yakubu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Jacob, Naporo. Informal Interview. “BIBIR programs and challenges in implementation”.

BIBIR Office, Tamale. 8 Apr 2011.

 Jebuni, Wumbei. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Kankam-Boadu, Isaac. EC Project Manger, ADRA. Formal Interview. “ADRA programs and
implementation challenges”. Tamale. 21 Apr 2011. (isaackankam@yahoo.com ,
ikankam-boadu@adraghana.org , 0244177870, 0276677277)

 Karim, Mohammed Abdul. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences
with MoFA and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Latif, Ibrahim. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Mahamadu, Baaba. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bogunayili. 14 Apr 2011.

 Mahamadu, Salima. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Mahiya, Iddi. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring FS
at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Mahiya, Seidu. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Mali, Mohammed. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Mankusa, Fuseini. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Mankwa, Iddirisu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Mariam, Mohammed. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

- 43 -
 Mariam, Sofianu. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and
experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Memunatu, Abdul-Rahaman. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms

for ensuring FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Memunatu, Baba. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Memunatu, Fatawa. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Memunatu, Salama. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Mohamed, Abiba. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Mohammed, Amina. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Mohammed, Samata. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Mumuni, Mariama Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Musah, Zeinabu. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Mussah, Abbass. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Mussah, Sherazu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Naa, Yiwag. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA and
NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Niendow, Alhassan. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Niendow, Nbanba. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Osei, Joseph Charles. Director, BIBIR Ghana. Formal Interview “BIBIR programs and
implementation challenges”. BIBIR Office, Tamale. 11 Apr 2011.
(bibirghana@yahoo.com , 0243314421, 0208166633).

- 44 -
 Safiya, Ibrahim. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Sala, Alhassan. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Salamatu, Ibrahim. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Salifu, Abdul-Rashid. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Salifu, Fariku. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Salifu, Rukaya. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Sanatu, Fatalou. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Sanatu, Mumani. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Seidu, Abiba. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring FS
at household level”. Mbanayili. 16 Apr 2011.

 Seidu, Salamatu. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Sharatu, Ibrahim. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Sulemana, Abibata. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Sulemana, Alhassan. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Sulemana, Salamatu. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Sumani, Mussah. Chief of Bogunayili. Informal Interview. “Community challenges and

relationship with MoFA and NGOs”. Bogunayili. 13 Apr 2011.

 Razak, Adam Abdul. Formal Interview. “Grameen Ghana initiatives and implementation
challenges”. Grameen Ghana Office, Tamale. 12 Apr 2011. (deymba@yahoo.com,
grameenghana@yahoo.com ).

- 45 -
 Tahiru, Adam. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Tahiru, Mohammed. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Tahiru, Yawibu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA
and NGOs”. Nwogu. 17 Apr 2011.

 Timboyen Women’s Group. Group Interview. ““Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Bogunayili. 13 Apr 2011.

 Tunteeya, Wumpini. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

 Vahaya, Napari. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Wumpini, Abubakari Habib. Secretary, Bogunayili with Communities Students Association

(BOCSA). Informal Interview. “BOCSA and Bogunayili development”. Bogunayili.
13 Apr 2011.

 Yakubu, Mahamudu. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bogunayili. 14 Apr 2011.

 Yakubu, Sulemana. Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with
MoFA and NGOs”. Bogunayili. 14 Apr 2011.

 Yussif, Abdul-Aziz. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Zabagdou, Osman. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Zakaria, Mohammed. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming challenges and

experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Zakaria, Mohammed Asuro. Gender-Integrated Farmer Group Interview. “Farming

challenges and experiences with MoFA and NGOs”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Zakaria, Sayibu. Informal Interview. “Farming challenges and experiences with MoFA and
NGOs”. Bogunayili. 13 Apr 2011.

 Zakaria, Yawa. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for ensuring
FS at household level”. Kpanvo. 24 Apr 2011.

 Zeihab, Alhassan. Women Group Interview. “Challenges and coping mechanisms for
ensuring FS at household level”. Bamvim. 25 Apr 2011.

- 46 -