Final Ghana Team Program Design with Annexes 11.1.2015

Food & Agriculture Resurgence Mission in the Ashanti Region (Ghana) Program Design

This document was prepared by Soham Banerji, V. Mayo Floro, Priscilla Lekalkuli, Marvin Saccucci and Maurice Sayinzoga of the Ashanti Consulting Group for the Ministry of Food and Agriculture of the Republic of Ghana and the Millenium Villages Program Center for West Africa.

FOOD & AGRICULTURE RESURGENCE MISSION | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ANNEXES ......................................................................................................ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................iv

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1

History and Background .............................................................................................. 1

II. SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 2

A. Needs Assessment ............................................................................................... 2

B. Alignment with Government Priorities, and Stakeholder Analysis ........................ 3

II. PROPOSED TECHNICAL APPROACH ...................................................................... 5

A. Development Hypothesis ...................................................................................... 5

B. Project Beneficiaries ............................................................................................. 6

C. Project Components/Strategy ............................................................................... 7

D. Implementation Approach and Timeline ............................................................. 12

Staffing Plan ........................................................................................................... 13

E. Monitoring Evaluation Research and Learning Approach .................................. 14

III. BUDGET AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE FARM PROGRAM ............... 17

A. Budget Analysis .................................................................................................. 17

B. Cost-Benefit Analysis ......................................................................................... 17

C. Key Risks and Assumptions ............................................................................... 18

FOOD & AGRICULTURE RESURGENCE MISSION | ii

LIST OF ANNEXES Annex I. Problem Tree Analysis Annex II. Objective Tree Analysis Annex III. Stakeholder Analysis Annex IV. Risk Analysis Annex V. Logical Framework Annex VI. Timeline Gantt Chart Annex VII. Indicator Reference Sheet Annex VIII. Map of Ghana Agricultural Landscape Annex IX. Budget Spreadsheet Annex X. Cost Benefit Analysis Annex XI List of Sources

FOOD & AGRICULTURE RESURGENCE MISSION | iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis Cocobod Ghana Cocoa Board FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FARM Food and Agriculture Resurgence Mission GASIP Ghana’s Agricultural Sector Investment Program IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development KNUST Kwame Nkurumah University of Science and Technology MSC Most Significant Change MOFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture PRA Participatory Research Approaches MVP Millennium Villages Program Center for West Africa USAID United States Agency for International Development WFP World Food Program

FOOD & AGRICULTURE RESURGENCE MISSION | iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Food and Agriculture Resurgence Mission (FARM) is a five-year initiative aimed at reducing food insecurity in the Ashanti region of Ghana planned for the Republic of Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) and Millennium Villages Program Center for West Africa (MVP). The project will benefit 10,000 Ashanti residents, split between 5,000 food crop and 5,000 cash crop farmers throughout the eleven primarily agricultural districts of the region from 2016-2020. FARM plans to invest $23,721,000 over the course of the program. Many farmers in Ashanti have strayed away from food crop production due to the high returns for gold and cash crops. Although cash crops offer higher returns, the limited food crop supply, coupled with a high dependence on imports and the devaluation of the local currency, has exacerbated the issue of food insecurity in the region. As a result, the local diet lacks necessary vitamins, minerals, and proteins. The objective of FARM is to tackle the root causes of food insecurity, specifically through teaching farmers best food and cash crop practices. FARM will increase the available of seeds, tools, and capital through the formation of and collaboration with farmer cooperatives. FARM will also provide training and technical assistance on upgrading the cacao and oil palm value chains. These integrated approaches aim to ensure increased food and cash crop production. To complement these practices, FARM will construct a combination of traditional and technologically improved storage facilities throughout the eleven identified districts. To ensure the sustainability of the project, the program will incorporate a learning by doing approach. FARM will use a phased implementation plan throughout the project life cycle. Different activities will be spread throughout the course of the five years. By taking an iterative design approach, the program will adapt to the failures and successes of recent activities. The project team will be able to monitor the impact of the program by conducting a beginning, midterm, and end-line review. Specific indicators will be measured at different intervals throughout the five years. The information retrieved from reviews will determine the sustainability and scale of future projects. The project will require the participation of local government and community organizations. First, FARM plans to partner with other MOFA-affiliated agencies, to complement its own sustainable agriculture and agribusiness activities. Funding will primarily be supplied by the MVP. FARM intends to leverage the support of other partners such as the Ashanti local government, local businesses and mining companies. Technical expertise will be complemented by NGO’s in the region such as Technoserve and Kuapa Kokoo, and research institutions like the Kwame Nkurumah University of Science and Technology. The lessons learned from FARM will be applied to future initiatives. By tackling the root causes of food insecurity in the region, using a phased implementation and iterative design approach, and community participatory approach, FARM places itself in the best possible position for success in making Ashanti food secure.

FOOD & AGRICULTURE RESURGENCE MISSION | 1

I. INTRODUCTION The Food and Agriculture Resurgence Mission (FARM) is a comprehensive five-year initiative designed for the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) and Millennium Village Program Center for West Africa (MVP), to be implemented in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. Ashanti is a region characterized by food insecurity due to inefficient farming practices, limited access to inputs, and an absence of community markets where surpluses can be sold to generate income. FARM aims to improve food security in Ashanti by increasing the income and food crop production of 10,000 farmer in 11 agricultural districts of Ashanti. The program will achieve these goals through five integrated components:

1) Increased knowledge on agricultural and technical skills for food crop production 2) Increased inputs (seeds, farming implements, capital) for food crop production 3) Increased number of agro-businesses and farmer cooperatives 4) Upgraded value chain for cocoa and oil palm 5) Increased number and use of storage facilities.

History and Background The Ashanti Region of Ghana is located within the tropics of Western Africa, an area full of natural resources and gold deposits. Due to the soil’s high fertility, the agricultural sector allows for the production of cash crops, which offer farmers high returns. Nonetheless, an overemphasis on cash crop production in Ashanti, coupled with traditional subsistence farming has led to high food insecurity and malnutrition. Ashanti occupies 10.2% of Ghana’s land area. Its central location is conducive to the transport of goods and services. About 30.5% of Ashanti’s economy revolves around agriculture. 22.1% of farms are dedicated to cacao, 21.6% of farms to cassava, 20.1% to plantains, and 11.3% to maize. This overemphasis on starchy crops leaves much desire for a wider variety of proteins and vegetables in the local diet (Region Analytical Reports for Ashanti Region, 2010).

As part of Ghana’s development strategy, Ashanti has hosted the Millennium Village Project, an initiative that aimed to reach the Millennium Development Goals laid out by the United Nations in 2000. Through various interventions, the project has attempted to address the root causes of extreme poverty, taking a holistic, community-led approach to sustainable development (Millennium Villages Program). The Millennium Village Project has intervened in Bonsaaso village in the Amansie-West district of Ashanti. About 70% of the 35,000 village residents

20%

20%

18%

19%

6%

4% 4%

1% 1% 1% 6%CacaoCassavaPlantainMaizeCocoyamYamOil PalmPepperTomatoRiceOther

Source: Ghana Statistical Service 2013 Figure1. Type of Farms

FOOD & AGRICULTURE RESURGENCE MISSION |2

live on less than $1 a day. Chronic malnutrition is prevalent, HIV is common, and food insecurity is high. Because of the high returns to cash crops, 80% of planted land in Bonsaaso is dedicated to cacao production (MVP, 2015). Since its implementation, the Millennium Village Project has recorded remarkable achievements. Increased yields between 85% and 350% where the project has intervened have been realized. Nonetheless, the project has not been without controversy. Critics identify poor measurement techniques in evaluating the project’s true impact. Beneficiaries have also complained about the social divisions, disharmony and unequal distribution of power in Millennium Villages. The project’s time constraint has also forced the fast-paced movement from one activity to another, oftentimes without fully developing the activities. In addition, the recurring development issue of sustainability and local ownership has been at the forefront of the debate. As a result, FARM attempts to build upon Millennium Village activities that have had a positive net effect, while addressing and improving upon the project’s criticisms and concerns. The Food and Agriculture Resurgence Mission (FARM) will analyze the experience of Ashanti residents under the Millennium Village Project and leverage the Ministry of Food and Agriculture’s experience in executing a more complete intervention.

II. SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS A. Needs Assessment Food insecurity can be understood as the "limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or the limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways" (USDA). Based on this definition(s), a community's ability to supply food, coupled with an individual's ability to purchase food have implications for a community’s food security. Through external research, we have identified the root causes of food insecurity in Ashanti as being:

1. The decrease in variety and amount of food crops 2. Reliance on imported goods 3. Limited purchasing power of Ashanti residents 4. Elevated food prices for Ashanti consumers 5. The wastage of food surplus (Anderman et al., ISI Journal 2014).

These issues are deeply rooted in causal chains for consumers, producers, markets, and infrastructure. (See Section II for a description of these chains and Annex I for the problem tree) With regards to production, Ashanti residents have strayed away from food crop production due to the high demands for gold and cash crops (i.e. cocoa, oil palm). As more farmers participate in small-scale mining, less time and/or land is devoted to agriculture. An increase in demand for cocoa, cassava, and plantains has resulted in a decrease in nutritionally diverse food crops among Ashanti residents. This decrease in food crop production is exacerbated by the lack of inputs (e.g. seeds, farming tools, etc.) and a lack of technical know-how. Concerning access to food, Ashanti residents are unable to purchase nutritious food due to citizens’ limited purchasing power. This limited purchasing power is the result of residents’ inability to generate adequate incomes to keep up with elevated food prices and high priced imports. Accordingly, 48.3% of Ghana's working poor live on less than $2 a day (Human


Development Report, 2014). Although cash crop production is widespread, farmers receive limited returns to sales because the raw products that they sell are low on the value chain. In addition, Ashanti is characterized by farmers’ inability to sell food surpluses. Farmers are unable to sell their food surpluses because of the lack of markets to do so. This inability to sell crops disincentivizes farmers from engaging in large-scale food crop production in Ashanti. Finally, poor infrastructure has also been identified as a cause of food insecurity in Ashanti. The World Food Program’s Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis supports this (CFSVA, 2012), by claiming that agricultural trade, is limited throughout Ghana by poor roads and storage centers.

B. Alignment with Government Priorities, and Stakeholder Analysis With the recent adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, the Ghanaian government continues its initiatives to increase food security in Ashanti. In line with the Ghanaian government's initiatives, the mission of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) is

“to promote sustainable agriculture and thriving agribusiness through research and technology development, effective extension and other support services to farmers, processors and traders for improved livelihood.”

FARM will play a critical role in achieving this mission by providing a platform for collaboration between the MOFA, regional government, private sector, donors, and the rest of Ashanti, to increase food security in the region. The table below provides a summary of the importance and influence of different stakeholders. Refer to Annex III for details on how each of these stakeholders will be incentivized to participate in FARM activities.

Table 1. Stakeholder Analysis Matrix High Importance, Low Influence High Importance, High Influence

• Cash Crop Farmers • Food Crop Farmers • Kwame Nkurumah University of Science

and Technology • Farmer Cooperatives • Construction workers • Local banks • Food security NGOs • Ashabti non-farming community

• Millennium Villages Project • Ministry of Food & Agriculture • Ashanti Local Government

Low Importance, High Influence Low Importance, Low Influence

• Bilateral and Private donors • Agricultural officer • Cocobod • Licensed Buying and Selling Companies • Kuapa Kokoo

• Local businesses • Ministry of Finance • Ministry of Roads and Highways


Key Stakeholders:1

The FARM program is spearheaded by The Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) and primarily funded by the Millennium Villages Program Center for West Africa (MVP). MOFA’s collaboration is crucial to the FARM Program’s ability to successfully replicate the project in other districts of the region, due to the Ministry’s contacts, regional expertise, and local influence. In line with MOFA’s mandate to promote national sustainable agriculture and food security, FARM will also seek a partnership with Ghana’s Agricultural Sector Investment Program (GASIP), an ongoing national program funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)2, which has worked closely with MOFA in the past. GASIP as an organization aims to provide a framework for long-term engagement and supplementary financing for private sector-led pro-poor agricultural value chain development. To ensure the success of the FARM program, MVP and MOFA will need to work closely with the Ashanti local government through its Regional Minister and District Chief Executives. As the leaders of the local government, these political players have an interest in improving the lives of their constituents and have the ability to influence coordination with target farmers.

Primary Stakeholders: Primary program stakeholders are 10,000 farmers selected in 11 districts of Ashanti including cash and food crop farmers who will benefit from trainings on improved farming practices, gain access to inputs, and ultimately increase yields. Non-farming community members will also benefit from the project’s increased food crop yields as they will become more food secure. Local construction firms are also considered primary stakeholders, as they will benefit from the building of storage facilities as an additional revenue stream. The daily operation of these storage facilities will create jobs for Ashanti residents, which will lead to increased incomes. In addition, the Kwame Nkurumah University of Science and Technology, which is already conducting investigations on yam storage, will be able to further its research and knowledge base on crop production and seeds.

Secondary Stakeholders: Secondary stakeholders include bilateral, multilateral, and private sector donors like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Since USAID is currently promoting food security in northern Ghana through its Feed the Future Initiative, USAID could be engaged into collaborating with the MOFA and FARM to promote Feed the Future’s best practices throughout the Ashanti region. Similarly, the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Roads and Highways are also vested in the program. The Ministry of Finance is interested in the allocation of government funds for the project and the access to credit FARM will provide its agro-businesses. As FARM increases business activity throughout the region, the Ministry of Roads and Highways would be motivated to improve road conditions throughout Ashanti

1 The key stakeholders can significantly influence the program and are important for the success of the program. 2 See IFAD website on support for cassava, yam, maize, sorghum, fruits and vegetables.


The Ghana Cocoa Board (Cocobod), a government agency that encourages and facilitates the production, processing, and marketing of good quality cacao, coffee and sheanut is impacted by the project as well. The technical expertise and marketing capability of Cocobod will aid FARM’s effectiveness. FARM may also benefit from Cocobod’s stabilization fund, which allows the government to buy produce from farmers at market or higher than market prices. Nonprofit organizations like Technoserve and Kuapa Kokoo are secondary stakeholders because of their potential aid in program implementation. Technoserve and Kuapa Kokoo both have projects that focus on cash crop production, particularly cacao. FARM’s goals are directly in line with Technoserve and Kuapa Kokoo initiatives, which provide a clear possibility of partnerships. Local businesses, particularly solar panel distributors, are secondary stakeholders because of the additional sales they will receive in storage facility construction and implementation. Mining companies such as AngloGold Ashanti are vested in the program because of FARM’s ability to reduce the number of individuals engaged in small-scale mining. FARM will provide AngloGold an opportunity for community engagement and corporate social responsibility. AngloGold Ashanti currently has multiple community engagement projects in Ashanti, especially around Obuasi. Working with FARM will complement the company’s already existing activities.

II. PROPOSED TECHNICAL APPROACH A. Development Hypothesis FARM aims to improve food security in the Ashanti region by providing farmers the inputs, skills and tools necessary for increased income and improved crop production. The program will enable farmers to actively enhance their skills and knowledge of food crop agriculture while leveraging existing cash crop production to maximize income. FARM considers that food insecurity is influenced by the intricate connections that exist between four causal chains: production, consumption, markets, and infrastructure. In particular, the decrease in the variety and amount of food production, limited purchasing power of consumers, high food prices, reliance on imported goods, and food wastage, which all together lead to food insecurity. Under current conditions, farmers and rural folk will be the most affected by food insecurity. The project considers a holistic approach to tackle food insecurity by addressing the four causal chains as illustrated below:

Food Insecurity

Infrastructure Shortfalls

Production issues

Inefficient Markets

Consumer Concerns

Figure 2. Food Security Causal Chains

FOOD & AGRICULTURE RESURGENCE MISSION 6

This project tackles the focal problem of food insecurity through four tracks: Increased Food Crop Production: Ashanti residents have strayed away from food crop production due to the high demands for gold and cash crops (i.e. cacao, oil palm). As a result, FARM aims to re-instill a culture of food crop production by equipping farmers with improved farming techniques and agricultural know-how. FARM will incentivize production by improving access to seeds, tools, and credit. Increased Purchasing Power of Farmers: Ashanti residents are unable to purchase nutritious food due to their limited purchasing power. By providing an added-value approach to current cacao and oil palm production practices, Ashanti farmers will generate higher returns to their sales due to the improved quality and processing of their products. Improving Markets: The market causal chain is influenced by the inability of farmers to sell their food surplus, low cash crop returns, and the devaluation of the local currency. As a result, FARM aims to connect producers to consumers, and provide Ashanti residents with more avenues for sales. FARM will do this by increasing the number of farmer cooperatives and forming relationships with agro-dealers. Developing Infrastructure: Poor infrastructure has been cited as one of the causes of food insecurity in Ashanti. Nonetheless, the construction of storage facilities has the ability to negate food wastage. FARM will partner with MOFA to replace traditional barn, crib, or roof storage methods with more effective siloes or warehousing with dry facilities.

B. Project Beneficiaries According to the Ghana Statistical Service, Ashanti had 2.2 million people engaged in agriculture in 2010. The program aims to improve the lives of farmers who reside in primarily agricultural based districts. Agricultural based districts are defined as those in which 70% of households engaged in agriculture: Atwima Mponua (85.0%), Amansie West (74.1%), Amansie Central/East (82.0%), Adansi South/East (82.8%), Adansi North (74.2%), Bosome Freho (81.6%), Asante Akim South (80.4%), Ahafo Ano South (81.7%), Ahafo Ano North (73.4%), Sekyere Afram (83.3%), Sekyere Central (80.4%). The project will pilot in the two most agriculturally dependent districts for the first two years, Atwima Mponua and Adansi South (East). Both districts have national highways running through them, are strategically surrounded by the other nine districts, and comprise majority of the population. The project will be able to transfer the best practices from Atwima Mponua and Adansi South to the other districts in the following three years.


C. Project Components/Strategy The project will use an integrated approach to address each of the causal chains of food insecurity in Ghana. This integrated approach will increase the purchasing power of farmers and food crop production, all in the hopes of improving food security in the region. FARM will partner with a number of different organizations to implement the program components. (See Annex V for logical framework of outputs and activities). Component 1. Increased knowledge on agricultural and technical skills for food

crop production FARM will work directly with Ashanti residents (farmers, smallholders) and MOFA trained agriculture officers on making food crop production more efficient and diverse by improving farmers’ agricultural skills. This effort will incorporate capacity building trainings and workshops on different agricultural techniques per identified community. These sessions can last from half a day to three days and will depend on the needs and interests of beneficiaries.

Activities in this component will be done on a rolling basis throughout the life cycle of the project. The workshops will partner with USAID to adapt successful Feed the Future interventions on food crop production to Ashanti. In addition, FARM will incorporate MOFA’s current pool of Agricultural Officers in training sessions.

Output 1a. Enhanced farmer knowledge and skills on intercropping and crop rotation Activity 1a. Farmer training sessions on intercropping and crop rotation

As of 2010, only 14.3% of farmers in Ashanti incorporated intercropping for cacao and 22.5% for oil palm. This output focuses on improving soil fertility and usage by training farmers on intercropping and crop rotation methods suitable for different communities.

Figure 3. Proper Spacing of Intercropped Cacao and Coconut, FAO

Photo source: ghanabizfinance.com


Output 1b. Increased farmer knowledge on complementary income generating activities

(e.g. livestock and animal feeds) Activity 1b. Farmer training sessions on complementary agricultural activities

This output focuses on integrating alternative income generation activities into the daily practices of Ashanti farmers. Complementary activities such as sheep and goat breeding on cash crop plantations, or the processing of cocoa husks as animal feeds has the ability to stabilize farmer incomes during low seasons. In addition, animal husbandry can aid in clearing plant growth beneath fruit and cash crop trees, which compete for water and nutrients with trees. Fresh cacao husks that are often discarded can be processed into animal feeds to be sold or used by farmers. Output 1c. Increased farmer knowledge and skills on proper farm and nursery

management, and identification of planting sites. Activity 1c.1. Farmer training sessions on nursery management Activity 1c.2. Farmer training sessions on identification of planting sites

This output focuses on improving farmers’ farm management practices. FARM will do this by improving farm sanitation in the hopes of eliminating diseases affecting cocoa yields (most notably, black pod), selecting planting sites suited for specific crops, and on maintaining a seedling bank or nursery. Proper planting methods based on types of soil and topography can increase yield. Further, maintaining a seedling bank will aid in reducing input costs. Farmers that choose to exclusively manage nurseries can also sell their seedlings to other farmers. Component 2. Increased inputs (seeds, farming implements, capital) for food

crop production Complementing Component 1, the project will work with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and the private sector to give farmers more access to agricultural inputs such as seeds, improved farming tools, and capital. The intervention will work with research institutions such as the KNUST, to provide improved seeds and farming technologies. Activities for Component 2 run in parallel to activities for Component 1.

Output 2a. Increased public-private partnerships to supply agricultural inputs Activity 2a. Provide incentives (tax credit and/or tax breaks) to agribusinesses and

agro-dealers3 This output focuses on improving the current network of agro-dealers in the region to better serve farmers. The project will work with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and the local Ashanti regional government to provide incentives to agribusinesses and agro-dealers to start more small-businesses in select districts.

3 Agro-dealers are a subgroup of agribusinesses that specialize in selling farmer inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, tools, etc.

Photo source: theneweconomy.com


Output 2b. Increased use of better crop varieties

Activity 2b. Dispersal of better seed varieties Advances in agricultural research and technology have developed new varieties of food and cash crops that are more resilient to environmental conditions and pests, and that generate greater yields. Linked to Component 4 output 4b, this output focuses on working with research institutions in Ashanti and Ghana to increase usage of better seed varieties for food crops and cash crops (e.g. drought tolerant maize 2015). For the first two years, FARM will focus on staples such as maize, cassava and yam. Once the construction of storage facilities is underway, FARM will place a greater emphasis on fruits, vegetables and other crop varieties that can grow in Ashanti. Output 2c. Increased farmer knowledge and access to financial services

Activity 2c.1 Farmer training on how to access financial services Activity 2c.2 Working with financial institutions to meet farmer needs Activity 2c.3 Set up peer-to-peer farmer credit lines

Apart from seeds and tools, the program aims to increase the access of farmers to financial services. This output will work directly with the partner cooperatives of the program and financial institutions (see Component 3) to extend credit to farmer groups. Farmers will be trained on how to apply for microcredit or loans for additional seeds and better tools. Component 3. Increased number of agribusinesses and farmer cooperatives The Ashanti region suffers from low farmer registration and low farmer cooperative involvement. According to the MOFA Database, a total of 19,914 farmers (11,393 male and 8,521 female farmers) have been registered as of December 2010, ranging from a high of 3,352 registered farmers in the Amansie Central region to 19 registered farmers in the Asante Akim North region. In all, only 20% of farmers in the Ashanti region have been registered in the MOFA Database. Table 2 below illustrates the information on the formation of farmer groups in the region.

Table 2. Farmer Groups in Ashanti Region (2010)

Type of Group

Total group

Total Male Membership

Total Female Membership

Ratio of Male / Female members

Functional groups (F) No. Membership

Male Female Crop Production 1,845 17,652 8,801 2.01 1,845 17,652 8,801

Animal Production 228 1,704 933 1.83 228 1,704 933

Processing 255 785 1,802 0.44 255 785 1,802 Marketing 185 459 1,124 0.41 185 459 1,124 Total 2,513 20,600 12,660 1.63 2,513 20,600 12,660 Source: Ghana Statistical Service, 2010 Component 3 of the program seeks to empower private sector stakeholders in Ashanti to act on their own behalf in a lasting and competitive fashion. This component seeks to build the capacity of local farmers to form local agribusinesses and farmer cooperatives to better equip themselves before entering the market. By forming cooperatives, farmers will realize new business opportunities, adapt to market shifts, and sustain success.


Output 3a. Increased membership in farmer cooperatives

Activity 3a. Conducting workshops on farmer cooperatives To help farmers capture a larger market share and increased incomes, the program will conduct workshops with local nonprofit partners such as Kuapa Kokoo to form farmer cooperatives and take a more business-minded approach to agriculture. The workshop will help farmers gain power through numbers by organizing themselves into associations and cooperatives. These groups will enhance their bargaining power in the value chain so that they can negotiate more competitively priced inputs, finance, and transportation. Cooperatives like many shareholder-owned businesses provide an efficient vehicle for diffusing technical and business knowledge, promoting gender equity, protecting the environment. Output 3b. Increased partnerships with agro-dealers and the cooperation between

farmers and agro-dealers Activity 3b.1 Develop partnerships with agro-dealers and the private sector Activity 3b.2 Connect farmer cooperatives with agro-dealers

For this output, the project will leverage public and private sector resources to achieve positive, sustainable development impact. In coordination with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Cocobod, and nonprofit partners such as Technoserve, the program will develop partnerships with agro-dealers and the private sector to improve farmer business skills. In addition, to ensure that farmers receive inputs such as seeds and fertilizers at competitive prices, as mentioned under Component 2. FARM will set up periodic meetings and forums to develop partnerships and connect farmer cooperatives with agro-dealers to increase cooperation. Component 4. Upgraded value chain for cocoa

and oil palm The program will draw on cash crop experts and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to train farmers on value-adding processes for the cocoa and oil palm industries. FARM will also collaborate closely with GASIP to scale up the value chain in cocoa and oil palm to boost farmers’ incomes. Output 4a. Increase in semi-processed cocoa and oil palm products

Activity 4a. Market analysis on value chain and technical assistance on upgrading cash crop value chain position

A market analysis will be done to provide farmers with researched value chain options, to determine where they can generate the most returns. After which, the project aims to train and provide technical assistance to farmers on upgrading their products (eg: upgrading from raw cacao beans to fermented or dried cacao beans).

Photo source: Rainforest Alliance


Output 4b. Improved farming techniques on cacao and oil palm production Activity 4b. Set up partnerships with research institutions

Complementary to Component 2 Output 2b, this output focuses on working with partner research institutions to improve farming techniques for cacao and oil palm production. Output 4c. Improved farmer knowledge on cacao and oil palm processing, marketing, and

distribution. Activity 4c. Farmer training on cash crop processing, marketing, and distribution.

This output focuses on enhancing farmers’ current knowledge of cacao and oil palm processing, marketing, and distribution. Farmers will be trained on basic processing techniques (in coordination with Output 4a) and on reducing transaction costs by working together to market and distribute their goods (see Component 3, Output 3a and 3b) Component 5. Increased number and use of storage facilities Food storage facilities in Ashanti are limited, resulting in high post-harvest food waste. According to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, modern storage facilities such as silos, warehousing with dry facilities, etc., are either limited or non-existent in the Ashanti region. The main types of storage facilities in use in Ashanti are traditional barns, improved cribs, and roof storage. Maize is the only grain with an elaborate storage system. As a result of the lack of storage facilities, farmers in the region experience waste of crops and are forced to sell their produce at prices below market averages. The processing of crops as a means of conserving output is rudimentary and traditional methods are inefficient.

Component 5 of the project seeks to mitigate the issues described above by increasing the number and use of storage facilities in the region. FARM will accomplish this by increasing knowledge on the food storage site selection process, types of storage facilities available for use, construction of storage facilities know-how, and increasing the number of storage facilities built. Due to the lack of electricity in the countryside, storage facilities built under FARM will be powered by solar or alternative types of renewable energy. FARM will also improve and increase the number of small storage spaces in farmer homes.

Output 5a. Improved knowledge on conducting surveys for site selection and types of

storage facilities Activity 5a. Training on conducting surveys for site selection and types of storage

facilities to be constructed Output 5a, seeks to improve the existing knowledge on conducting surveys for site selection and types of storage facilities. The project will conduct site-select survey trainings which will include terrain analysis. Additionally, the trainings will discuss the types of storage facilities to be constructed based on findings from the surveys and the terrain analysis. Trainings will be conducted on a periodic basis.

Photo source: Ghanaweb.com


Output 5b. Increased knowledge on building and number of storage facilities Activity 5b.1 Training on how to build storage facilities Activity 5b.2 Conducting site selection surveys and constructing storage facilities

This output seeks to enhance the existing knowledge of constructing storage facilities and will build upon existing processes in the region. The project will conduct periodic training sessions on how to build storage facilities with an emphasis on improving efficiency and effectiveness. The training sessions will encourage the use of agricultural best practices to model storage facilities in order to improve utility for individuals and reduce overall food waste.

D. Implementation Approach and Timeline The FARM project will use a phased implementation approach and timeline. The phased approach to the components will allow for not only inter-component learning and collaboration between stakeholders and beneficiaries, but will also allow for review, and mid-course correction through on-going evaluations if necessary. To ensure sustainability and scale, this implementation design allows the benefits from the program to easily be replicated by the MOFA. As described in the Gantt chart below and in Annex VI, as soon as the contract is signed, the project start-up activities will commence and will include recruiting and training project personnel, procuring equipment and finalizing the work site location(s). Project start-up activities will be conducted in Q1 and Q2 of 2016.

Phase 1 of the program will be conducted from Q3 2016 through Q4 2017 and will focus on Component 1: Increased knowledge on agricultural and technical skills and food crop production and Component 2: Increased inputs for food crop production. Activities for these components can be viewed in the logical framework in Annex V. Phase 2 of the program will be conducted from Q3 2017 through Q4 2018 and will focus on Component 3: Increased number of agro-businesses and farmer cooperatives and Component 4: Upgraded value-chain for cacao and oil palm. Activities for these components can be viewed in the logical framework in Annex V.


Phase 3 of the program will be conducted from Q1 2019 through Q4 2019 and will focus on Component 5: Increased number and use of storage facilities. Activities for this component can be viewed in the logical framework in Annex V. Project closeout activities will take place between Q1 and Q3 2020. Project Management of all components and activities will continue throughout the duration of the project through project closeout. All activities will be coordinated in collaboration with the MOFA.

Staffing Plan

Figure 4. Organizational Chart: 17 Long Term Staff (Program Head, Component Team Leaders, Program Assistants, M&E Unit) 20 Short Term Staff (Finance/Administrative Assistants, Program Associates) 37 TOTAL STAFF

FARM will have a total of 35 full time staff 15 long term (until project close) staff and 20 short term (year-on-year as needed staff). FARM will be headed by a program head, as selected by the MOFA and MVP assisted by a Deputy Program Head. The Program Management Unit consists of the Deputy Program Head, Finance Manager, Program Manager, and their assistants. The Deputy Program Head will oversee the Finance Manager and Program Manager. The Finance Manager will manage the funds of the program and will be assisted by a finance assistant. The Program Manager will manage all logistics and administrative matters for the project and will be assisted by an Administrative Assistant. The M&E unit is headed by an M&E specialist and will report directly to the program head.


Each component will be led by a team leader and assisted by a program assistant. Team leaders will implement each component they are responsible for by working with the short-term program associates. Consultants will be hired on an as-needed basis. The program will be housed in the MOFA regional office in Kumasi, the urban center and capital of Ashanti province.

E. Monitoring Evaluation Research and Learning Approach The FARM Program team will utilize recognized, creative, flexible, and field-proven iterative approaches to elicit the most important information. The project’s monitoring, evaluation, and learning approach for the FARM Program will provide continuous and systematic flow of data on specific indicators related to project implementation. It will serve to provide up-to-date information about project activities, as well as document and inform any changes to its design to program stakeholders. The FARM team will utilize USAID’s proven Performance Management Cycle for continuous feedback and learning throughout the performance period. The M&E data will be used by the project management unit and other stakeholders to measure progress towards the project’s stated goal and objectives as well as make adjustments and improvements to program implementation.

Figure 5. Performance Management Cycle, USAID Annex V presents the logical framework with detailed indicator definitions, proposed data reporting methods and tools as well as targets for the program. Annex VII outlines the indicator reference sheet and specific targets to be met by the program. The FARM program will rely on the following key approaches that will ground FARM’s data collection and analysis efforts. Mixed-method Approach: The program team will use a mixed-method approach that emphasizes evidence-based findings. Data will be systematically collected via a review of program monitoring data and will be complemented with third party data sources and information obtained during field work including key informant interviews, perception surveys, observations from site visits, focus groups, consultations with relevant stakeholders which will be outlined by the program assessment team in the inception report. The program will use this combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection to best inform program findings and ground program recommendations. Routine monitoring data collection will be done to ensure that activities are implemented according to plan and targets outlined in the logical framework are met. This will enable decision makers and implementers to identify and respond timely to issues affecting implementation. The FARM program emphasizes learning by doing, and will run a baseline assessment prior to implementation,


to provide the program with a framework for assessing progress towards results and the program contribution relating to its objectives. In addition to routine monitoring of FARM program activities, the program will conduct formative, mid-term, and end-line outcome evaluations at the end of each phase to allow for course corrections and sharing of best practices. The formative evaluation will help the project assess the quality of various curricula developed for the project; the mid-term process evaluation will look at the implementation of the project from the perspectives of farmers, agro-dealers and other stakeholders; and last but not least the end-line outcome evaluation will look at the change in farmers and agro-dealers per the expected outcomes. Gender-Sensitive Data Collection and Analysis: The program team is committed to gender-sensitive M&E practice and gender relations. The FARM program and will ensure that its methods are gender-sensitive, capturing quantitative and qualitative data on how the FARM programs addresses issues specific to women and girls, boys and men. By design, the assessment methodology will aim to assess both the extent of gender integration in the overall Ashanti agricultural context as well as gender-specific impact of the program activities. Assessment questions will be designed to elicit gender-sensitive information. Some illustrative questions include:

• What were the levels of participation of males and females in the specific FARM program? • What were the benefits attained by males and females? • How did these benefits affect men and women in terms of facilitating gender equity? • How did the risk indicators/ critical assumptions about gender interact with attaining FARM

program progress and results? • What is the sustainability level of any transferred FARM benefits to males versus females?

To enable a gender-sensitive approach, the team will disaggregate data by sex. Yet, understanding the importance of farmers, as a target population in FARM programming, we will also disaggregate data by location and age. In addition to the approaches mentioned above, the team will use the following complementary evaluation approaches where and when needed: • Most Significant Change (MSC): As called for, the team will use retrospective MSC

approaches to mitigate for any lack of baseline data. The program team will ask specific contextual questions related to stakeholders’ perceptions of pre-FARM project existence and the current situation.

• Participatory Assessment Techniques (PRAs): The team will prioritize PRA methods with the program farmer target groups. The program will utilize these techniques to maximize participation and information from these groups who may be less willing or comfortable to participate in the assessment.

M&E Management Team As outlined in the staffing plan, M&E personnel includes an M&E Specialist who will focus on reporting data analysis and who will oversee the M&E activities related to this program. The specialist will be supported by a team made of a Database Administrator and an M&E Coordinator. The M&E Specialist will be responsible for the overall M&E approach of the FARM program and will report directly to the Program Head.


Data Quality Assurance Data quality and reliability criteria will be met through continuous feedback and periodic meetings and check-in calls throughout the duration of the FARM program. Regular spot checks and observations will also be incorporated to improve data quality. Procedures to ensure completeness, timeliness integrity and precision will also be put in place through training of data quality officers throughout the performance period of the FARM program. Program Goal and Objective: The program will focus on 5 primary objectives. Accomplishment of these objectives will be manifested by intermediate results (IR) as depicted below in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Results Framework


III. BUDGET AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE FARM PROGRAM A. Budget Analysis In the absence of survey data for realistic cost estimates, the FARM Program has been budgeted using estimates from information provided by Ghana’s Ministry of Agriculture. The budget reflects a component by component implementation of the 5 year FARM Program as described in the program design The implementation of the components reflect the Gantt chart and timeline provided in Annex VI and Section II.

YEAR 1 & 2: Components 1 and 2 will be implemented simultaneously in Year 1 and Year 2 of the FARM Program. Component 1 has been budgeted at $1,455,000 and Component 2 has been budgeted at $2,785,000. YEAR 2 & 3: Component 3 will be implemented in Year 2 and Year 3 of the FARM Program and has been budgeted at $1,912,000. YEAR 3 & 4: Component 4 will be implemented in Year 3 and Year 4 of the FARM Program and has been budgeted at $1,114,000. YEAR 4 & 5: Component 5 will be implemented in Year 4 and Year 5 of the FARM Program and has been budgeted at $5,270,000. Budget considerations have also been made for the Project Management Unit, personnel for all components, office space, computer software, office equipment, and training workshops by component.

Given the FARM Program’s emphasis on learning by doing, a separate monitoring and evaluation line item has been budgeted for the program. Formative and summative evaluations has been built into the program design and will take place from Year 2 through Year 5 throughout the performance period of the program. The total estimate for implementing this 5 Year FARM Program is $23,721,000. Annex IX provides a detailed spreadsheet with the breakdown of costs estimates by line item. B. Cost-Benefit Analysis In the absence of survey data for realistic cost estimates, Annex IX details the preliminary financial cash flow estimates. Using financial cash flow estimates for costs and benefits with and without the FARM Program, the team has attempted a preliminary Cost-Benefit Analysis. The goal of the FARM Program, as mentioned in our program design in Section II, is to reduce the prevalence of food insecurity in the Ashanti region of Ghana. Considerations in our estimates have been made for the future benefits of the program including increases cacao sales, oil palm sales, food crop sales, increased partnerships, increased storage facilities, increase health care savings. Based on our preliminary estimates we found an internal rate of return of 10 % and a net present value of $244,594 at a discount rate of 8%. In order to conduct an in depth cost-benefit analysis for accurate monetization of costs and benefits, our team recommends conducting a thorough survey of the Ashanti region through field work before and after the FARM Program is implemented.


C. Key Risks and Assumptions Analysis of Technical Feasibility The technical feasibility of FARM draws upon lessons learned and best practices from the MVP, expertise of the MOFA, local ownership of the program, and adoption of a “learning by doing” implementation strategy.

Best Practices and Lessons Learned: The Bonsaaso Millennium Village can provide FARM with practical inputs on organizing farmers, incentivizing crop production, and technical skills. The experience of the MVP at Bonsaaso can help avoid unwanted circumstances while leveraging best practices. Expertise: Through years of working with international organizations and donors, the MOFA and its resource network have the expertise to implement FARM and teach farmers the desired technical and agricultural skills. Local Ownership: Farmers, MOFA, MVP, and Ashanti officials all have major stakes in the program. Farmers will have particular ownership of the program as the program will cater its approach to the specific needs and wants of farmers in different districts. Learning by Doing: Each district and each farmer will require a slightly different approach. FARM’s integrated approach utilizes numerous training activities whose curricula can be adapted and altered based on lessons learned in the field.

Critical Assumptions Farmers Will Apply Newly Acquired Knowledge to Food Crop Production

Development work is contingent on local community buy-in and ownership. As a development organization, FARM is responsible for identifying food crop farmers, explaining the benefits to new agricultural techniques, and incentivizing farmer participation. Nonetheless, FARM success is dependent upon the local community’s ability and desire to apply learned agriculture techniques to their own plots of land. Failure by farmers to translate learned theory to individual situations will not improve food security in Ashanti. Collaboration Between MOFA, MVP, GASIP, KNUST, etc. There are a number of organizations that FARM expects to work with. Due to proximity to local stakeholders, there are a number of contacts and resources that local organizations are better suited to provide. Failure to collaborate with these various organizations would affect the success of FARM. As a result, FARM assumes the full commitment of partner organizations by providing a complete understanding of the benefits, skills, and improved farming techniques of the program. The Devaluation of the Local Currency One of FARM’s critical assumptions is that the value of the Cedi (local currency) will stay stable. Exchange rates are affected by the value of traded goods. With that said, the value of the Cedi has declined in recent years, which has decreased the purchasing power of Ashanti citizens. While FARM has minimal control over exchange rate fluctuations, FARM


will aims to provide high quality cacao that can have a positive influence in the international chocolate market.

Summary of Key Risks and proposed Mitigation measures The key risks and proposed mitigation strategies are described below. Please refer to Annex IV for a complete list of risk factors. Risk Analysis Matrix Low Probability Medium Probability High Probability High Impact

• MVP stops funding the program

• The Ashanti government refuses to collaborate with MOFA

• Natural disasters e.g., flooding and drought

• Low profits from sales • Farmers fail to adopt new

practices

• KNUST research fails to recommend new storage facilities

• Corruption and mismanagement of funds

• Most farmers do not attend trainings and workshops

Medium Impact

• Low sales of farm produce • Other potential partners do not

want to collaborate with FARM • Lack of sufficient funding • Farmers lose their land to

mining companies

• Farmers are unwilling to join cooperatives

•

• Gold prices will not be stable

• Low value of Cedi • Government

agricultural policies

Low Impact

• USAID refuses to partner with FARM

• Conflict of interest among stakeholders

High Probability and High Impact Risk 1. Farmers do not attend training sessions: This risk is identified as both internal and external to

the program because of the possibility of influence by both internal and external factors. On the one hand, some of the external factors include: opportunity cost of attending trainings, political pressure, lack of interest, bad attitude based on previous experiences, among others. On the other hand, internal factors include: delayed notification for all farmers of upcoming trainings, miscommunication between FARM staff and the farmers. o To mitigate this risk, FARM will work closely with the local government including the area

chief to communicate FARM’s presence in the community. FARM will also incentivize attendance and completion of trainings by collaborating with the government to provide seeds for those who complete trainings and join cooperatives. (Please see Annex III for the more details on incentives for stakeholders)

o FARM will also mitigate this risk by sharing the training with the government and other farmers able to read as well as allow enough time between announcement of the trainings and conducting training. This will allow enough time for the chief as well as the staff to reach as many farmers as possible. FARM will adopt participatory learning and ensure that the farmers are well represented in major stakeholder meetings.


Medium-High Probability and Medium-High Impact Risks 2. KNUST fails to recommend adoption of new storage facility design: As described in the

program description section, KNUST conduct research on storage facilities following their ongoing research on yam storage. Here is how FARM intends to mitigate this external risk o As a backup plan, FARM will explore the feasibility of constructing apportioned shelved

facilities powered by solar energy to be rented by farmers. Generated income will go towards repairs and maintenance.

3. Corruption and mismanagement of funds: internal and external risk. To mitigate this risk, FARM will adapt a standardized reporting and auditing system as well as conduct semi-annual reviews. FARM will emphasize the potential negative impact of corruption and mismanagement of funds in trainings to potential staff. This will empower stakeholders to report any mismanagement of funds throughout the different components of the program.

4. Farmers are unwilling to join cooperatives: this is an external risk that could result from

previous bad experiences of farmers with associations, or a lack of interest in general. o FARM will teach farmers the importance of joining cooperatives and the potential benefits

they can provide. In addition, we will incentivize their participation (see Annex II-stakeholder analysis for details).

5. Changes in government agricultural policies or staff: Since MOFA is a government institution, it is subject to national policies and procedures that might affect the operations of FARM. o Despite the fact that FARM will be a localized regional project, FARM will be sensitive to

the national and political environment and must adapt accordingly. This is not to mean that FARM will not be on its own grounds, but rather that in the event of any changes in MOFA, FARM will be flexible enough to adapt to future changes as long as those changes are within FARM’s operating framework.

6. Unstable gold prices and Cedi: these external risks will affect the purchasing power of farmers.

FARM will partner with Cocobod to expand the stabilization fund program for cash crop farmers to other farmers in the region. This will help protect farmers from losses resulting from unstable gold prices and the devaluation of the local currency.

Annex I. Problem Tree Analysis

Annex II. Objective Tree Analysis

Annex III. Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder RoleEffects on the program Incentive for engagement Disincentive for engagement Key Capacities Strategy to involve

Key Stakeholder

Ashanti local government Ministry of Food and Agriculture Partner

+

Economic growth, multiplier-effects, political bonus,

Overextension of services Infrastructure, regulatory services,

Hold meetings with the regional minister to discuss best stakeholder and local government involvement with emphasis on community ownership of the project

Millennium Villages Program Center for West Africa Provide funding and overview implementation of the project +

Implementing the project, visibility and credibility, access to government and private sector

Mission drift, reduced autonomy, non-engaged partners

Money, community knowledge, international network

Major implementing partner and key member in the sterring committee/board member

Ministry of Food and Agriculture Provide funding and overview management of the project

+Mission alignment, political bonus, tax revenues

Cost of investment, overextension

money, political influence, access to network

Aligning national and local government interests as well as providing links/access to other government stakeholders

Primary Stakeholders

Cocoa and Oil Palm Farmers Produce and semi-process cacao and oil palm

+

Training, access to cooperative, access to loans, free one-time seeds at the completion of the trainings

Time away from farming, inability to pay back loans

land, experience Training representative farmers from each district and agri officers on drying and fermenting cocoa then facilitate trainings in each district. Coordinate with the local government to provide (additional) seeds to those who attend and complete trainings as an incentive

Food crop farmers Increase food crop production

+

Training, access to inputs, cooperatives and loans, free one-time seeds at the completion of the trainings

Time away from farming, inability to pay back loans, engaging in small scale mining

Land, experience Hold meetings with stakeholders and encourage cooperative membership, advice on accessing loans and farm inputs after emphasizing the need for food crops and availability of storage facilities.Coordinate with the local government to provide (additional) seeds to those who attend and complete trainings as an incentive

Community members e.g., non-farmers Ashanti residents Rear animals and fish to supplement diets

+

Increased governement presence in the community, increased market activity, reduced food insecurity

Increased migration into Ashanti from other regions

Market for food crops, sources of proteins, hired labor for farmers

Encourage farmers to buy local to provide market for food crops, provide general trainings on how they can provide a hired labor in farms for a wage or participate in other income-generating activities

Kwame Nkurumah Univeristy of Science and Technology Conduct research and implement adoption of strorage facilities in the community +

Funding, visibility and credibility/increased admissions, community engagement

Risk of damaged reputation if project fails, mission drift, overextension

Technical skills, experience on conducting storage facilties research, location in Kumai/easy access to the project region

Hold meeting with the management and those who conducted research on yam storage then after aligning on their research area and agreeing on where the storage facility will be built, provide funding

Construction workers Construct Storage facilities

+

Employment, access to private, government and NGO network

Risk of injury during construction, short-term employment

Technical skills, time Hire a local construction company to work with the University and align on the specifics of the storage facility

Cocobod Managing cocoa value chain

+

Increased revenue from increased production, mission alignment,

Increased competition, risk of market liberalization

Buying, selling and maintence, research, selling cocoa

Discuss on other best practices to increase farmer's profits and increase government revenues. Key member of the streering commitee

Licenced Buying and Selling Companies and Cooperatives Large scale buying and selling cocoa

+


Increased competition, Technical skills, community presence,

Continued discussion on the feasibility of complete market liberalization of cocoa without adverse effects on the farmers and government revenue

Kuapa Kokoo Engage in fair trade version on cocoa

+


Overextension, increased competition

Higher farmer's trust, Continued discussion on connecting the farmer to the international market and how to reduce adverse effects on government revenues

Local banks Provide loans to farmers

+

Tax breaks, new clients Increased risk of default, low returns on investment

Money, lending ability Provide a tax break for two years to facilitate signing of contracts between cooperatives and individual farmers with minimum interest rate

Agriculture Officers Help in training community members

+

Training, increased pay, working at home

Cost of training, inability to immediately measure success

Technical skills, native language

Provide training on new cocoa practices and other food crop best practices with commission (in addition to the national/government salary).

Agro-dealers Sell farm-inputs

+

Training, tax breaks, new clients

Risk of low sale of inputs, fluctuating income

Fertilizers, seeds, community knowledge, pay taxes

Provide a tax break for two years to new agro-dealers and facilitate easy access to inputs e.g., by lowering tariffs on imported high yield seeds and fertilizer

Solar panelist Supply and maintain solar panels

+

Increased revenues, Theft, increased operations and maintenance costs

Access to solar panels, technical knowledge, access to market

Contract with a local or regional supplier of solar panels for supply and regular monitoring and maintenance of the panels; the farmers will rent the space and the revenue used in operations and maintenance including hiring two watchmen

Secondary Stakeholders

Mining Companies including small scale mining activities provide funding through CRS, provide an alternative to farming and contribute to degrading the land

+/-

CSR/PR/branding, community involvement

Risk of low returns on investment

Funding Share FARM's project design with local mining companies e.g., AngloAshanti and request for funding

Donors: bilateral and multilateral Provide funding and consultative services

+

Geopolitical motivation, mission alignment, economic motivation

Risk of damaged reputation if project fails, corruption, risk of dealing with non-cooperative government/dictators

Money, influence on government, technical advice

Share the project design and request partnership with USAID's Feed the Future initiative, World Bank, African Bank and other international institutions

Food security NGOs e.g., Technoserve Provide agricultural expertise

+

Mission alignment, funding, visibility and credibility, access to private and government network

Reduced autonomy, overextension, corruption, mismanagement

Technical advice, farmer engagement,

Advertise the program and select NGOs based of submitted concept note or expression of interest alignment with project purpose, then provide funding and have a representative as part of the project streering committee

Ministry of Finance Collaborate with MOA in providing funding

+

Tax revenues, political bonus

High cost of investment, overextension

Money, political influence, access to network

With the help of the ministry of food and agriculture submit the project budget and lobby for additional funding as necessary

Ministry of Roads Long-term development and maintenance of roads in Ashanti

+

Political bonus, mission alignment, leverage with private sector and donors

High cost of investment, overextension

Money, political influence, access to network

In acknowledgement of the importance of roads to this project, lobby for road repairs in Kumasi as well as for a long-term road connecting Ashanti to the north depending on the success of the storage faciities to reduce food insecurity in Ashanti then to facilitate nationwide replication.

Annex IV: Risk Analysis

Stakeholder Role Effects on the program

Incentive for engagement Disincentive for engagement

1 Ashanti government fails to collaborate with MOFA

External (1) Inability to leverage existing networks e.g., agricultural officers (2) Make it hard to gain community trust

Involving the regional minister and local government officials, especially chiefs to facilitate community participation in the program.

2 Farmers do not attend training sessions

Internal/external (1) Unimproved farming practices (2) Low food crop production and unadvanced value chain of the cash crops

Incentivize farmers (see annex III) and diversify interventions as revealed in the project description and logical framework (see annex V)

3 Kwame Nkurumah University fails to complete the research to develop the storage facilities

External (1) Adopt existing techniques of storage facilities (2) High costs

Back-up plan to construct large storage facilities powered with solar panels

4 Prices of cash and food crops decrease

External (1) Farmers suffer losses (2) Farmers shift away from farming to mining or migrate to cities

Collaborate with Cocobod’s stabilization fund initiative for food crop and other farmers.

5 Corruption and mismanagement of funds

Internal/External (1) Budget shortage for allocated programs (2) Affecting FARM’s credibility

Adopt strong checks and balances between and among departments and conduct annual/semi-annual reviews

6 Delay in program operations e.g., conducting trainings

Internal (1) Delayed implementation of the program

Pilot FARM in two districts in the first year and scale out to other districts after establishing enough contact

7 Farmers are unwilling to join cooperatives

External (1) Limited/no access to market and loans (2) Lack of increase in

Incentivize farmers to attend trainings where they learn the advantages of joining a cooperative, facilitate proper management1 of cooperatives to ensure all benefit

1 There are reported concerns on previous cooperatives not benefitting all farmers and FARM will investigate if this claim still holds and adapt accordingly.

Stakeholder Role Effects on the program

Incentive for engagement Disincentive for engagement food and/or cash crop production

8 Donors e.g., USAID fails to partner

External (1) limited funding for the program

Current FARM budget relies minimally on other donors but FARM has also diversified its potential donors pool

9 Changes in government agricultural policies

External (1) Changes in MOFA and other government staff (2) Might reduce the number of farmers involved in FARM

Increased awareness of the national as well as Ashanti political environment and adapt accordingly

10 Low sales of farm produce

Internal/ External (1) Farmer’s inability to pay back loans and support their livelihood (2) Perishable farm produce goes to waste

Build storage facilities to reduce food wastage and incentivize farmers to join cooperatives through benefits from the stabilization fund

11 Natural disasters e.g., flooding or drought

External (1) Low productivity (2) Crop damage and inaccessibility to markets

Coordinate with Ashanti and national government to set aside emergency funds

12 Unstable/increased gold prices

External (1) More farmers choose small scale mining over farming

Incentivize food crop production (see annex III) for detail

12 Devalued/fluctuating Cedi value

External (1) Unstable purchasing power for farmers

Increase access to storage facilities and access to stabilization fund

Risk Analysis Matrix Low Probability Medium Probability High Probability

High Impact •MVP stops funding the program •The Ashanti government refuses to collaborate with MOFA •Natural disasters e.g., flooding and drought •Low profits from sales •Farmers fail to adopt new practices

•KNUST research fails to recommend new storage facilities •Corruption and mismanagement of funds

•Most farmers do not attend trainings and workshops

Medium Impact •Low sales of farm produce •Other potential partners do not want to collaborate with FARM •Lack of sufficient funding •Farmers lose their land to mining companies

•Farmers are unwilling to join cooperatives

•Gold prices will not be stable •Low value of Cedi •Government agricultural policies

Low Impact •USAID refuses to partner with FARM •Conflict of interest among stakeholders

PROJECT SUMMARY INDICATORS PROJECT TARGETS MEANS OF VERIFICATION RISKS / ASSUMPTIONS

GOAL

PURPOSE

1. Increased knowledge on agricultural and technical skills for food crop productionA: Increased knowledge leads to increased food crop production; R: low sales, R: low farmer

production

2. Increased inputs (seeds, farming implements, capital) for food crop production A: More inputs lead to more production; R: Low sales R: low farmer production

3. Increased number of agro-businesses and farmer cooperativesPercentage increase of income generating

cooperatives created

50% increase of income generating

cooperatives

baseline and endline survey

results

A: More agribusinesses and cooperatives reduce transaction costs for individual farmers; R:

No farmer interest in joining cooperatives

4. Upgraded value chain for cacao and oil palm Percentage increase in cash crop sales30% increase in sales of target

population farmers


results

A: Farmers currently produce products that are low on the value chain; A: Cedi remains

stable to the dollar; R: Gold prices increases and artisinal mining remains more profitable

5. Increased number and use of storage facilitiespercentage increase in storage facilities usage

among the target population

305 increase in usage of storage

facilities


results

A: Food is wasted due to lack of storage facilities in Ashanti; R: Farmers do not use facilities

and food is still wasted. R: There is a lack of funding

1a. Enhanced farmer knowledge and skills on intercropping and crop rotationNumber of farmers completing training in

intercropping4000 (2000 male, 2000 female) training attendance records

1b. Increased farmer knowledge and complementary agriculture activities (e.g.

livestock)

Number of farmers completing training on at

least one complementary agriculture activity4000 (2000 male, 2000 female) training attendance records

1c. Increased farmer knowledge and skills on nursery management and planting sitesNumber of farmers completing training on

nursery management4000 (2000 male, 2000 female) training attendance records

2a. Increased public-private partnerships to supply agriculturual inputs Increase of agro-dealers in Ashanti 50% increasebaseline and endline survey

results

2b. Increased use of better crop varieties Number of farmers using enhanced seeds

variety8000 farmers agricultural officers report

2c. Increased access to financial services

Number of farmers who have applied and

received a loan from a Microfinance or

financial institution

1000 farmers agricultural officers report

3a. Increased membership in farmer cooperatives, Number of income generating cooperatives

created

100 (80 farmer cooperatives, 20 agro-

dealers in cooperatives)cooperatives leaders reports

3b. Increased partnerships with agro-dealers and farmer cooperativesNumber of meetings held between farmers

and agro-dealers cooperativesOnce/quarter meeting minutes

4a. Increase in semi-processed cacao and oil palm products

4b. Improved farming techniques on cacao and oil palm production

4c. Improved farmer knowledge on cacao and oil palm processing, marketing, and

distribution.

5a. Improved knowledge on conducting surveys for site selection and types of storage

facilities,Percentage of crop waste waste reduced to 0.05% or less


report

5b. Increased knowledge on building and number of storage facilities builtThe project will count the number of new

storage facilities built.1000 facilities agricultural officers reports

1a. Farmer training sessions on intercropping and crop rotation.

1b. Farmer training sessions on complementary agricultural activities (e.g. livestock)

1c. Farmer training sessions on nursery management,

1d. Farmer training sessions on identification of planting sites

2a. Provide incentives (tax credit and tax breaks) to agribusinesses and agro-dealers

2b. Dispersal of better seed varieties

2c. Farmer training on how to access financial services,

2d. Working with financial institutions to meet farmer needs

2e. Set up peer-to-peer farmer credit markets

3a. Conducting workshops on farmer cooperatives,

3b. Develop partnerships with agro-dealers and the private sector

3c. Connect farmer cooperatives with agro-dealers

4a. Farmer training and technical assistance on upgrading cash crop value chain

position

4b. Set up partnerships with research institutions

4c. Farmer training on cash crop processing, marketing, and distribution.Number of farmers trained on cash crop

processing, marketing and distribution5000 (2500 male, 2500 female) Training attendance records

5a. Training on conducting surveys for site selection and types of storage facilities to be

constructed,

5b. Training on how to build storage facilities,

5c. Conducting site selection surveys and constructing storage facilities

Increased household income and food crop production

Increased Food Security in the Ashanti Region of Ghana

Annex V. Logical Framework - Ghana Food Insecurity Analysis

INPUTSDesk research; Training supplies; Office rental and supplies (such as desks, chairs, computers, printers, projectors); logistical equipments for communication (internet, and database software) and transportation; Farming equipments; Curricula development (farming techniques curriculum, financial

management curriculum, cooperative management training curriculum, savings and lending module)

A: Potential partners are interested in the project. A: No severe weather conditions (eg.

drought); R: Farmers do not attend training sessions, low forum attendance, low sales

R: Farmers do not attend training sessions, low forum attendance, low sales, low farmer

production

A: Increased partnerships lead to increased cooperation and production, R: low sales, low

farmer production

R: Farmers do not attend training sessions

ACTIVITIES

OUTPUTS

OUTCOMES

Percentage increase in food crops sales 50% sales increasebaseline and endline survey

results

Number of people trained in building storage

facilities

lending groups records

R: Farmers do not attend training sessions, low forum attendance

R: Farmers do not attend or complete training sessions

R: Farmers do not attend training sessions, artisinal mining more profitable

R: Farmers do not attend training sessions, low forum attendance, low sales

Number of farmers trained in enhanced food

crops farming techniques5000 (2500 male, 2500 female) training attendance records

% increase in semi-processed cash crops

production50% increase in sales over 5 years


results

A: Farmers currently produce products that are low on the value chain.

A: Farmers will utilize new knowledge

R: Surveys yield negative results; R: no storage facilities built due to lack of funding

Number of farmers trained in improved seeds

and farming technology through partnerships

with research institution

Number of new cooperatives members

5000 (2500 male, 2500 female) Training attendance records

4000 (2000 male, 2000 female) agricultural officers report

Number of peer-to-peer lending and savings

goups created100 groups

Number of farmers using enhanced seeds

variety

1200 (1000 farmers in cooperatives,

200 agro-dealers in cooperatives)

Cooperative registration

authority in Ashanti

Attendance sheet500 (250 Male, 250 Female)

Annex VI. Timeline Gantt Chart

Annex VII: Indicator Reference Sheet

Nr. Indicator Proposed definition/wording

Objective 1: Increasing agricultural trainings and technical skills for food crops

1 Number of farmers completing training on intercropping and crop rotation

Definition: On this indicator, the project will count the number of farmers attending at least 80% of training duration. Targets (Project wide): 4,000 farmers (2000 male, 2000 female) Frequency: Quarterly Data source: attendance records Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by sex

2 Number of farmers completing training on at least one complementary agriculture activity

Definition: A complementary training will be defined as any formal or informal agriculture or non-agriculture related technical training which last for at least 25 hours. Will be considered a completer if farmer attends at least 80% of training duration. Note: Only the first complementary training will be counted in case there is more than one training attended. Targets (Project wide): 4,000 farmers (2000 male, 2000 female) Frequency: Quarterly Data source: attendance records Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by sex

3 Number of farmers completing training on nursery management

Definition: Will be considered a completer if farmer attends at least 80% of training duration. Targets (Project wide): 4,000 farmers (2000 male, 2000 female) Frequency: Quarterly Data source: attendance records Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by sex

4 Percentage increase in food crops sales

Definition: The project will measure sales at baseline and will compute the percentage increase annually. Targets (Project wide): 50% increase in sales Frequency: Annually Data source: baseline and endline survey reports Disaggregation: types of food crops

5 Number of farmers trained in enhanced food crops farming techniques

Definition: Under this indicator the project will count the number of farmers who have attended in at least one training relating to farming techniques, value chain or food crops sales. Targets (Project wide): 5,000 farmers (2500 male, 2500 female) Frequency: Quarterly Data source: attendance records Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by sex

Objective 2: Increasing inputs for food crop production 6 % point increase

of agro-dealers in Ashanti

Definition: This indicator will be calculated every year by comparing the number of registered agro-dealers at base year with the number of registered agro-dealers in current year.

Targets (Project wide): 50% Frequency: Annually Data source: baseline and endline survey results Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by sex and type of product sold (example: fertilizer, seeds, pesticides) and by district

7 Number of farmers using enhanced seeds variety

Definition: Enhanced seeds will be defined as seeds which have been genetically enhanced using modern biotechnology to carry one or more beneficial new traits such as more yields or resistance to sap suckers. Targets (Project wide): 8000 (4000 male, 4000 female) Frequency: Annually Data source: agricultural officers reports Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by sex and seed type

8 Number of peer to peer lending and savings groups created

Definition: These are semi-formal savings and internal lending schemes made of 20 to 30 people which meet at least once every two months. Targets (Project wide): 100 groups Frequency: Quarterly Data source: Agricultural officers reports

9 Number of farmers who have applied and received a loan from a Microfinance or financial institution

Definition: Under this indicator, the project will count the number of farmers who have received a loan by any bank, micro-finance and/or a lending and borrowing group. Targets (Project wide): 1,000 Frequency: Bi-annual Data source: agricultural officers reports Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by sex and size of loan (loan<$1000, $5000<loan>$1000, loan<$5000) and district

Objective 3: Increasing agro-businesses and farmer cooperatives 10 Number of income

generating cooperatives created

Definition: The project will count any newly registered cooperative, whose members sale agriculture products, collectively or individually; with the help of the cooperative (in terms of training, networking, funding, market searching or other activities which enable sales) Targets (Project wide): 100 (80 farmer cooperatives, 20 agro-dealers in cooperatives) Frequency: Annually Data source: cooperative leaders reports Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by type of cooperative (farmer cooperative, agro-dealer cooperative) and by district

11 Number of meetings held between farmers and agro-dealers cooperatives

Definition: The project will count the number of meetings between farmers and agro-dealers held to discuss issues such as cooperation, sales and competition. Targets: 20 meetings (Once a quarter) Frequency: Quarterly Data source: cooperative leaders reports Disaggregation: by district

12 % increase of income generating cooperatives created

Definition: The project will count the % increase of income generating cooperatives from base year to end year. Targets: 50% Frequency: At baseline, mid-term and endline Data source: baseline and endline survey report Disaggregation: by district

13 Number of new cooperative members

Definition: Number of new and registered members of a farmer or agro-dealer cooperative. Targets (Project wide): 1200 Frequency: Quarterly Data source: agricultural officer report Disaggregation: by district, by type of cooperative

Objective 4: Upgrading value chain for cash crops 14 % increase in semi-

processed cash crops production

Definition: The project will count the % increase (in tons) of semi-processed cocoa beans and palm oil (in litres) produced by farmers in Ashanti. Targets (Project wide): 50% Frequency: Annually Data source: agricultural officer report Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by type of product (cocoa beans and palm oil)

15 % increase in cash crop sales

Definition: The project will count the % increase in the dollar value of sales. Targets (Project wide): 50% Frequency: Annually Data source: agricultural officer report Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by type of product (cocoa beans and palm oil)

16 Number of farmers trained on cash crop processing, marketing and distribution

Definition: The project will count the number of farmers who attend training for at least 50% of training time Targets (Project wide): 5000 (2500 male, 2500 female) Frequency: Quarterly Data source: training attendance record Disaggregation: by sex

17 Number of farmers trained improved seeds and farming technology through partnerships with research institution

Definition: The project will count the number of farmers who attend training for at least 50% of training time Targets (Project wide): 5000 (2500 male, 2500 female) Frequency: Quarterly Data source: training attendance record Disaggregation: by sex

Objective 5: Increasing storage facilities 18 % of crop waste Definition: The project will count the percentage of the production

which is wasted due to poor transportation and/or lack of storage Targets (Project wide): 0.05% Frequency: Annually Data source: baseline and endline survey Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by type of product (food crop and cash crop) and by district

19 % increase in storage facilities usage

Definition:The project will count the number of percentage increase in the number of tons or litres stored in Ashanti Targets (Project wide): 30% Frequency: Quarterly Data source: baseline and endline survey Disaggregation: This indicator will be disaggregated by type of product and by district

20 Number of storage facilities built

Definition:The project will count the number of new storage facilities built. Targets (Project wide): 1000 Frequency: Annually Data source: agricultural officers reports Disaggregation: by district, by size of facility (small [<500kg), large (between 500 - 1 ton), large (>1 ton))

21 Number of people trained in building storage facilities

Definition:This indicator will measure the number of people who received formal or informal training on building storage facilities for crops. Targets (Project wide): 5000 (2500 male, 2500 female) Frequency: Quarterly Data source: training attendance record Disaggregation: by district

22 Number of farmers trained in improved seeds and farming technology through partnerships with research institution

Definition:This indicator will measure the number of people who received formal or informal training on building storage facilities for crops. Targets (Project wide): 5000 (2500 male, 2500 female) Frequency: Quarterly Data source: training attendance record Disaggregation: by district

Annex VIII. Map of Ghana Agricultural Landscape

Annex IX. Budget Spreadsheet for Ghana FARM Program

YEAR ONE YEAR TWO YEAR THREE YEAR FOUR YEAR FIVE TOTAL2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Component 1. Increased knowledge on agricultural and technical skills for food crop production Personnel 250,000$ 250,000$ 500,000$

Needs Assessment 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ Training Workshops 350,000$ 275,000$ 625,000$ Materials & Equipment 90,000$ 90,000$ 180,000$ SUB-TOTAL 840,000$ 615,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,455,000$

Component 2. Increased inputs (seeds, farming implements, capital) for food crop production Seeds & Fertilizer 400,000$ 300,000$ 700,000$

Needs Assessment 150,000$ -$ Personnel 700,000$ 500,000$ 1,200,000$ Training Workshops 350,000$ 275,000$ 625,000$ Materials & Equipment 130,000$ 130,000$ 260,000$ SUB-TOTAL 1,730,000$ 1,205,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,785,000$

Component 3. Increased number of agro-businesses and farmer cooperatives Personnel 200,000$ 300,000$ 500,000$

Training Workshops 112,000$ 200,000$ 312,000$ Meeting Space Rental 100,000$ 100,000$ 200,000$ Needs Assessment 125,000$ -$ 125,000$ Communication campaign 125,000$ 100,000$ 225,000$ Materials & Equipment 200,000$ 350,000$ 550,000$ SUB-TOTAL -$ 862,000$ 1,050,000$ -$ -$ 1,912,000$

Component 4. Upgraded value chain for cocoa and oil palm Personnel 250,000$ 115,000$ 365,000$

Training Workshops 150,000$ 80,000$ 230,000$ Needs Assessment 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ Communication campaign 127,000$ 50,000$ 177,000$ Materials & Equipment 112,000$ 80,000$ 192,000$

-$ SUB-TOTAL -$ -$ 789,000$ 325,000$ -$ 1,114,000$

Component 5. Increased number and use of storage facilities Survey Equiment 125,000$ 125,000$ 250,000$

Training Workshops 150,000$ 130,000$ 280,000$ Needs Assessment 135,000$ -$ 135,000$ Communication campaign 80,000$ 25,000$ 105,000$ Materials & Equipment 2,500,000$ 2,000,000$ 4,500,000$ SUB-TOTAL -$ -$ -$ 2,990,000$ 2,280,000$ 5,270,000$

Program Management Personnel 1,500,000$ 1,110,000$ 900,000$ 500,000$ 400,000$ 4,410,000$ Monitoring and Evaluations -$ 450,000$ 500,000$ 650,000$ 800,000$ 2,400,000$ Office Rent and Travel 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 1,000,000$ Office Admin Costs 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 900,000$ Focus Groups 80,000$ 150,000$ 250,000$ 200,000$ 100,000$ 780,000$ Software 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 250,000$ Legal Firm 125,000$ 80,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 355,000$ Accounting Firm 125,000$ 80,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 355,000$ Communication Supplies 90,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 290,000$ Office Equipment 150,000$ 100,000$ 80,000$ 75,000$ 40,000$ 445,000$ SUB-TOTAL 2,520,000$ 2,470,000$ 2,330,000$ 1,975,000$ 1,890,000$ 11,185,000$

TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS 5,090,000$ 5,152,000$ 4,169,000$ 5,290,000$ 4,170,000$ 23,721,000$

Annex X. Cost Benefit Analysis for FARM Program

Without FARM Program Cash FlowYEAR ONE YEAR TWO YEAR THREE YEAR FOUR YEAR FIVE YEAR SIX YEAR SEVEN YEAR EIGHT YEAR NINE YEAR TEN

COSTSLand Rent 250,000.00$ 275,000.00$ 302,500.00$ 332,750.00$ 366,025.00$ 402,627.50$ 442,890.25$ 487,179.28$ 535,897.20$ 589,486.92$ Labour 300,000.00$ 315,000.00$ 330,750.00$ 347,287.50$ 364,651.88$ 382,884.47$ 402,028.69$ 422,130.13$ 443,236.63$ 465,398.46$ Seed 650,000.00$ 669,500.00$ 870,350.00$ 1,131,455.00$ 1,470,891.50$ 1,912,158.95$ 2,485,806.64$ 3,231,548.63$ 4,201,013.21$ 5,461,317.18$ Fertilizers 230,000.00$ 236,900.00$ 244,007.00$ 251,327.21$ 258,867.03$ 266,633.04$ 274,632.03$ 282,870.99$ 291,357.12$ 300,097.83$ Investment 350,000.00$ 385,000.00$ 423,500.00$ 465,850.00$ 512,435.00$ 563,678.50$ 620,046.35$ 682,050.99$ 750,256.08$ 825,281.69$ Machinery 500,000.00$ 625,000.00$ 781,250.00$ 976,562.50$ 1,220,703.13$ 1,525,878.91$ 1,907,348.63$ 2,384,185.79$ 2,980,232.24$ 3,725,290.30$

TOTAL COSTS 2,280,000.00$ 2,506,400.00$ 2,952,357.00$ 3,505,232.21$ 4,193,573.53$ 5,053,861.36$ 6,132,752.59$ 7,489,965.79$ 9,201,992.49$ 11,366,872.39$

BENEFITSFood Crop Sales 150,000.00$ 154,500.00$ 159,135.00$ 163,909.05$ 168,826.32$ 173,891.11$ 179,107.84$ 184,481.08$ 190,015.51$ 195,715.98$ Cacao Sales 300,000.00$ 306,000.00$ 312,120.00$ 318,362.40$ 324,729.65$ 331,224.24$ 337,848.73$ 344,605.70$ 351,497.81$ 358,527.77$ Oil Palm Sales 450,000.00$ 459,000.00$ 468,180.00$ 477,543.60$ 487,094.47$ 496,836.36$ 506,773.09$ 516,908.55$ 527,246.72$ 537,791.66$ Artisinal Mining 150,000.00$ 172,500.00$ 198,375.00$ 228,131.25$ 262,350.94$ 301,703.58$ 346,959.11$ 399,002.98$ 458,853.43$ 527,681.44$

TOTAL BENEFITS 1,050,000.00$ 1,092,000.00$ 1,137,810.00$ 1,187,946.30$ 1,243,001.38$ 1,303,655.29$ 1,370,688.77$ 1,444,998.31$ 1,527,613.48$ 1,619,716.85$

NET CASH FLOW (without Program) (1,230,000.00)$ (1,414,400.00)$ (1,814,547.00)$ (2,317,285.91)$ (2,950,572.15)$ (3,750,206.07)$ (4,762,063.81)$ (6,044,967.48)$ (7,674,379.01)$ (9,747,155.54)$

With FARM Program Cash FlowYEAR ONE YEAR TWO YEAR THREE YEAR FOUR YEAR FIVE YEAR SIX YEAR SEVEN YEAR EIGHT YEAR NINE YEAR TEN

PROGRAM COSTS 5,090,000$ 5,152,000$ 4,169,000$ 5,290,000$ 4,170,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (From Cost Schedule)

PROGRAM BENEFITSCacao sales 200,000$ 300,000$ 450,000$ 675,000$ 742,500$ 816,750$ 898,425$ 988,268$ 1,087,094$ 1,195,804$ Oil palm sales 130,000$ 195,000$ 273,000$ 382,200$ 573,300$ 859,950$ 1,289,925$ 1,934,888$ 2,902,331$ 4,353,497$ Food crop sales 230,000$ 402,500$ 704,375$ 1,232,656$ 2,157,148$ 2,588,578$ 3,106,294$ 3,727,553$ 4,473,063$ 5,367,676$ Access to financial services - credits and loans 1,250,000$ 1,000,000$ 750,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ Partnerships with agro-business and farmer cooperatives 135,000$ 155,250$ 178,538$ 205,318$ 236,116$ 271,533$ 312,263$ 359,103$ 412,968$ Storage facilities 500,000$ 550,000$ 605,000$ 665,500$ 732,050$ 805,255$ 885,781$ Health Care Savings 120,000$ 156,000$ 202,800$ 263,640$ 342,732$ 445,552$ 579,217$ 752,982$ 978,877$ 1,272,540$

2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$

TOTAL BENEFITS 1,930,000$ 2,188,500$ 2,535,425$ 3,732,034$ 5,070,999$ 8,051,946$ 9,310,894$ 10,948,003$ 13,105,723$ 15,988,265$

NET CASH FLOW (with Program) (3,160,000)$ (2,963,500)$ (1,633,575)$ (1,557,966)$ 900,999$ 8,051,946$ 9,310,894$ 10,948,003$ 13,105,723$ 15,988,265$

INCREMENTAL CASH FLOW (1,930,000)$ (1,549,100)$ 180,972$ 759,320$ 3,851,571$ 11,802,152$ 14,072,958$ 16,992,970$ 20,780,102$ 25,735,420$

Decision Criteria

IRR (for 5 years of program) 10% Discount Rate 8%NPV ($) (for 5 years of program) $224,594

Annex XI. List of Sources

Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and Figures 2009. (2010). Retrieved October 10, 2015, from http://mofa.gov.gh/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/mofa_facts_and_figures.pdf Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis: Focus on Northern Ghana. (2012). Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp257009.pdf Human Development Report 2014. (2014). Human Development Report 2014. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-summary-en.pdf Millennium Villages Program, Retrieved October 2015, from http://millenniumvillages.org/the-villages/bonsaaso-ghana/ Region Analytical Reports for Ashanti Region, 2010. Retrieved October 2015, from http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010phc/2010_PHC_Regional_Analytical_Reports_Ashanti_Region.pdf Synergies and tradeoffs between cash crop production and food security: a case study in rural Ghana. (2014). ISI Journal. Retrieved Oct 10, 2015 from http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53ea24a8e4b0b0caeecc2efb/t/53eb6733e4b004775184e690/1407936307556/Anderman+et+al+%28Food+Sec+2014%29.pdf. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. (2014). The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4030e.pdf USDA: What is Food Insecurity? (n.d.). Retrieved October 10, 2015, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/measurement.aspx Sources for Photos and Figures: Figure 1. Type of Farms, Ghana Statistical Service 2013 Photo Source: Ghanabizfinance.com Figure 3. Proper Spacing of Intercropped Cacao and Coconut, FAO Photo Source: theeweconomy.com Photo Source: Rainforest Alliance Figure 5. Performance Management Cycle, USAID

http://mofa.gov.gh/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/mofa_facts_and_figures.pdf

http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp257009.pdf

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-summary-en.pdf

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-summary-en.pdf

http://millenniumvillages.org/the-villages/bonsaaso-ghana/

http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010phc/2010_PHC_Regional_Analytical_Reports_Ashanti_Region.pdf

http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010phc/2010_PHC_Regional_Analytical_Reports_Ashanti_Region.pdf

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53ea24a8e4b0b0caeecc2efb/t/53eb6733e4b004775184e690/1407936307556/Anderman+et+al+%28Food+Sec+2014%29.pdf

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53ea24a8e4b0b0caeecc2efb/t/53eb6733e4b004775184e690/1407936307556/Anderman+et+al+%28Food+Sec+2014%29.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4030e.pdf

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/measurement.aspx

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/measurement.aspx

Documents

Final Ghana Team Program Design with Annexes 11.1.2015