4 June 2010

Developing Planning Unit, University College London

Client: International Water Management Institute

GIDA ASHAIMAN REPORT

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

[1]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations 3

Preface 4

Executive Summary 5

1 Introduction 6
1.1 Purpose of the study 6
1.2 Urban & peri-urban agriculture 6
1.3 Food sovereignty 6
1.4 Background: Ashaiman GIDA site 6

2 Research 7
2.1 Definition of SUPA & areas investigated 7
2.2 Methodology / conceptual framework 7
2.3 Tools 10
2.4 Limitations 10

3 Ashaiman GIDA site 11

3.1 Findings 11
3.1.1 Environmental sphere (encroachment, farming practices, right bank) 11
3.1.2 Social sphere 14
3.1.3 Economic sphere 15
3.1.4 Policy sphere 15
3.2 Summary 16

4 Recommendations 17
Strategy 1: Land control: drawing the line 17
Strategy 2: Development of the right bank: right bank rehab 19
Strategy 3: Farmers‘ association: unity & strength 21

5 Conclusions 23

References

Appendices

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

[2]
ABBREVIATIONS
AIFCS Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society

AshMA Ashaiman Municipal Assembly

AshWGUPA Ashaiman Working Group on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture

AWGUPA Accra Working Group on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture

CACS College of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences

DCMC District Citizens Monitoring Committee

DPU Development Planning Unit

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FUP Federation of the Urban Poor

GC Ghana cedi

GIDA Ghana Irrigation Development Authority

GWCL Ghana Water Company Limited

IDC Irrigation Development Centre

ILGS Institute of Local Government Studies

IWMI International Water Management Institute

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture

MWD Metropolitan Works Department

NDPC National Development Planning Commission

RBC Right Bank Committee

RD Roman Down

RUAF Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security

SUPA Sustainable urban and peri-urban agriculture

TCPD Town and Country Planning Department

TDC Tema Development Corporation

UPA Urban and peri-urban agriculture

WMD Waste Management Department

[3]
 June 2010
SUSTAINABLE URBAN AGRICULTURE
IN ASHAIMAN, GHANA
PREFACE
Over the past 5 months, many people and
organisations have helped us in our
research. Special thanks are due to Dr
Olufunke Cofie and the International Water
Management Institute, Memuna Mattah and
Nii Ofoe Hansen for their commitment and
generous assistance. We are also extremely
grateful for the support and advice from our
lecturers and team leaders, Adriana Allen,
Pascale Hofmann, Alex Frediani and Rita
Valencia. We also thank our colleagues
[4]
The GIDA site
(Ashaiman, Ghana)
working at the Roman Down site for their
cooperation.
Special mention must also be made of the
Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative
Society, Ghana Irrigation Development
Authority and the Ashaiman Stool for
receiving us. Thanks are also due to the
Roman Downs Farmers’ Cooperative and all
the other individuals and organisations who
graciously gave us their time.

MAP OF GIDA
SITE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Agriculture is a key industry in Ghana, occupying a central socio-
economic position (JICA, 2006); in addition, urban and peri-urban
agriculture (UPA) is seen as both a common and beneficial use of land
(Smit and Nasr, 1992). The situation regarding food in Accra is that
40% of the inhabitants are, “considered vulnerable, in that they have
enough food for now, but still spend a high proportion of income on
food, making them vulnerable to seasonal and price changes or other
global food supply issues” (Maxwell et al., 2000). Urban agriculture
can serve the multiple purposes of helping to alleviate poverty while
also conserving natural resources and making productive use of
under-utilized areas.
In Ghana, a national policy for food security contributed to the
introduction of the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) and
its subsequent schemes. This report details research conducted into
sustainable UPA on one such GIDA site, located in Ashaiman, a
rapidly urbanising area near Accra. The current state of UPA at the
Ashaiman GIDA site was ascertained, achievements and problems
identified, and potential solutions to these problems proposed.
Food sovereignty, as an alternative paradigm to both food security
and current global food systems, was used as the benchmark and
signpost for the research. The challenges of food sovereignty are
particularly pertinent in a country such as Ghana, with a strong
export-oriented agricultural sector. We believe that sustainable UPA
can be used to support the progress of food sovereignty, particularly
given the importance attached to local food markets and food for
people rather than export and trade (Nyéléni, 2007, La Via
Campesina).
[5]
Location
Ashaiman is a rapidly urbanising
municipality located approximately
20 km east of Accra, capital city of
Ghana. The site studied is a
government-led irrigation scheme
used also as a model for agricultural
development.
We review the progress of the GIDA Ashaiman scheme and the roles
of the various groups involved. The report outlines a framework for
analysing the sustainability of the scheme and its position with regards
to food sovereignty, looking at environmental, social, political and
economic spheres. While political commitment for UPA is presently in
rhetoric, the situation on the ground shows conflict among institutional
groups (particularly around issues of land and encroachments), a low
importance attributed to ecological concerns and a lack of supportive
financial options.
The recommendations given are aimed at sustaining UPA in Ashaiman
and further afield, and towards promoting the principles of food
sovereignty. Strategies are focused on land (allocation and use) and
the organisation of farmers:
๏ Drawing the line: defining and protecting the areas of land
dedicated to agriculture and putting a halt to further
encroachments and the degradation of natural resources
necessary for UPA.
๏ Right bank rehab: rehabilitation and development of an unused
area of the Ashaiman GIDA site with full participation of all
stakeholders, to make the best use of the land and safeguard
it for agricultural purposes.
๏ Unity and strength: improving the resilience of UPA through
strengthening the internal cohesion and functioning of the
farmers’ association while at the same time networking with
other farmers to give them a louder voice, greater control and
a wider knowledge base.
1 INTRODUCTION
Purpose, Structure & Scope of the Report
1.1 Purpose of the study
This project builds upon the research on
sustainable urban agriculture conducted in
2009 by the DPU students of the 2008/2009
academic year. Focusing on land, water and
waste management, our study aimed to:
๏ explore the existing achievements
and their background,
๏ identify remaining obstacles, and
๏ develop potential strategic
interventions for overcoming these
obstacles
towards the achievement of sustainable urban
and peri-urban agriculture (SUPA) in the
Greater Accra Region, using the Ghana
Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) site in
Ashaiman as a case study.
The study will be analysed using the principles
of food sovereignty, which we believe is the
ultimate goal that SUPA should support.
1.2 Urban & peri-urban agriculture
Urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) is
recognized increasingly by the private sector,
governments (national and local), NGOs and
development agencies as a means for poverty
alleviation in urban and peri-urban areas. Cities
Farming for the Future (Adam-Bradford et al.,
2006) defines UPA as: “… the growing of
plants and the raising of animals for food and
other uses within and around the cities and
towns, and related activities such as the
production and delivery of inputs, and the
processing and marketing of products”. There
is great potential but also elements of risk
around various issues, for example, health
benefits and impacts, local economic
development and urban environmental
management.
City dynamics have changed rapidly over
recent decades and, due to continued urban
growth and rural−urban migration, cities have
to extend their capacities in terms of
infrastructure, providing economic
opportunities, housing and, of course, food
provision. UPA can play a sizeable role in
improving livelihoods of the urban population;
having been part of many cities for centuries, it
is flexible and can be adapted to changing
situations. At least 50% of the average income
of a family living in a developing country is
spent on food (Adam-Bradford et al., 2006).
With this figure in mind, UPA can contribute
significantly to food security, especially among
the urban poor, and help to move societies
towards food sovereignty.
1 Salman Rassouli
According to the 2000 census, 50.6% of the labour force (4.2 million people) is directly engaged in
agriculture, and the contribution of agriculture to national GDP is approximately 40% in Ghana (MoFA, 2007,
MoFA seminar 10 May 2010).
1.3 Food sovereignty
When discussing food sovereignty, we first
need to consider the more established concept
of ‘food security’ and why food security could
not live up to the expectations of either
scholars or stakeholders within the sustainable
development discourse. Under the Food and
Agriculture Organization’s definition, food
security prioritises the permanent availability of
and access to healthy food for all; however, it
fails to address how this is to be achieved.
Neo-liberal advocates then encourage poor
countries to achieve food security through
importing cheap food or foreign aid, rather
than through domestic production (Lee, 2007),
ignoring the dependency created by this
integration with the global market and the
threats to smallholder producers, who cannot
compete with subsidized imports. By contrast,
the notion of food sovereignty prioritizes the
production of food for local consumption,
resulting in a sustainable pattern of agriculture
in which the viability of both the social and
ecological aspects of agriculture is guaranteed
(Pimbert, 2008, La Via Campesina).
Food Sovereignty
“Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to
define their own food and agriculture; to
protect and regulate domestic agricultural
production and trade in order to achieve
sustainable development objectives; to
determine the extent to which they want to be
self-reliant; to restrict the dumping of products
in their markets; and to provide local fisheries-
based communities the priority in managing
the use of and the rights to aquatic resources.
Food sovereignty does not negate trade but
rather it promotes the formulation of trade
policies and practices that serve the rights of
peoples to food and to safe, healthy and
ecologically sustainable production.” (La Via
Campesina)
1.4 Background: Ashaiman GIDA
site
The Ashaiman GIDA site is located in
Ashaiman Municipality, which was carved from
Tema in 2008. Ashaiman is 5 km2 and has a
population of approximately 75,000. The site is
one of 22 projects run by GIDA, a government
organization under the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture (MoFA).
The land for the site, traditionally owned by the
stool, was purchased by the Tema
Development Corporation (TDC) when the
government launched the GIDA project under
[6]
President Kwame Nkrumah in the early 1960’s.
The total area is approximately 155 ha, divided
into a left (56 ha) and right bank (99 ha) by a
central drainage canal. The reservoir,
constructed in 1965−68, has a capacity of
approximately 5.6 million metric tons and
provides the water for irrigation.
Agriculture is a key export industry of Ghana1.
Shortly after independence, the Ghanaian
government worked on the development of a
formal irrigation scheme in order to increase
domestic food production; the Ashaiman GIDA
site was one such project.
A top-down, centralized management
approach failed to adequately maintain the
irrigation facilities. Under the World Bank’s
Structural Adjustment Program of the 1980s,
government expenditure on the irrigation
scheme was reduced and the irrigation sites
became dilapidated (Sato, 2006). Against this
backdrop, the Ashaiman GIDA site was
selected by the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) as a model site for
the Small-Scale Irrigated Agriculture Promotion
Plan in the 1990’s, aiming for a transition from
government- to farmer-led management (JICA,
2006). With JICA’s support, the Irrigation
Development Centre (IDC) in Ashaiman was
established within GIDA as a “base for the
development and dissemination of irrigated
farming techniques” (ibid.) and the left canal
was reconstructed. Currently, 93 farmers are
growing rice, maize, okra and other vegetables
on the site; in addition, unregistered farmers
are using land known as Roman Down (RD)
and seasonal farmers are using land on the
right bank. Registered farmers belong to the
Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative
Society (AIFCS) and pay an irrigation service
charge to GIDA every 6 months (APPENDIX A).
Report by:
Sa’adatu Abatemi-Usman
Veronica Cheng
Andrea Demurtas
Sara Guy
Ai Kaibu
Cassidi Kunvipusilkul
Robin Pratap
Hauwa Usman
2 RESEARCH
2.1 Definition of SUPA & areas to
be investigated
To address the research aim mentioned earlier,
the team developed a working definition of
SUPA.
Sustainable Urban and
Peri-Urban Agriculture
“Urban and peri-urban agriculture is a
process of crop and/or animal
production activities in the city and its
peri-urban areas for consumption and/or
commercial purposes. Its sustainability is
dependent on the physical environment,
the availability of resources and the
relationships among actors. Suitable
farming practices that maintain and
enhance the natural resource base and
supportive policies across all levels of
governance are needed to enable
sustainable UPA, thus enhancing health
and well-being in the city, food security
and moving towards food sovereignty.”
Based on this definition, the Terms of
Reference and secondary research, three main
areas were investigated:
1) Water supply and waste
management
A sufficient quantity of good-quality
water is an essential natural resource
in terms of the physical environment
required for sustainable agriculture.
Encroachments on the Ashaiman
GIDA site, exacerbated by a lack of
waste collection and sewerage of
surrounding area, are affecting the
water quality for irrigation, as well as
the volume of water available.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SPHERE
2) Sustainable farming practices
In order to maintain and enhance the
natural resource base, a reduced
dependence on chemical inputs
(e.g., fertilizer, herbicide and
pesticide) is necessary. Cropping
techniques can also increase or
decrease resilience (APPENDIX B). The
team hypothesised that there are
economic barriers to adopting
ecologically sustainable farming
practices.
3) Farmers’ association and
collective action
The farmers’ association should be
integral conveying farmers’ needs to
policy-makers. Joint action amongst
farmers may improve their economic
and political conditions.
2.2 Methodology/conceptual
framework
Rapid urbanization and increasing rural−urban
migration in the South is changing the face of
poverty from being a rural phenomenon to an
increasingly urban one. “Today a poor person
is more likely to be African, to be a child, a
woman or an elderly person in an urban area,
to be landless, to live in an environmentally
fragile area and to be a refugee or a displaced
person (Human Development Report, 1997)”.
In this atmosphere, the importance of (S)UPA
meeting the principles of food sovereignty as a
“precondition to genuine food security (Via
Campesina, 1996)” has become more and
more significant. It may be true to say UPA
would not be sustainable unless practiced
through the principles of food sovereignty.
Autonomous, localized food production
systems, such as UPA, are encouraged by the
concept of food sovereignty as genuine tools
securing the right and access of vulnerable
groups to food that have been neglected in
POLICY
SPHERE
SUPA
ECONOMIC
SPHERE
[7]
conventional market-oriented agriculture. On
the other hand, SUPA has been seen as an
appropriate tool for achieving the ecological
goals of food sovereignty, in terms of its
approach to using ecological inputs and
considering long-term benefits for both
humans and the environment (Pimbert, 2008).
Neoliberal economics and the green revolution
paradigm advocate the replacement of
smallholders with large-scale, industrial
farming and of intercropping with cash mono-
crops, undermining both the socio-economic
livelihood of the farmers and the environment.
This double-edged damage becomes more
significant when we consider that, in the global
South, 800 million people are dependent on
small-scale UPA (Pimbert, 2008). Countries
aiming to secure a sustainable food supply
should follow appropriate policies that support
UPA. However, domestic production alone
cannot guarantee the sustainability of food
supply, since agricultural practices may still
contradict the principles of food sovereignty.
To move UPA toward sustainability (SUPA), all
principles of food sovereignty should be
considered and integrated in policy-making for
(S)UPA.
Four main spheres were found to be crucial to
SUPA on the GIDA site: policy, environment,
economics and society. These spheres
influence (positively or negatively) the
sustainability of UPA; the principles of food
sovereignty also apply across these spheres.
The different spheres are inter-related and
coordination among them is needed to ensure
SUPA.
To better understand the integration of food
sovereignty in SUPA and the relationship
between the two, we have developed a set of
criteria, using Nyéléni’s Pillars of Food
Sovereignty (2007), against which the current
situation can be measured. These criteria are
given in the table on the following page.
SOCIAL SPHERE
Conceptual
Framework
Six pillars of food Spheres of influence in achieving and maintaining sustainable UPA
sovereignty
Policy sphere Economic sphere Environmental sphere Social sphere
Focuses on food for people
Availability of Food is Food is affordable, Migrants have a share in UPA
enough, healthy distributed healthy and nutritious practices to provide sufficient
and nutritious equitably and food
food for all, without prejudice
particularly among people Indigenous people are involved
vulnerable groups in UPA

Women are involved in UPA

Values food providers
Respecting the Policies support Economic policies are Urbanization and Media adequately reflect the
right of small security of tenure not biased to encroachments are not a importance of UPA and small-
farmers and and/or control industrial or Green threat to UPA holder farms
rejects policies over land for UPA Revolution-inspired
that threaten or farmers farming but put value
undervalue their on and provide
role Youth are opportunities for
encouraged and urban farmers
supported in UPA
Farmers have access
Official media to loans and credit
adequately reflect with suitable payment
the importance of terms and interest
UPA and small- rates
holder farms

Localises food systems

Bringing food Policies support Access to local Consumers choose local
providers and the expansion of market as a source of products
consumers closer local markets for income is guaranteed
and rejecting of UPA produce Farmers are not integrated into
policies that Farmers are not global trade and dependent on
favour Imported crops dependent on exporters but sell crops to the
unsustainable are subject to middlemen for selling local market
international trade tariffs crops
and
unaccountable Local
remote consumption is
commercials prioritized over
export

Puts control locally

Gives local Public and Local urban/peri-urban farmers
producers control private sector have a voice and can decide
over their natural ownership or the methods and products they
resources and management is grow.
rejects limited in UPA by
privatisation of decentralised Farmers’ associations help
local resources policies farmers to gain management
through laws and knowledge
contracts The control and
responsibilities Associations operate in a
are well transparent and accountable
transferred to the manner
municipal level
and roles are well
defined

[8]
Builds knowledge and skills
Supports Policies do not Traditional practices are used Farmers’ associations are
sustainable support use of in UPA linked to enhance and
localized food genetically exchange indigenous
production modified crops knowledge and skills
knowledge and and limit
skills and rejects undermining
undermining technologies
technology
Education on and
experimentation
with traditional
practices takes
place

Works with nature

Has an agro- Appropriate Adequate state and The source of water is not There is consumer
ecological policies favour international funds are contaminated and suitable for pressure for organic
production and composting allocated to education UA. produce
farming approach on environmentally
that maximize Appropriate friendly farming Irrigation methods reduce
long term regulations methods health risk and contamination
ecosystem encourage and
functions and facilitate The water used for irrigation
improve resilience composting does not pose any threat to
plants farmers or consumers
Intercropping is practised
Regulations limit
the excessive use Food grown respects the local
of chemicals and vegetation
destructive
farming Farmers implement closed
technologies loop farming
Soil has a good structure (not
Monitoring of the compacted) and is suitable for
quality and agricultural purposes
nutrition of UPA
products takes Soil quality is protected from
places toxicity and salinity caused by
the (over-) use of chemical
inputs (fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides, etc)
Farmers’ practices endorse:
 Minimization
 Reusing
 Recycling
 Composting

The areas of food production

are free from waste
The surrounding area is clean

The surrounding area is

served by adequate garbage
collection
Source: Adapted from Nyéléni, 2007

[9]
2.3 Tools
An initial review of the literature on UPA was conducted to underpin the theoretical perspective
of the research. In addition, the literature concerning the political and administrative context of
TOOLS
Ghana, in particular Accra, Ashaiman and the GIDA site, and the approach to UPA were
reviewed.

This was followed by fieldwork in Accra and Ashaiman, consisting of a number of meetings with
primary and secondary stakeholders from state, private and civil society sectors. Authorities
from MoFA, GIDA, Zoom Lion, the Stool and others were consulted. This information was
complemented by individual (semi-structured) interviews with farmers and officials; focus groups
with the farmers to identify their perceptions of farming on the site GIDA; and transect walks to
gain understanding of the infrastructure and natural environment of the site (for a full schedule of
the fieldwork conducted, see APPENDIX C).

2.4 Limitations
Fieldwork was conducted within a 2-week timeframe. The language barrier resulted in a possible
loss of understanding or even misunderstanding, and the disengagement of some farmers from
focus group discussion. We were also unable to meet with all relevant stakeholders, such as the
encroachment residents and migrant farmers. A final presentation and plenary session was held
with the majority of stakeholders, which allowed areas of conflicting information to be raised; the
additional presence of the Stool would have made the discussion more complete.

Research was conducted using our Terms of Reference, focussed on urban agriculture, as the
starting point. Therefore, we mostly focussed on the views and needs of farmers and not, for
example, those in need of housing.

On-site
research

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

[10]
THREATS TO
WATER
From top to bottom:
Encroachments around the
reservoir; just below the dam; and
alongside the left irrigation canal.
Plans for the demolition of illegal
development were repeatedly
raised; however, the root causes of
the conflict, including a lack of
consistency between customary
and official land systems, also need
to be addressed.
3 ASHAIMAN GIDA SITE
3.1 Findings
3.1.1 Environmental Sphere
Encroachment
Encroachments on the GIDA site are a
significant threat to sustaining the irrigation
scheme. Houses have been erected around the
reservoir, on the shoulder of the left bank,
along the left irrigation canal on the buffer zone
and pollution catchment area, and on the
floodplain of the site. Land erosion and solid
waste cause siltation and pollution of the
reservoir, as well as pollution from waste water.
Reducing the buffer zone, developments
affecting the catchment drain and
inappropriate use of water in the canals
increase the likelihood of water pollution. The
boundaries were marked by trees, which have
in some areas been cut down by encroachers.
Encroachments on the buffer zone are the
result of an unclear land ownership agreement
between the government and the Stool, as well
as unclear demarcation of boundaries. It is
apparent that the government has not enforced
its authority strictly; as such, farmers who feel
the direct impact have no control to resolve the
problem. Due to the lack of documented
evidence and unclear demarcation, the Stool
[11]
claims that the Ashaiman GIDA site is on a
long lease of 125 years of which 75 years is
already spent, yet the Stool has not received
the full compensation. Land in Ashaiman is
becoming increasingly valuable as the area
becomes further urbanised.
Currently, the Land Allocation Committee,
which includes representatives from Ashaiman
Municipal Assembly (AshMA), the IDC/GIDA,
the Stool and the farmers (AIFCS), meets
regularly to discuss the land issue. There have
been negotiations between the government
and the Stool to allow a 50 m buffer zone on
the catchment area of the left canal, and there
are also plans to demolish 150 homes out of
the total 1000 encroachment residences on
GIDA-managed land. The District Citizen’s
Monitoring Committee (APPENDIX D) is
facilitating dialogue between the RD farmers
and the Stool with regards to land security.
However, there is an urgent need for a more
comprehensive negotiation among GIDA, TDC,
farmers, Stool and residents to resolve the land
disputes.
Farming Practices
Farming activities on the GIDA site take place
on the 56 ha of the left bank. Each farmer
cultivates a plot of 1−2.5 acres (0.4−1 ha).
Although most farmers acknowledge the
negative impacts of using chemical fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides, they continue to
use them. Chemical fertilizers are used at
many stages of crop production, from land
preparation to shortly before harvesting. From
interviews with farmers we learned that
pesticides are widely used. Farmers do not
use compost because they perceive it to be
labour intensive, time consuming and with
high associated transportation costs.
Research into the viability of composting as a
private enterprise has been conducted by
Zoom Lion. The farmers are more concerned
with short-term rather than long-term goals,
even though their land tenure is secure. In
other words, farming practices are not
harmonious with nature. By contrast, they
degrade the natural
CHARACTERISTICS
resources, moving them away from the
fundamental principles of food sovereignty
and sustainability.
Intercropping is used rarely; crop rotation and
mono-cropping are more common. The
farmers claim that their small plot size
discourages them from intercropping, as they
believe they will yield an insufficient amount of
each kind of vegetable for sale. In fact,
intercropping methods can be implemented
on small plots; when done appropriately it
gives a high yield, promotes resilience and
has the potential to reduce the use of
chemical pesticides and fertilizers (pers.
comm. Biel R, 2010). However, land limitation
is still the main constraint that hinders farmers
from farming practices such as integrated Left canal
farming (the combination of crop, animal and The only fully functioning main canal
fish farming). on the site.
Intercropping
Intercropping is used rarely; crop
rotation and mono-cropping are more
common.
Integrated farming
A MoFA-run demonstration farm with
fish ponds, pigs, poultry and rise
paddies.
[12]

UNPRODUCTIVE LAND
Right Canal
The canal is not made of concrete
and water flow is impeded by waste
and weeds. Not only is the canal too
shallow, it is also blocked by debris
Right Bank
As the right canal is not functioning,
this area is under-utilised for farming.
Plans are being developed to
rehabilitate the right bank.
Right Bank
The 99 ha of the right bank are designed to be
irrigated through the right canal by gravity.
However, the canal is constructed of earth
rather than concrete, allowing water seepage,
and water flow is impeded by waste and
weeds. As a result, not only is the canal too
shallow to channel the water, it is also blocked
by debris. At present, only part of this area is
being used to cultivate onions seasonally and
informally by migrant farmers. In individual
interviews, farmers mentioned that onions can
provide additional benefits for farmers above
their usual cultivation. However, the
information on migrant farmers was gathered
towards the end of our research and we were
not able to meet any of these farmers or
follow-up on, for example, the regulations
governing this use of the right bank.
The lack of water has forced farmers on the
right bank to
abandon their land and transfer to the left
bank, resulting in smaller plot sizes for
cultivation, thereby generating lower incomes.
Rehabilitation of the right canal is capital
intensive, beyond the farmers’ means, so they
are dependent on GIDA for reinforcing the
canal. GIDA also requires external funding to
develop the right bank as it lacks the
necessary finance.
There are a number of ideas for the
development of the right bank, such as the
[13]
‘Youth in Agriculture’ program. This
Program, implemented by Ghanaian
government, aims to reduce the both
unemployment and poverty. According to
MoFA, approximately 47,000 people benefitted
from the program in 2009 (IIJ 2009). As a
result, in 2010 the government will invest
another 50 million GC into the program (Ghana
Business News 2010). Both GIDA and the
Stool recognize the potential of the Youth in
Agriculture program for the right bank.
GIDA has drafted plans to rehabilitate the right
bank to
which MoFA has agreed in principle, and is
now working on sourcing funds. The IDC has
also proposed introducing small animal
farming and aquaculture on the right bank.
Even with the repair of the right canal, the
volume of the water from the reservoir would
only allow 70% of the right bank to be
irrigated. As a result, any planned intervention
will require less water-intensive activities. GIDA
is looking to implement new technology, such
as water dripping, on the site. A major
drawback, however, is the minimal to
nonexistent
role that AIFCS farmers have in the
decision-making and development plans for
the right bank.
3.1.2 Social Sphere
On the GIDA site there are 93 farmers who have formed a
cooperative, the AIFCS, which has been registered with the
Department of Cooperatives since 1998. AIFCS is also a member General Assembly
of the Ghana Peasant Farmers Association. Members and their
elected executives manage the cooperative. Chairman

Within the assembly, there are various sub-committees; each Disciplinary Committee Vice Chairman Welfare Committee
comprises five members, including the sub-committee chair as the
figure on the right hand shows. The Chairman and the executive Secretary Agriculture Committee
members are elected by the General Assembly. Once elected, the
chairman designates the respective positions for each member of
Finance Committee Treasurer
the Executive Committee. Elections are held every 3 years and
members can be elected for two consecutive terms only. The last
Organizer
election was in 2007. All decisions taken by the executive members
have to be ratified by the General Assembly to take effect. Since
2000, accounts are opened to members at the end of each year to
Womanʼs Leader Maintenance Officer
increase transparency.

All members of the cooperative work together once a month in Maintenance Committee
order to maintain common property. A fine of 5 GC is levied on any
member who fails to participate. The maintenance committee
works closely with GIDA to co-manage the site. The cooperative (1) Maintenance committee chaired by the Maintenance Officer
does not play a role in sales or marketing; as a result, farmers have (2) Agriculture committee chaired by the Secretary
to deal with ‘market mummies’ individually, which has made the (3) Finance committee chaired by the Treasurer
farmers vulnerable. (4) Disciplinary committee chaired by the Vice Chairman
(5) Welfare committee chaired by the Vice Chairman
During the fieldwork, a joint focus group of the AIFCS, farmers from
the RD site and representatives from the Federation of the Urban
Poor took place. A vision for sustainable agriculture in Ashaiman
was discussed and the creation of an ‘umbrella’ organisation of
farmers in Ashaiman was agreed upon, in order that the farmers
may support each other and work together, for example, in political
lobbying.

Combined farmers meeting

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

[14]
3.1.3 Economic sphere
Farmers belonging to the AIFCS make regular financial contributions of up to 62 GC/year to the association that are allocated to administration,
welfare and share capital funds.

Financial contributions of the Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society

Fund Amount, frequency Use and distribution
Administration 1 GC/month To cover administrative costs of running the cooperative
Welfare 10 GC/6 months Financial assistance for those in need (e.g., through illness or death in
the family). Distribution is decided by the Welfare Committee
Share capital 30 GC/year For investment purposes

In addition to these funds, there is a Farmers’ Bank on the site that provides loans for inputs of seeds and chemicals. However, in our discussions
with the farmers, lack of adequate finance was highlighted as a significant problem. Owing to the nature of farming, there is a need for cash
advances throughout the growing process, not only at the input stage. The costs of hiring labour was one of the highest costs of the process (for
more detailed information, see APPENDIX E). The absence of cash credit availability leads the farmers to rely on market mummies, who not only
dictate the prices of produce but also influence the crops grown to suit their demands.

A women’s savings group was previously active in the AIFCS but the leaders left the farm and members of the group were not able to get their
money. However, the farmers were positive regarding the potential benefits of regular group savings and, with support from an organisation such
as the Federation of the Urban Poor, some members would be interested in starting such groups. Greater financial independence would help to
reduce the dependency on GIDA and the market mummies, a desire that was expressed strongly by the farmers.

3.1.4 Policy sphere

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

The relationships of the various parties and institutions on the GIDA site as their activities relate to UPA have been mapped using the Web of
Institutionalisation (Levy, 1996).

The Web of Institutionalisation

MoFA AshMA MoFA
NDPC Organisational Sphere
GIDA JICA
IDC DANIDA
Policy Sphere Market Mummies NDPC
Mainstream
MoFA Responsibility for
GIDA Resources
RUAF MoFA ILGS Transformatory
AshMA GIDA TDC Principles
GTV AshMA GWLC
NDPC TCP

Political
Policy / Planning Procedures
Commitment
Farmers DCMC
MoFA AshMA
associations FUP MoFA
EPA Stool
(RD & AIFCS) IDC
ILGS IDC
Market
mummies’
associations Pressure of Representative Staff Development
Political Political
Constituencies Structures
Delivery of
AshMA
Farmers Stool Programmes &
Market mummies’ Woman & Men’s Projects
associations Methodology
Encroachment Experience &
residents their Reflexive MoFA IDC / GIDA
WMD GWLC IDC IWMI
Interpretation of MWD Zoom Lion ILGS JICA
Reality

Applied
Theory Building
Research
IWMI
Citizen Sphere RUAF MoFA WMD Delivery Sphere
CACS / University of NDPC Stool
WMD Ghana AshMA
Fisheries Department DPU

Source: Adapted from Levy, 1996

High influence & high support Low influence & high support Low influence & low support High influence & low support

[15]

GIDA is as much a demonstration site as an agricultural scheme. The
IDC, as the research arm of GIDA, provides numerous workshops and
training for the farmers on new techniques, as well as guiding crop
choices, resulting in an absence of indigenous knowledge and
practices. The organisational structures of GIDA and the IDC are given
in APPENDIX F.
The dependence of farmers on institutions is manifest in MoFA’s
subsidizing of chemical fertilizers and the establishment of the Farmers’
Bank by JICA, which lends for seeds and fertilizers. Extension services
and some forms of credit are available and food production is mainly for
economic purposes rather than self-consumption, yet the younger
generation is discouraged from farming as a result of the low standing
of farmers in society and the low economic benefits.
The absence of infrastructure further discourages sustainable farming
practices. The Stool and AshMA, while claiming to support UPA, plan to
develop the land around the reservoir into a leisure resort as an
alternative income-generating strategy. The Stool is also involved in
selling land to developers; it believes that urbanisation and UPA should
have equal opportunities, although they appear to lean more towards
urbanisation (Ashaiman Stool Chairman).
3.2 Summary
An overall assessment of our findings using the criteria developed is
given in APPENDIX G. The Ashaiman GIDA site is now facing a
substantial challenge from encroachments and their impacts on water
quality and quantity. The lack of agreement and documentation
regarding the land allocated to the GIDA site seems to be the main
cause of this threat to the long-term viability of the irrigation scheme.
The roots of the conflict can be traced back to political (customary and
official systems, as well as individual interests), economic (revenue from
land leases and development) and societal (a need for more housing)
[16]
Looking south
over the GIDA site
from the dam
concerns. Food providers are not always valued by the system and
farmers do not have control of the land they farm.
Regarding SUPA, there appears to be a vicious circle in operation on
the site. One of the biggest constraints for the site is poor maintenance
of the irrigation facilities on the right bank, which has led to limited land
available for farmers. This causes a decreased income for each farmer
(compared with larger plots), which is combined with inflexible credit
services. Although farmers are aware of the importance of more
sustainable farming practices, such as intercropping and composting,
their economic conditions and perceptions lead them to adopt less
sustainable farming practices. The low collection rate of the irrigation
service charge may partially reflect the farmers’ inadequate incomes,
yet it is exacerbating the poor maintenance. In addition, the ecological
impacts of high chemical inputs will bring about a decrease in
agricultural productivity and increased expense in the long term.
The Ashaiman GIDA site has enjoyed substantial support both from
GIDA/MoFA and external donors, such as JICA; however, there have
been some unintended consequences. Our research revealed an
apparent financial and technical dependency at two levels, the farmers
on GIDA and GIDA on external donors. This loss of control over
finances impacts practical decisions regarding farming practices. In
addition, the high level of technical training received through GIDA/IDC
belittles the value of traditional knowledge and skills, rendering them
almost non-existent.
A transparent policy- and decision-making process in close
collaboration and coordination with all stakeholders is lacking, leading
to confusion and setting the scene for potential future conflicts. In
particular, active participation of the farmers in decisions regarding the
running and development of the site, as well as the integration of UPA
into Ashaiman’s relevant plans and policies is desirable to give local
control.
4 RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations are aimed at improving the sustainability of UPA. A more in-depth discussion of the
reasoning behind each strategy is given in APPENDIX H.

Strategy 1: Land control: drawing the line

Encroachments on the eastern side of the GIDA site cause several problems to the farmers and are threatening the long-term survival of the
scheme. From our research, the root cause seems to be the mismatch between the traditional council and current local administration regarding
the leasing of the land, especially for some areas, such as Roman Down or the reservoir’s banks. It is thus necessary to involve local dwellers and
workers in understanding the problem (sub-strategy 1), to conduct a technical assessment of the requirements of protecting the site, and to insure
that new and existing housing is adequate for Ashaiman’s growth and has access to municipal services and infrastructure (sewage, piped water,
waste collection, etc).

Define and protect areas dedicated to urban agriculture.

Main objective: having secure boundaries and a buffer zone to protect farmland and water reserves.

Actors (main
Sub-strategy Actions Timeline Outcomes Monitoring
driver[s])

Sub-objective Facilitate and lower resistance to the process (of securing boundaries)
Expand the role and Map local stakeholders Immediate Bringing local actors to a
membership of the and engage them in the common understanding of
Land Allocation appraisal of the the problem
Committee encroachment problem
Needs of different DCMC
AshMA
stakeholders identified
GIDA

Produce a common Short term Report

proposal to address the (3 months) Integration of local needs
issue within city-wide projects

Sub-objective Define environmental and technical necessities of the site

Implement a technical State of the Environment Short term Report

environmental Report of Ashaiman (6 months) TCPD
assessment (University of
Ghana)

Include the views coming Short term Integrate planning with

from the expanded Land (6 months) actors’ needs, including
Allocation Committee in protection of farmers and
the masterplan adequate residential TCPD
development DCMC

Define the buffer zone Short term Masterplan for Ashaiman

(6 months) includes buffer zones TCPD
GIDA

Demarcate the boundaries Short term Secure flooding/ catchment

of flooding/catchment (6 months) areas
areas GIDA

[17]
Sub-objective Secure competences, roles and future upgrading of the area

Redefine and Conclude new Medium term New, documented lease

formalise the arrangements with local (1 year) that all parties agree on
agreement for the chief (if necessary)
GIDA scheme
AshMA
MoFA
DCMC
Stool
Improve coordination Define new protocol to Medium term New, publicised protocol
procedures between formally register (1 year) for land sales/leases
traditional and formal customary leases
land agreements

Motivation
GIDA/IDC: The progressive expansion of encroachments is threatening the scheme. GIDA/IDC, as the formal tenants of the site,
have a responsibility to protect it as a priority.
AshMA TCPD: among the duties of TCPD is the zoning of the city and the provision of infrastructure to citizens. The
encroachments are undermining the TCPD plans and the possibility of planned development in the area.
Stool: To maintain a good relationship with the local administration and farmers on the GIDA site, the Stool must help to resolve
current land disputes in Ashaiman.

Resources
The resources for implementing this strategy would have to come mainly from AshMA and GIDA. The preliminary State of the
Environment Report could be outsourced to university students, while the farmers’ association could provide labour for securing
the perimeter of the GIDA scheme.

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

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

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

[18]
Strategy 2: Development of the right bank: right bank rehab

A portion of the 99 ha of the right bank is farmed seasonally and informally; farmers on the left bank struggle because of limited plot size, while in
Roman Down farmers are farming informally. The development of the right bank is both a logical solution and a necessary action, in order to
prevent possible encroachments.

Interviews with key stakeholders revealed a lack of coordination between the different bodies interested in developing the area and a general lack
of resources for development. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a committee (Right Bank Committee [RBC]) to assess different plans for the
area and provide in-depth consultation with other stakeholders (particularly farmers). Having farmer representatives in the RBC would help to
address any potential conflicts at the initial planning stage to ensure that actions proceed in the most effective and appropriate way. Any plans for
the rehabilitation of the right bank should also take into account the impact of such plans on the migrant farmers who use the land at present. The
inclusion of migrant farmers on the RBC would be beneficial; unfortunately, as we were unable to meet this group we cannot say to what degree
they are organised or willing to participate in such a venture.

When the opportunity of a composting site has been presented to farmers, several technical difficulties were raised. However, the incorporation of
a composting facility on site could resolve many of their concerns.

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

Actors (main
Sub-strategy Actions Timeline Outcomes Monitoring
driver[s])

Sub-objective Ensure transparency and participation in the decision-making process

Create a committee Identification of Short term Local stakeholders
for the development of representatives of other (3 months) representative
the right bank main actors (AshMA, AshMA
Stool, Farmers)
GIDA
AshWGUPA
Establishment of the Short term Assessment and public
committee (RBC) (3 months) disclosure of projects for
the right bank

Identify a site for Short term Site identification

Integrated Farming on the (3 months)
right bank

Establish a dialogue with Short term Feasibility of Integrated

the Fishery Department to (3 months) Farming determined
implement IF on the Right
AIFCS
Bank GIDA
(Monitoring
RBC
Committee)

Identify possible sources Short term Financial possibilities

of finance (6 months)

Sub-objective Replace the use of chemicals with natural compost and begin recycling practices

Implement a Identify a suitable site on Short term Site identified

composting site the right bank (6 months) GIDA/IDC
RBC
Zoom Lion

Feasibility study and Medium term Economic budgeting

economic preliminary (1 year) AshWGUPA
assessment
Zoom Lion
Realisation of the Medium term Composter realised
composter (3 years)

[19]
Motivation
AIFCS: Limited access to land is one of the main concerns of farmers; therefore, their participation in the development of the right
bank is in their best interests.
MoFA−GIDA: The GIDA scheme is one of the most organised sites of urban agriculture in Ghana. Expanding and improving it
would create a model that could be replicated in other urban areas. Results from research into more ecologically sustainable
farming practices could be applied on GIDA sites across Ghana.
AshMA: In the AshMA plans for a global city, protection and use of currently unused green areas is a must, especially to preserve
the pleasantness of the place in sight of touristic developments
Zoom Lion: Providing composters close to the city centres and integrating them into urban farming practices could be a profitable
business if planned in participation with the main customers of the composted output.

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

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

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

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

[20]
Strategy 3: Farmers’ association: unity & strength

The AIFCS plays an important role; however, it has shown several limitations with regard to its dependence on external actors. Furthermore, to
date the association has not taken a particularly proactive role. Therefore, two strategies are proposed: one of internal reorganisation, to be carried
out by the AIFCS; and one of networking, to be fostered by AshMA and MoFA.

Strengthening the internal organisation follows three main directions:

๏ Improve management practices: after being elected, the executive team should follow a training course (one or two workshops) in
organisational management and group dynamics, as provided in Accra under AWGUPA. The IDC could provide the necessary human
resources. Creating additional area-specific task forces is also suggested to involve a greater number of farmers in active management of
the scheme.

๏ Increase transparency of the executive team: given the number of farmers in GIDA scheme conflicts among them may easily arise; it is
therefore necessary to have procedures to avoid suspicion and mistrust.

๏ Improve self-financing capacity: research has highlighted the constraints to farmers’ choices posed by limited finances. Saving groups
could ease the situation, while also building social capital within the AIFCS.

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

Improve the resilience of urban agriculture through the farmers’ association.

Main objective: Strengthen the internal organisation and external position of the farmers’ association

Actors (main
Sub-strategy Actions Timeline Outcomes Monitoring
driver[s])

Sub-objective Strengthen internal organisation

Improve management Train elected executive on From next Increased efficiency of the
practices basic management elections (to be executive
AIFCS
practices (IDC) repeated for
GIDA/IDC
every new
election)
Creation of new task Short term Dedicated groups to deal
forces (3 months) with common issues:
· Marketing
· Machinery maintenance
· Sustainable farming
practices
· Patrolling

Increase transparency Identify a monitoring team Immediate Improved internal

of the executive team monitoring and control
AIFCS
AIFCS
Release an audio- Immediate Improved accountability
recorded report on the Recorded basis for
works of the executive assessment
every 6 months

Improve self-financing Release a 6-months Immediate Improved financial

capacity budget (for plenary accountability
session)
Initiate saving groups on Immediate Reduced dependence on
the model of FUP (inputs, market women
machinery maintenance) Allow farmers who are not AIFCS
officially creditworthy
access to funding FUP

[21]
Sub-objective Improve external position

Have an active role in Create a multi-stakeholder Short term Increasing political

policy-making task force (AshWGUPA) (3 months) representation
on the model of AWGUPA United actions planned MoFA
and carried out AshMA

Strengthen links to Create a partnership with Immediate Having a platform for

other farmers Roman Down farmers’ dealing with common AIFCS
associations association issues MoFA
AshMA
AIFCS
Encourage city/nation- Short term Increasing political
wide farmers association (3 months) representation
(in part already done?) AIFCS
MoFA

Improve their position Facilitate new partnership Short term Becoming an important AIFCS
in the local within the local civil (3 months) and accepted local actor MoFA
community society AshMA
FUP
Motivation
AIFCS: Besides being well organised, the farmers’ association can improve its performances by increasing participation and
improving accountability. Financing has been highlighted by the farmers as one of the biggest limitations in their business.
Grassroots models of self-financing are a strong alternative.
MoFA: Having more organised and connected partners would help MoFA to implement its policies easily and more efficiently
because it will be dealing with fewer bodies rather than several site-specific associations.
GIDA/IDC: By adding management practices to its workshops, GIDA would carry out actions towards achieving the goal of less
hands-on site management.
AshMA: It is in the interests of AshMA to have strong and organised partners for the promotion of a more sustainable urban
development.

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

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

Food sovereignty
These recommendations are aimed at the empowerment and networking of farmers. Under the principles of food sovereignty,
farmers have the right to direct their lives and their produce. This can only be achieved with strong organisational capabilities and a
consistent political voice that is heard. It is also necessary to build strong local ties with other actors to be able to implement a
localised food system.

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

[22]
5 CONCLUSIONS
Investigation of the Ashaiman GIDA site gives an insight into
some of the challenges facing UPA in a rapidly urbanising
area in the context of a planned intervention. In a situation
where the green (UPA) and brown (housing needs) agendas
clash, land remains a contentious issue, even where a
government site has been established. The situation is made
more complex by the tandem operation of customary and
official land systems. In addition, some of the indirect
consequences of unplanned development are visible. The
lack of agreement and documentation regarding the land
allocated to the GIDA site threatens the long-term viability of
the irrigation scheme through the effects of encroachments
on water quality and quantity.
Further, a side effect of this planned intervention is that of
dependence, seemingly created by external assistance in
setting up and developing the site, and by the large amount
of training and facilities provided to farmers. Regarding
finance in particular, dependency is evident on at least two
levels: GIDA on external donors; and the farmers on GIDA.
This lack of self-reliant funding is impeding the adoption of
[23]
more ecologically sustainable farming practices. A
dependence and elevation of modern farming practices also
negates the value of indigenous practices, and short-term
productivity is prioritised over long-term sustainability.
Food sovereignty, with its emphasis on local markets and
people, valuing small-scale farmers and working with nature,
provides a challenging yet compelling direction for UPA in
the Greater Accra Region. The role of UPA within food
sovereignty is not clearly defined, yet the principles
highlighted are not incompatible with SUPA and the
objectives are ecological, social and financial sustainability.
The strategies recommended support these aims through:
increased dialogue with and participation of farmers and
other stakeholders; greater control for farmers through a
greater voice and wider financial options; decreasing
reliance solely on GIDA through working more with other
organisations; and increased self-reliance of the farmers.
The ultimate goal of food sovereignty is a long way off;
however the proposals given provide initial steps towards
this ambitious target.
REFERENCES
Adam-Bradford A, Bailkey M, de Bon H et al. (2006). Cities Farming for the Future. van Veenhuizen R (Ed.). IIRR/RUAF/IDRC, Ottawa, Canada.

Adams S, Athulathmudali S, Breyer E et al. (2009). Towards a Model of Sustainable Urban Agriculture: A Case Study of Ashaiman, Ghana.
DPU, UCL, London, UK.

Dyasi HM (1985). Culture and the environment in Ghana. Environmental Management 9(2), 97−103.

JICA (2006). Historical changes in technical cooperation provided to Ghana’s irrigated agriculture sector. In: A Study of the Effectiveness and
Problems of JICA's Technical Cooperation from a Capacity Development Perspective. Available at www.jica.go.jp/english/publications/reports/
study/capacity/200609/pdf/200609_04e.pdf (Accessed 30 May 2010).

Lee R (2007). Food Sovereignty and Food Security. Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series No.11, Centre for Rural Economy,
University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.

Levy C (1996). The Web of Institutionalisation. Working Paper No. 74, UCL, London, UK.

Maxwell D, Levin C, Armar-Klemesu M, Ruel M, Morris S, Ahiadeke C (2000). Urban Livelihoods and Food and Nutrition Security in Greater
Accra, Ghana. Available at www.who.int/nutrition/publications/WHO_multicountry_%20study_Ghana.pdf (Accessed 30 May 2010).

Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana (2007). Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP II). www.mofa.gov.gh/FASDEP
%20II (Accessed 29 May 2010).

Nyéléni (2007). As cited in Mulvaney P. Food Sovereignty Comes of Age. www.foodethicscouncil.org 2(3), 19−20 (Accessed 25 March 2010).

Pimbert M (2008). Towards Food Sovereignty. Available at www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/14855IIED.pdf (Accessed 30 May 2010).

Sato K (2006). Construction of Participatory Irrigation Management in Ghana Irrigation Project Sites Assisted by Foreign Aid. PhD thesis,
University of Tsukuba, Japan [Article in Japanese].

Smit J, Nasr J (1992). Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: using wastes and idle land and water bodies as resources. Environment &
Urbanization 4(2), 141−152.

Websites

FAO. www.fao.org (Accessed 2 June 2010).

Ghana Business News. 2010. Ghana to implement GH¢50m youth in agriculture project in 2010.
http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/09/25/ghana-to-implement-gh%C2%A250m-youth-in-agriculture-project-in-2010/ (accessed 21
June 2010).

IIJ, the International Institute for Journalism of InWEnt. 2009. Ghana: Youth in agriculture gets GH¢10.7m government support.
http://inwent-iij-lab.org/Weblog/2009/08/25/ghana-youth-into-agriculture-gets-governments-support/ (accessed 21 June 2010).

La Via Campesina. www.viacampesina.org (Accessed 30 May 2010).

Interviews, seminars & focus groups

Ashaiman Stool Chairman (2010). Meeting with the Chief and his associates, Ashaiman, Ghana, 8 May.

Ashaiman Irrigation Farmers Cooperative Society (2010). Focus groups and individual interviews, Ashaiman, Ghana, 4−11 May.

Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana (2010). Seminar within MSc Fieldtrip, Paloma Hotel, Accra, Ghana, 10 May.

[24]
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Payment of irrigation service charges to the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority
Appendix B: Mono-cropping versus crop rotation, intercropping and integrated farming: an introduction
Appendix C: Research schedule
Appendix D: District Citizens Monitoring Committee
Appendix E: Costs of growing 1 acre of rice
Appendix F: Organisational hierarchy of Ghana Irrigation Development Authority and the Irrigation
Development Centre
Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty
Appendix H: Strategies

[25]
Appendix A

Payment
of
irriga.on
service
charges
to
the
Ghana
Irriga.on
Development
Authority.

ISC/ha Area
 Amt.
 Amt.
 Amt.
Disbursed


Year Season %
recovery
(GC) cropped.
Ha expected
GC received
GC GC

Rainy 52.3 1509 1033.37 68 685.18

2002 25
Dry 52.6 1524 100.71 7 1448.81
Rainy 64.7 2129 1058.65 50 240.2
2003 25
Dry 63.1 2049 1547.23 76 362.31
Rainy 65.07 2147.5 992.6 46 2648.6
2004 25
Dry 64.87 2137.5 1416.7 66 662.5
Rainy 45.62 2350 837.88 36 2347.43
2005 50
Dry 50.86 2874 1292.57 45 256.07
Rainy 51.25 4660.8 4346.35 93 969.7
2006 80
Dry 50.21 4494.4 717.68 16 972.68
Rainy 43.81 3504.8 3504.8 100 5757.88
2007 80
Dry 49.91 3812.8 1100.13 29 3439.63
Rainy 46.88 3750.4 2540 68 No
data
2008 80
Dry 47.78 3822.4 2140 56 No
data
Amt.:
Amount;
GC:
Ghana
cedi;
ISC:
IrrigaPon
service
charge.
Source:
Interview
with
Ghana
IrrigaPon
Development
Authority,
Accra,
Ghana,
12
May
2010.

[26]
Appendix B: Mono-cropping versus crop rotation, intercropping and integrated farming: an introduction
Several cropping patterns are widely used in agricultural practice:
mono-cropping, crop rotation, intercropping and integrated
farming. Since World War II, a less diverse pattern of cropping,
originating in the industrialised countries and termed ‘mono-
cropping’, has been implemented widely (Liebman and Dyck,
1993). Mono-cropping is a method growing the same crops in the
same place repeatedly, without resting the land. It is dependent on
high use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to attain a high yield.
More recently, this methodology has been transferred to developing
countries to grow cash crops and vegetables for sale to and
support of developed countries. However, mono-cropping is
susceptible to both environmental and economic risks.
Economically, a single crop system is vulnerable to shocks from
market prices and fluctuating weather − the system lacks flexibility
and resilience, the complete reverse of natural ecosystems. From
an environmental perspective, the dependence of mono-cropping
on chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides will increase
productivity in the short term but causes drastic soil degradation in
the long term, reducing productivity due to: erosion, compacting,
soil structure destruction and loss of organic substances. Moreover,
mono-crops are subject to chronic pest and weed problems, which
exacerbate the issues mentioned previously (Dairy Nutrient, 2005).
Crop rotation is a farming methodology that attempts to run farms
in harmony with nature. “Crop rotation involves growing different
crops in systematic and recurring sequence on the same land …
Ration cycles typically extend over several years with often only
annual changes of crops but the concept of crop rotation also
includes the use of green manures and cover crops.” (Liebman and
Dyck, 1993, pp. 93). With good farming practices and a well-
selected combination of crop types, farmers can grow different
crops on a cycle throughout the year while maintaining the soil’s
organic matter and top soil, leading to high productivity; for
example, a field experiment of crop rotation between maize and
various legumes in Africa resulted in an increase in maize
production (Horst and Ardter, 1994).
Intercropping is “the growing of two or more crops in close
proximity to promote interaction between them” (Sullivan, 2003, pp.
3). This methodology uses the principle of diversity, mimicking the
natural ecosystem. There are different types of intercropping:
traditional intercropping, mixed intercropping relay intercropping
and strip cropping. This methodology can give higher production
per unit of land more than mono-cropping; however, careful
selection and arrangement of plants is needed, such as the type of
plant, maturity rate and plant density (ibid.). By imitating nature,
intercropping has the potential to reduce or even stop the use of
chemical pesticides, which can reduce investment costs, is
environmentally friendly and has benefits for human health.
Diversity in ecosystems brings stability to the system. Natural pest
control, which can bring the population of each species into
balance, means that outbreaks of pests are rare. Moreover, this
system can maintain the fertility of the soil, as nutrients in the soil
are able to accumulate and reproduce through the biodiversity of
the system. Intercropping is a good long-term agricultural practice
that reduces the use of chemicals.
Integrated farming is a further agriculture system that uses a
combination of crop production and animal farming in the same
area. The crops and animals should support and assist each other.
However, in order to operate integrated farming successfully, the
correct operating system and management of the activities are
needed to ensure that farmers are utilising the synergies within the
physical environment, economic and social systems. The labour
investment, funds, land and production inputs have to be
considered. Importantly, the waste from one production system
must be reused as an input to another system effectively; this
method can reduce input costs and promotes a closed-loop,
recycling farming system that benefits nature. For example, chicken
droppings can be used to promote algae growth in fish ponds, pig
manure can be used on vegetable fields, waste water from fish
ponds can be used in rice paddies, bee keeping can be conducted
in an orchard or a composting site can be set-up on the farm
(Department of Agriculture).
Integrated farming is widely practiced in Thailand, under the name
‘New Theory Agriculture’, as part of the ‘Sufficiency Economy
Principle’ introduced by King Rama IX. This integrated farming
system can help Thai people to survive even during times of
economic crises and secures livelihoods by providing food for
many people, as demonstrated by a poverty rate of less than 10%,
a lower rate than in many developed counties (Isarangkun and
Pootrakool, 2005). Integrated farming in Thailand has the aim of
helping farmers to operate their farms independently, reducing
impacts from external factors. The practice is set by a rough
formula, where an area of 1.6–2.4 ha is divided into four parts: 30%
is used as rice paddy, 30% for mixed cultivation, 30% as a fish
pond and 10% for housing and small-scale animal farming (Border
Patrol Police Bureau, 2007; ONEP, 2000). One success story is that
of a farmer in the Thai countryside who used to grow only rice but
changed to integrated farming using the King’s principle. He now
has a greater variety of food production, which has given him an
improved quality of life, as proved by his award of Best Farming
Practice prize in the province in 2001 (Land Development
Department, 2001). This integrated pattern of farming was
designed for use mainly in rural areas; however, can be translated
to urban or peri-urban areas and the formula can be adapted to suit
the conditions of a particular site.

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

[27]
Appendix C

Research
schedule.

Month Day Stakeholders AcPvity
Jan‐Apr Literature
review,
seminars,
lectures
Feb 5 DPU Group
presentaPon
on
progress
Mar 5 DPU Interim
group
presentaPon
Apr 28 DPU Pre‐fieldtrip
group
presentaPon
2 City
tour
of
Accra
Group
presentaPon
on
reserch
plan
IWMI
Seminar,
Q&A
session
3
AWGUPA Seminar,
Q&A
session
Local
facilitator IniPal
meePng
Focus
groups
Farmers
Transect
walk
4
IDC Seminar,
Q&A
session
MoFA
Ashaiman Seminar,
Q&A
session
WMD Seminar,
Q&A
session
Zoom
Lion Seminar,
Q&A
session
5
EPA Seminar,
Q&A
session
IDD
&
Ghana
TV ObservaPon,
transect
walk
Farmers Interview
GIDA Interview,
transect
walk
Fishery
Department Interview,
transect
walk
FUP Interview
6
Roman
Down
Farmers Focus
group

AshMA
Seminar,
Q&A
session
Municipal
Planning
and
CoordinaPng
Unit
Field
trip
May
GIDA Seminar,
Q&A
session
GOAN Seminar,
Q&A
session
7
DANIDA Seminar,
Q&A
session
Enterprise
Works/Relief
InternaPonal Seminar,
Q&A
session
Farmers Focus
groups
8
Ashaiman
Stool Seminar,
Q&A
session
ExoPc
Vegetable
Sellers
AssociaPon Interview
ILGS Seminar,
Q&A
session
10
MoFA Seminar,
Q&A
session
Social
Investment
Fund Interview
Joint
focus
group
with
Roman
Down

Farmers
farmers
Farmers Interview
11
IDC Interview
AshMA
Seminar,
Q&A
session
Assembly
member
Ghana
FederaPon
of
the
Urban
Poor Interview
12 GIDA Interview
Land
planning Seminar,
Q&A
session
13 Various
stakeholders Group
presentaPon,
Q&A
session
26 DPU Final
group
presentaPon
Jun 4 DPU Final
group
report
submission

Field
visit

[28]
Appendix D: District Citizens Monitoring Committee
The Ashaiman District Citizens Monitoring Committee (DCMC) is a
civil society group led by Braimah Abdulai from the Rural−Urban
Women and Children Development Agency. The DCMC is a
network comprises different NGOs and community-based
organizations, as well as individual representatives from the Stool,
Municipal Assembly and Roman Down farmers.
The role of the DCMC is to monitor policies, such as national health
and insurance policies, or grants through, for example, budget
tracking. In Ashaiman, one of the group’s initial tasks was to
conduct agricultural budget tracking for a national NGO, Send-
[29]
Ghana, to ensure that pro-poor policies were being adhered to.
Through this, the DCMC became aware of the problems regarding
land and encroachments facing farmers on Roman Down. The
group works primarily through establishing dialogue between
different actors to bring about solutions, as well as lobbying and
advocacy, although the resources for this are limited.
A member of the DCMC attended the joint focus group of farmers
from the GIDA site and Roman Down, where he was able to meet
with farmers from both areas, as well as a representative of the
Federation of the Urban Poor.
 Appendix E

Costs
of
growing
1
acre
of
rice.
Land
preparaPon Ploughing
+
hand
weeding
+
levelling
+
line
marking
:
155
GC

Carrying
+
transplanPng
:
75
GC
PlanPng
Seeds:
20‐40kg/acre
(1
kg
=
1
GC)

Spraying PesPcide:
mainly
CONDAX
(low
cast
and
effecPve),
8
GC/bag,
20‐Pmes/acre

MPK
(50
GC/bag),
UREA
(40
GC/bag)
and
ammonia
(30
GC/bag):
6
bags
in
total
(2:2:2
or

FerPlizer
3:1:2),
two
applicaPons
and
top
dressing

Hand
weeding Labour:
40
GC/acre

Maintenance Mending
of
bund:
30
GC

Bathing IntroducPon
of
rodenPcide:
24
GC

Bird
scaring 3
GC
x
30
days
x
2
people
Miscellanious:
70
GC
Cumng:
60
GC
HarvesPng Heaping:
30
GC
Threshing:
60
GC

Drying
and
Bagging 60
GC

22‐25
bags
can
be
harvested
from
1
acre
(84
kg/bag).
Price
is
variable
from
55
to
70
GC
but

Selling
the
average
is
60
GC/bag.

Average
es.mated

962
GC
total
costs
Average
es.mated

1410
GC
sales
Profit 448
GC

[30]
 Organisa.onal
hierarchy
of
Ghana
Irriga.on
Development
Authority

MINISTRY
OF
FOOD
AND
AGRICULTURE
(MoFA)

BODY
OF
DIRECTORS

CHIEF
EXECUTIVE

LEGAL
SERVICES
&

INTERNAL
AUDIT STATES

MANAGEMENT
Development Centre

DEPUTY
CHIEF
EXECUTIVE
‐

DEPUTY
CHIEF
EXECUTIVE
‐
ENGINEERING
AGRONOMY

PLANNING,
 IRRIGATION

PROJECT
 FINANCE
AND

REGIONAL
 MONITORING
AND
 PROJECT
OPERATIONS
 TECHNOLOGY

DEVELOPMENT
 ADMINISTRATION


[31]
OFFICES
(6) EVALUATION
 DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT DIRECTORATE
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT
(Jan.
2010‐)
PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROJECTS PLANNING
&
 SURVEY FINANCE QUALITY
ASSURANCE
MANAGEMENT
CO‐ORDINATION

DESIGN
&
 TECHNOLOGY
 PUBLIC
 RESEARCH
&


BUDGET
QUANTITIES TRANSFER RELATIONS INNOVATION
(IDC)
SOIL
&
WATER

PLANT
&

M
&
E MANAGEMENT
 ADMINISTRATION
EQUIPMENT TRAINING
&

PARTICIPANT
MANPOWER

DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUCTION

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

POST
HARVEST

&

&
MARKETING
MAINTENANCE

FARM

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

Organisa.onal
hierarchy
of
the
Irriga.on
Development
Centre

Director

AdministraPon Finance

Water
 Farmers

Farming
Unit CulPvaPon
Unit Environment
Unit
Management
Unit OrganizaPon
Unit

Vegetable

Rice
Unit
Unit

[32]
Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty
The concept of Food Sovereignty is new and fascinating. It offers
the farmers perspective in matter of food production and
distribution, in line with ecological principles and more equitable
social distribution. However, the Nyéléni, chart and other
documents produced under the principles of Food Sovereignty
offer only rather general guidelines for the practical application of
the paradigm. Basing the whole analysis on them seemed to be
dangerous and would probably have limited the scope of our
research. For this reason, we developed a supporting framework
which would have helped us to identify areas to study (civil society,
natural and built environment, policy support and financial issues).
[33]
Having the findings organised in this way, it was possible to assess
the performances of these conceptual areas under the principles of
food sovereignty as developed in the table on page 8 and 9. In
chapter 3, we organised our findings according to particular issues
we found critical, leaving the underlying analytical process hidden.
Here we make it explicit, providing the link between findings and
the Food Sovereignty principia.
Below are presented the criteria with a synthetic judgment and a
brief explanation of the reasons why we assigned a given rating
according to our findings.
Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty (cont.)

Environmental
sphere
Criteria Judgement
 Reasoning

UrbanizaPon
and
encroachments
are
not
a
threat
 The
impacts
of
encroachment
are
indirect,

to
UPA through
the
effects
on
the
water
supply
and

threats
to
the
whole
system

TradiPonal
pracPces
are
used
in
UPA Farmers
are
encouraged
to
use
modern

techniques;
there
is
however
a
lack
of

machinery
available

The
source
of
water
is
not
contaminated
and
 The
cleanliness
of
water
used
for
irrigaPon
is

suitable
for
UA. under
threat
for
the
future,
but
is
currently

suitable
for
farming
IrrigaPon
methods
reduce
health
risk
and

contaminaPon

The
water
used
for
irrigaPon
does
not
pose
any

threat
to
farmers
or
consumers
Intercropping
is
pracPsed
 RotaPon
cropping
is
generally
preferred
over

intercropping,
respecPng
natural
ecosystems
to

Food
grown
respects
the
local
vegetaPon a
certain
extent

Farmers
implement
closed
loop
farming Closed‐loop
pracPces
are
not
used
Soil
has
a
good
structure
(not
compacted)
and
is
 Farmers
use
a
high
amount
of
chemical
inputs
suitable
for
agricultural
purposes

Soil
quality
is
protected
from
toxicity
and
salinity

caused
by
the
(over‐)
use
of
chemical
inputs

(ferPlisers,
herbicides,
pesPcides,
etc)
Farmers’
pracPces
endorse: ComposPng
is
perceived
as
overly
labour‐,
Pme‐

 MinimizaPon
 and
cost‐intensive
 Reusing

 Recycling
 The
farmland
is
clean
but
the
surrounding
areas

 ComposPng
 have
build‐up
of
waste

The
areas
of
food
producPon
are
free
from
waste
The
surrounding
area
is
clean The
surrounding
area
is
not
served
by
waste

collecPon
or
sewage
services
The
surrounding
area
is
served
by
adequate

garbage
collecPon

[34]
Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty (cont.)

Policy
sphere
Criteria Judgement
 Reasoning

Policies
support
security
of
tenure
and/or
control
over
land
 While
there
are
plans
to
involve
more

for
UPA
farmers youth,
these
are
not
currently

realised
Youth
are
encouraged
and
supported
in
UPA

Official
media
adequately
reflect
the
importance
of
UPA

and
small‐holder
farms
Policies
support
the
expansion
of
local
markets
for
UPA
 Among
many
stakeholders
there
is
a

produce mindset
towards
the
value
of
crop

exports
Imported
crops
are
subject
to
tariffs
Imported
goods
may
be
cheaper
than

Local
consumpPon
is
prioriPzed
over
export domesPc
produce
Public
and
private
sector
ownership
or
management
is
 Ghana
operates
a
decentralised
local

limited
in
UPA
by
decentralised
policies government
system

The
control
and
responsibiliPes
are
well
transferred
to
the
 Land
ownership
follows
both

municipal
level
and
roles
are
well
defined customary
and
official
lines
Policies
do
not
support
use
of
genePcally
modified
crops
 The
IDC
is
experimenPng
with

and
limit
undermining
technologies NERICA
rice

EducaPon
on
and
experimentaPon
with
tradiPonal
 Workshops
on
modern
farming

pracPces
takes
place techniques
are
held
Appropriate
policies
favour
composPng There
is
lisle
pracPcal
support
for

organic
compost
use
and
few
limits

Appropriate
regulaPons
encourage
and
facilitate
 on
the
use
on
chemical
inputs

composPng
plants


RegulaPons
limit
the
excessive
use
of
chemicals
and

destrucPve
farming
technologies

Monitoring
of
the
quality
and
nutriPon
of
UPA
products

takes
places

[35]
Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty (cont.)

Economic
sphere
Criteria Judgement
 Reasoning


?
Food
is
affordable,
healthy
and
nutriPous Insufficient
data
gathered
to
make
a

judgement

Economic
policies
are
not
biased
to
industrial
or
Green
 Farmers
have
difficulPes
accessing

RevoluPon‐inspired
farming
but
put
value
on
and
provide
 credit
through
official
avenues

opportuniPes
for
urban
farmers
Interest
rates
are
too
high
making

Farmers
have
access
to
loans
and
credit
with
suitable
 them
unsuitable
for
urban
farmers
payment
terms
and
interest
rates
Access
to
local
market
as
a
source
of
income
is
guaranteed Farmers
are
dependent
on
market

women
for
sale
of
their
produce
and

Farmers
are
not
dependent
on
middlemen
for
selling
crops have
lisle
choice
in
the
crops
grown

Adequate
state
and
internaPonal
funds
are
allocated
to
 Environmentally
friendly
farming
did

educaPon
on
environmentally
friendly
farming
methods not
come
across
as
a
priority

[36]
Appendix G: Findings and food sovereignty (cont.)

Social
sphere
Criteria Judgement
 Reasoning

Migrants
have
a
share
in
UPA
pracPces
to
provide
sufficient
 Farmers
are
mostly
immigrants
to
the

food area

Indigenous
people
are
involved
in
UPA There
is
a
support
from
the
Stool
for

more
indigenous
people
to
be

Women
are
involved
in
UPA involved
in
farming

Almost
20%
of
farmers
are
women
Media

adequately
reflect
the
importance
of
UPA
and
small‐ There
has
been
some
negaPve

holder
farms coverage
of
UPA
in
the
media;

however,
farmers
and
GIDA
have
also

used
the
media
to
present
their

views
Consumers
choose
local
products
 There
is
evidence
of
a
consumer
bias

against
locally
grown
produce

Farmers
are
not
integrated
into
global
trade
and
dependent

on
exporters
but
sell
crops
to
the
local
market Sale
is
mostly
local,
no
mulPnaPonals

are
involved
Local
urban/per‐urban
farmers
have
a
voice
and
can
decide
 Farmers’
voice
ouen
goes
unheard;

the
methods
and
products
they
grow.

 they
cannot
decide
independently

their
methods
and
products
Farmers’
associaPons
help
farmers
to
gain
management

knowledge When
raised,
the
issue
of

transparency
and
potenPal

AssociaPons
operate
in
a
transparent
and
accountable

mismanagement
led
to

manner
disagreements
among
the
farmers
Farmers’
associaPons
are
linked
to
enhance
and
exchange
 The
links
between
farmers
do
not

indigenous
knowledge
and
skills
 serve
to
build
or
value
indigenous

knowledge
and
skills

There
is
consumer
pressure
for
organic
produce No
evidence
for
an
organic
market

was
found

Organic
labelling
has
been
asempted

with
lisle
success

[37]
 Appendix H: Strategies
Strategy 1. Land control: drawing the line
The first strategy is aimed at solving the main problem and the
biggest threat to the survival of the Ghana Irrigation Development
Authority (GIDA) scheme at present. The growth of the city is
reaching a point where the new buildings are only few metres from
the farmed land and the reservoir’s banks, while in Roman Down,
houses are built on land that used to be farmed. When the site was
planned, a wide buffer zone was set aside to protect the source of
water, the land to be farmed and the flooding areas (land to be kept
undeveloped to allow the excess water to flood during the rainy
season). Encroachments create problems not only in terms of land
lost for agriculture, but also in terms of pollution to the reservoir and
waterways; new houses do not have access to sewage systems or
waste collection, so all their refuse is dumped into the water. The
encroachments on Roman Down could ultimately result in damage
for the scheme (the water would reflux into the canals rather than
flowing out of the site when the capacity limit of the dam is reached)
and poses a risk to residents of the area.
Interviews with the local administration and with the traditional
councils have shown that the root cause of this problem is the
unclear definition of the agreement for the leasing of the site. The
Stool is now selling land which should be left empty in the flooding
areas, while on the reservoir’s bank, houses are progressively
expanding beyond the land allocated by the Stool in the past.
To solve the problem it is necessary thus to find an agreement
between the residents, the Stool and the technical requirements. The
first sub-strategy is proposed to address the necessities and the
reasons for the residential developments; it should be lead by the
Land Allocation Committee and should produce a common proposal
to address the issue. At the same time, the Town and Country
Planning Department (TCPD) should produce a State of the
Environment Report (being a wide piece of research, this could be
outsourced to local masters or PhD students) while working together
with GIDA on a technical reassessment of the buffer zone necessary
to protect the scheme and the reservoir. Once technical and ‘civil’
necessities have been defined, the TCPD should integrate the two
and include them in a new masterplan. Once the area has been
defined on paper, farmers could be actively involved to create natural
(e.g., trees) and /or artificial (fences) barriers to separate the scheme
from the city. The new boundaries would be secured also through
new agreements (if necessary) with the Stool.
[38]
Strategy 2. Development of the right bank: right bank
rehab
The strategies proposed for the right bank are aimed at creating a
transparent process for future developments and to introduce more
ecological methods of biodegradable waste disposal. For the first
part, we suggest to direct the efforts of the Right Bank Committee
(RBC) towards the promotion of more sustainable farming
techniques, described more in detail in APPENDIX B. To reach this
target, it would be expedient to establish a dialogue with the
Fisheries Department and with the other farmers located near the
dam, as they are already applying integrated farming techniques. To
overcome the lack of funds, we suggest that the committee should
be actively involved in the search of resources, especially in the
private sector. Contributions from farmers should have priority but
their economic situation will probably not allow this level of
investment. The integrated farms could provide the necessary inputs
for a progressive implementation of a canals’ system on the right
bank, which should be less extensive than the one currently in place,
owing to the limitation highlighted by GIDA, that the reservoir
capacity is not sufficient to irrigate the entire right and left banks. The
introduction of animals would also reduce the amount of water
required.
Financial contributions to the integrated farms could come also from
an agreement with Zoom Lion for the realisation of a composting site.
Although it may be risky to lease the land to an external actor, at the
moment this seems to be the only stakeholder that could provide the
expertise and money for completing this action. The fact that the site
is close to the city centre (meaning that it is less expensive to bring
biodegradable waste from the city) and that farmers are the
purchasers of the final output (economies of proximity) should allow
GIDA to impose advantageous conditions on the contract. Of course,
this action should be modelled on the needs of the farmers, as the
costs associated with compost are perceived as one of the main
barriers to its widespread use.
 Appendix H: Strategies (cont.)
Strategy 3. Farmers’ association: unity & strength
The actions suggested to “Strengthen Internal organisation” are
proposed because the findings regarding the association highlighted
the fact that the structure currently in place does not appear to be
effective in producing a real improvement in farmers’ production. The
first sub-strategy is aimed at providing the Executive with basic
managerial competences; from the meetings with the Irrigation
Development Centre (IDC) we discovered that farmers receive
training in several areas, from watering techniques to crop selection,
but it seems that this external contribution is slowing more proactive
behaviour of the farmers and creating an expectation in them that
improvements can come only from outside. The second action
derives from the consideration that the more farmers are involved in
collective responsibilities, the more effective is the implementation of
association’s plans. The association already has five dedicated
committees and we suggest creating further committees; a new
committee would, for example, deal with patrolling (farmers live some
distance away and, during the night, stealing is fairly frequent),
marketing (farmers now sell individually) and monitoring (the
association lacks an internal monitoring unit). Increasing transparency
inside the association would be pursued also with audio-recorded
reports and a half-yearly plenary session in which the budget would
be presented and approved by the plenary (sub-strategy 2). While the
first two sub-strategies are of exclusive competence of the
association, the third one would see the involvement of the
Federation of The Urban Poor. This strategy is proposed because of
the importance of the funding issue as described by farmers. Past
attempts to implement a revolving fund have shown poor results with
high rates of default, while the model of saving groups of the FUP has
[39]
had growing success in similar environment. Therefore, we suggest a
pilot saving group on voluntary basis, which would be limited to a
maximum of 20 people.
The role of the association is also limited by external circumstances;
therefore, we suggest the contribution of the local administration,
Ashaiman Municipal Assembly (AshMA) and the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture (MoFA) to create a conducive environment for urban and
peri-urban agriculture (UPA) in Ashaiman through a series of
initiatives. The first action would be the establishment of a multi-
stakeholder working group, along the model of the Accra Working
Group for Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (AWGUPA), possibly
including some of the people directly involved in AWGUPA. The
promotion of UPA and of the farmers’ interests should also pursue a
wide networking strategy, which we suggest should be both vertical
and horizontal. By a vertical strategy we mean that farmers should be
part of national and international associations of farmers, while
horizontally we refer to other local stakeholder groups. For example,
starting a dialogue with the catering or tourist industry could help
farmers to bypass the market-mummies (who at the moment have
too high a contractual power over the farmers) and produce to
demand. A necessary partnership, for which dialogue has already
begun, is with the farmers of Roman Down. MoFA could provide
assistance for the first part of the networking strategy (provide
information or facilitate communication with other associations), while
AshMA could be actively involved on promoting the second one.
REPORT BY
Sara Guy Salman Rassouli
Hauwa Usman
Andrea Demurtas

Ai Kaibu
Veronica Cheng

Sa’adatu Abatemi-Usman
Cassidi Kunvipusilkul

Robin Pratap

Rita Valencia (Supervisor)

Course Name: Environment & Sustainable Development

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

[40]