THE INFLUENCE OF CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECTS ON FARMER INNOVATIVE PERFORMANCE AND POVERTY REDUCTION: THE CASE OF USAID FEED THE FUTURE PROJECTS IN NORTHERN GHANA BY EZEKIEL NARH ODONKOR (1000781) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF PHD IN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION DEGREE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION, COLLEGE OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON DECEMBER, 2021 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh i DECLARATION I do hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been previously submitted for a degree at this or any other academic institution. All references consulted in the work have been duly acknowledged. I am solely responsible for any shortcomings that may be identified in the work. EZEKIEL NARH ODONKOR (Student) Signature Date: 07-12-21 DR. JONATHAN N. ANAGLO (Principal Supervisor) Signature Date: 07-12-2021 DR. SETH D. BOATENG (Co-Supervisor) Signature Date: 07/12/2021 DR. COMFORT K. FREEMAN (Co-Supervisor) Signature Date: 07/12/2021 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ii ABSTRACT Capacity building constitutes an integral part of development assistance that seeks to build the understanding, skills, and knowledge base of individuals and institutions in developing countries in a bid to improve the productivity of agriculture. Out of about 41.2% of the economically active people who are engaged in agriculture in Ghana, 72% are in northern Ghana. The study set out to investigate how farmer participation in the USAID Feed the Future Initiative capacity- building activities influenced their innovative performance and how that affected their yields in northern Ghana. The study also examined the relationship between the yields of the selected crops and the incomes, food security, and well-being of the farmers in that part of the country. The study was conducted in eight districts in all the five northern regions in Ghana. The study adopted a mixed-method approach and therefore used both qualitative and quantitative data. Using a survey and focus group discussions, data was collected from 314 farmers who participated in the selected capacity-building projects of the USAID FtF initiative in Ghana. The data was analysed with descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon sign ranked test, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression, Chi-square test and Kruskal-Wallis test. The study revealed that farmer participation in the USAID FTF capacity-building projects influenced their innovative performance in terms of the utilization and sharing of the knowledge and skills acquired from the project activities. The majority of the farmers acquired high knowledge, and a majority are also practicing what they have learnt. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed that utilization of knowledge and information sharing impacted innovative performance as compared to knowledge acquisition alone. However not many of the farmers are sharing information about the things they have learned. This affected their innovative performance. As a result, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iii farmer innovative performance did not influence the yield of the selected crops as was expected. However, the yields of the crops improved after farmers participated in the project activities. It was also revealed that there is a significant relationship between farmers’ crop productivity and their incomes which was expected to impact their food security and well-being. Although there was a significant relationship between maize productivity and food security, there was no significant relationship between rice and soybean productivity and food security. There was statistically significant relationship between rice and soybean productivity and farmers’ well-being but no statistically significant relationship between maize productivity and well-being. Generally, there is perceived improvement in income, food security and well-being of the farmers after participating in the project activities. This implies that the capacity building projects have impacted poverty positively and have enhanced poverty mitigation in northern Ghana. The study recommends that government policies and programmes meant to improve farmer innovativeness should target building the capacity of farmers through field demonstrations. Government policies should also support innovative farmers to lead farmer to farmer extension. It is also recommended that effort must be put into the continuous improvement of maize productivity to boost farmers’ incomes and enhance their well-being in northern Ghana. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iv DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my late mum, Madam Mary Dede Ahemlem Odonkor. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am most grateful to Prof. John Ofosu-Anim for giving me the opportunity to pursue a lifetime dream of acquiring a PhD. The trust and freedom extended to me by the Project Management Team (PMT) of the USAID/UG FtF Project created the unique opportunity to pursue this dream. I acknowledge USAID Ghana for graciously providing funding for this study without which it would have been extremely difficult to go through. Many individuals enabled this research; acknowledging them all would be a Sisyphean task. My heartfelt gratitude goes to my supervisory committee members, Dr. J. N. Anaglo (Principal), Dr. S. D. Boateng and Dr. Comfort Freeman who provided the guidance in shaping this thesis. I sincerely express my gratitude to Prof. Samuel Adjei-Nsiah for his advice and inputs in directing and shaping up the work to this stage. I sincerely appreciate all the faculty members at the Department of Agricultural Extension who made various inputs into my work. A big thank you to Dr. Jemimah Yakah Amoah, Dr. Daniel Adu Ankrah and Dr. Nana Afranaa Kwapong. My appreciation also goes to Dr. Ezekiel Nortey and Dr. Dennis Arku (at the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science) for opening their doors for me and making time to listen and offer advice. My sincere gratitude goes to Prof. Danial Bruce Sarpong for creating an exceptional environment that helped me to go through my studies and for the priceless advice throughout my study. Many thanks to my colleague PhD students on the USAID/UG FtF Project, Mr. Daniel Ansah-Fianko, Mr. Emmanuel Bimpe, Mr. Danley Colecraft Aidoo, Mr. Alvin Isaac University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vi Amoah and Mr. Selorm Ayeduvor for their advice and suggestions. I am greatly in d ebt to Ms. Davida Pappoe and Ms. Clara Tsibu for the various roles played during my studies. This thesis would not have been possible without the detailed contribution of the project staff of the selected projects and the Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Support Services (METSS) of USAID. I would also acknowledge my family, especially my wife, Caroline and the children Richmond, Gerald and Lisa for their patience, tolerance, prayers, and care during very trying times throughout the entire study. Finally, I acknowledge the USAID Feed-The-Future Project farmers in Northern Ghana. God richly bless you all. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vii TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ................................................................................................................. i ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ ii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................. v TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. vii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xv LIST OF PLATES ........................................................................................................... xvi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... xvii CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 The selected USAID Feed the Future Capacity Building Projects under study ........ 8 1.2.1 Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement (ADVANCE) Project9 1.2.2 Agricultural Technology Transfer (ATT) ........................................................... 10 1.2.3 Sahel Grains - Increase Productivity and Incomes of Farmers in the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority (SADA) Region .................................................. 10 1.2.4 USAID/UG Institutional Capacity Building for Agriculture Productivity (USAID/UG Feed the Future) Project ........................................................................... 11 1.3 Research Problem .................................................................................................... 12 1.4 Research Questions .................................................................................................. 18 1.5 The research objectives ............................................................................................ 18 1.6 Justification of the Study ......................................................................................... 19 1.7 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................. 20 1.8 Structure and Outline of the Thesis ......................................................................... 21 CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................. 24 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 24 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 24 2.2 Definition of Terms.................................................................................................. 24 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh viii 2.3 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................. 27 2.3.1 Social Learning (SL) theory ................................................................................ 27 2.3.2 Knowledge based theory ..................................................................................... 29 2.3.3 Relationship between the theoretical framework and farmer participation and innovative performance ................................................................................................. 32 2.3.4 The links between social learning and innovation .............................................. 33 2.4 Conceptual framework ............................................................................................. 34 2.5 Poverty reduction through Ghana’s development agenda: A historical perspective 39 2.5.1 Key projects and policies of the government of Ghana directed at poverty reduction ........................................................................................................................ 41 2.5.1.1 Operation Feed Yourself and “Operation Feed Your Industries” between 1972 and 1974 ....................................................................................................................... 42 2.5.1.2 The Fertilizer Subsidy Programme (FSP) ..................................................... 43 2.5.1.3 Medium-Term Agricultural Development Programme (MTADP) ............... 45 2.5.1.4 Food and Agricultural Development Policy (FASDEP) ............................... 46 2.5.1.5 Medium-Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (METASIP) ................. 47 2.5.1.6 Planting for Food and Jobs (PFJ) programme............................................... 49 2.6 Development Partners’ Interventions in Ghana ....................................................... 52 2.6.1 International Fund for Agricultural development (IFAD)................................... 53 2.6.2 Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) ........................................................ 53 2.6.3 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) ...................... 54 2.6.4 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) ............................................ 55 2.6.5 Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) ..................................... 56 2.6.6 Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers (SNV Netherlands Development Organisation) ................................................................................................................. 57 2.7 The USAID Feed the Future Initiative..................................................................... 57 2.7.1 Background to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) FtF Projects .................................................................................................................... 58 2.7.2 The Feed the Future Initiative in Ghana .............................................................. 60 2.8 Farmer participation in Agricultural Project Interventions...................................... 61 2.8.1 Measuring farmer participation in agricultural project interventions.................. 65 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ix 2.9 Farmer Innovative Performance............................................................................... 66 2.9.1 Farmer Innovative Performance and Agricultural Productivity improvement.... 69 2.9.2 Measuring innovative performance (IP).............................................................. 71 2.9.3 Capacity building and poverty reduction ............................................................ 74 2.9.4 Agricultural Productivity and Poverty Reduction ............................................... 76 2.9.5 Productivity Measurement................................................................................... 78 2.10 Poverty Reduction.................................................................................................... 80 2.10.1 Components of poverty reduction: income, food security and well-being ......... 82 2.10.2 Improved Income as component of poverty reduction ........................................ 83 2.10.2.1 Measurement of income .............................................................................. 85 2.10.3 Food Security as component of poverty reduction .............................................. 86 2.10.3.1 Measurement of food security ..................................................................... 93 2.10.4 Well-Being as a component of poverty reduction ............................................. 100 2.10.4.1 Measurement of well-being....................................................................... 103 2.11 Chapter summary ................................................................................................... 105 CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................ 106 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................... 106 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 106 3.2 Study location ........................................................................................................ 106 3.3 Research Philosophy .............................................................................................. 109 3.4 Research Approach ................................................................................................ 109 3.5 Research Design..................................................................................................... 110 3.6 Ethical Consideration ............................................................................................. 110 3.7 Population of study ................................................................................................ 111 3.8 Sampling and sampling size................................................................................... 111 3.9 Unit of Analysis ..................................................................................................... 113 3.10 Development of data collection instruments.......................................................... 113 3.11 Pre-testing of data collection instruments .............................................................. 114 3.12 Validity................................................................................................................... 114 3.13 Reliability .............................................................................................................. 115 3.14 The Field Work ...................................................................................................... 115 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh x 3.15 Data collection ....................................................................................................... 116 3.15.1 Focus Group Discussions .................................................................................. 117 3.16 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 118 3.16.1 To determine the influence of farmer participation in the project activities on their innovative performance. .............................................................................................. 119 3.16.2 To ascertain the effect of farmer innovative performance on crop productivity. 121 3.16.3 To ascertain the relationship between crop productivity and income ............... 122 3.16.4 To determine the relationship between crop productivity and food security .... 123 3.16.5 To determine the relationship between crop productivity and well-being. ....... 124 3.17 Strengths, Weaknesses, and Limitations of Study ................................................. 129 CHAPTER FOUR........................................................................................................... 131 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................. 131 4.1 INFLUENCE OF FARMERS’ PARTICIPATION IN AGRICULTURAL CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECTS ON THEIR INNOVATIVE PERFORMANCE131 4.1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 131 4.1.2 Description of the sample ................................................................................... 131 4.1.3 Farmer participation in the project activities ...................................................... 135 4.1.4 Influence of socio-economic characteristics on farmer participation in project activities ....................................................................................................................... 137 4.1.5 Farmer Innovative performance (IP) .................................................................. 140 4.1.6 Influence of socio-economic characteristics on farmer innovative performance152 4.1.7 Influence of farmer participation on their innovative performance .................... 155 4.1.8 Section Summary ................................................................................................ 156 4.2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SMALLHOLDER FARMER INNOVATIVE PERFORMANCE AND CROP PRODUCTIVITY ...................................................... 158 4.2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 158 4.2.2 Capacity Building effect on crop productivity (before and after the project intervention)................................................................................................................. 158 4.2.3 Influence of Farmer Innovative Performance on yield of the selected crops .... 163 4.2.4 Section Summary............................................................................................... 170 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xi 4.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SMALLHOLDER CROP PRODUCTIVITY AND POVERTY REDUCTION................................................................................... 172 4.3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 172 4.3.2 Relationship between crop productivity and income of the respondents .......... 172 4.3.2.1 Comparison of crop yield (kg/ha) before and after project intervention..... 172 4.3.2.2 Comparison of crop income before and after project intervention with respect to the projects ............................................................................................................. 175 4.3.2.3 Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression showing the relationship between crop productivity and income (before and after the projection intervention). ........... 177 4.3.3 Relationship between crop productivity and food security ............................... 180 4.3.3.1 Description of respondent’s food security status ........................................ 180 4.3.3.2 Effect of crop yield on farmer food security status ..................................... 189 4.3.4 Relationship between crop productivity (kg/ha) and well-being ...................... 190 4.3.4.1 Description of well-being status of the respondents ................................... 190 4.3.4.2 Perception of project intervention on well-being of respondents ............... 193 4.3.4.3 Comparison of well-being within projects .................................................. 194 4.3.4.4 Effect of crop yields on farmer well-being ................................................. 195 4.3.5 Section Summary............................................................................................... 197 CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................ 198 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................... 198 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 198 5.2 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 198 5.2.1 Influence of farmers participation in agricultural capacity building on their innovative performance ............................................................................................... 199 5.2.2 The relationship between smallholder farmer innovative performance and their yields 200 5.2.3 The relationship between smallholder farmers’ yield and income ..................... 201 5.2.4 The relationship between smallholder farmers’ yield and food security............ 201 5.2.5 The relationship between smallholder farmers’ yield and well-being................ 201 5.3 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 202 5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 204 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xii 5.4.1 Recommendations for Agricultural Extension Practice .................................... 204 5.4.2 Recommendations for Future Research............................................................. 206 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 208 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 237 Appendix 1 Survey Questionnaire ................................................................................ 237 Appendix 2 Group Discussion Guide............................................................................ 275 Appendix 3 Rotated Component Matrix ....................................................................... 278 Appendix 4 USAID Feed the Future Initiative projects in Ghana, objectives, and their approaches ..................................................................................................................... 279 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xiii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 1 Yield levels of maize, soybeans, and rice by regions ...................................... 14 Table 3. 1 Communities and number of respondents selected from the regions and districts for the study .................................................................................................................... 107 Table 3. 2 Sample size determination for each project ................................................... 112 Table 3. 3 Methodological Framework: Summary of study objectives, variables, indicators, and the analytical tools employed ................................................................................... 126 Table 4. 1 Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents. ...................................... 132 Table 4. 2 Demographic information of the respondents ............................................... 134 Table 4. 3 Farmer level of participation across projects ................................................. 136 Table 4. 4 Results of Chi-square analysis of socio-economic characteristics of respondents and levels of participation ............................................................................................... 138 Table 4. 5 Results of Chi-square analysis of levels of participation across projects ...... 139 Table 4. 6 Components of Farmer Innovative performance (IP) across projects ........... 141 Table 4. 7 Overall IP status of respondents across projects............................................ 151 Table 4. 8 Chi Square analysis of IP across projects ...................................................... 152 Table 4. 9 The results of Chi-square analysis of socio-economic characteristics of respondents and Innovative............................................................................................. 154 Table 4. 10 Cross-tabulation of farmer participation and IP .......................................... 156 Table 4. 11 IP against maize yields (kg/acre) before and after project interventions ..... 165 Table 4. 12 Relationship between yield and income before and after the Project Intervention ..................................................................................................................... 178 Table 4. 13 Food security indicators before project intervention ................................... 182 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xiv Table 4. 14 Food security indicators after project intervention ...................................... 184 Table 4. 15 Whether project intervention assisted more food for longer months........... 187 Table 4. 16 Food Security Measure-Reliability test ....................................................... 187 Table 4. 17 Comparison of food security among projects .............................................. 188 Table 4. 18 Kruskal-Wallis results of productivity and food security ............................ 190 Table 4. 19 Perception about project interventions ........................................................ 193 Table 4. 20 Farmer well-being-Reliability Test .............................................................. 194 Table 4. 21 Comparison between Farmer Wellbeing among projects ............................ 195 Table 4. 22 Effect of farmer yield on well-being............................................................ 196 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xv LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1. 1 Poverty incidence and contribution (cont.) to total poverty by region, 2005/06– 2016/17 (Source: GLSS 7, 2018) ...................................................................................... 16 Fig. 2. 1 A compound model of social learning adapted from Muro and Jeffrey (2008) . 30 Fig. 2. 2 Adapted from Enhancing programme performance with logic models, University of Wisconsin-Extension, February 2003........................................................................... 35 Fig. 3. 1 Map of study locations in Northern Ghana (Centre for Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Services (CERSGIS) ............................................................... 108 Fig. 4. 1 Maize yields (kg/ha) before and after project implementation......................... 160 Fig. 4. 2 Rice yields (kg/ha) before and after project implementation ........................... 161 Fig. 4. 3 Soybeans yields (kg/ha) before and after project implementation ................... 163 Fig. 4. 4 Comparison between Crop yield (kg/ha) before and after project intervention 173 Fig. 4. 5 Comparison between Crop Income before and after project intervention........ 175 Fig. 4. 6 Comparison of crop income before and after project intervention between projects. ......................................................................................................................................... 177 Fig. 4. 7 Number of times respondents ate in a day before and after the project ........... 185 Fig. 4. 8 Mean number of months staple food lasted ...................................................... 186 Fig. 4. 9 Well-being of farmers before and after project intervention ............................ 192 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xvi LIST OF PLATES Plate 3. 1 Individual interview at (a) Gindanbour and Focus group discussion at (b) Libga, Savelugu.......................................................................................................................... 117 Plate 4. 1 Pepper planted with biochar compost in Lawra.............................................. 147 Plate 4. 2 A gallery of (a) Non-biochar onion plot (b) Mr. Asibi Bawa with harvested onions and (c) Biochar compost plot onions .............................................................................. 148 Plate 4. 3 Rice mill won by a farmer group in West Mamprusi ..................................... 150 Plate 4. 4 Wrong application of fertilizer by a farmer in Bawku.................................... 168 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh file:///C:/Users/Kofi%20Amankwah/Desktop/FINAL%20THESIS%20FOR%20SUBMISSION-EZEKIEL%20NARH%20ODONKOR%20FINAL%20SUBMISSION%20UPDATED%20by%20Danny.docx%23_Toc119368547 file:///C:/Users/Kofi%20Amankwah/Desktop/FINAL%20THESIS%20FOR%20SUBMISSION-EZEKIEL%20NARH%20ODONKOR%20FINAL%20SUBMISSION%20UPDATED%20by%20Danny.docx%23_Toc119368547 xvii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AAGDS Accelerated Agriculture Growth and Development Strategy ACDEP Association of Church-Based Development NGOs ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance ACET African Center for Economic Transformation ADB Agricultural Development Bank ADP Agricultural Diversification Project ADVANCE Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement AEOs Agricultural Extension Agents, AgNRM Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Project APSP Agricultural Policy Support Project ASAC Agricultural Sector Adjustment Credit ASIP Agricultural Sector Investment Project ASTF Africa Solidarity Trust Fund ATT Agricultural Technology Transfer BHEARD Borlaug Higher Education for Agricultural Research and Development BUSAC Business Sector Advocacy Challenge CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CAPI Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing CACS College of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences CDCS Country Development Cooperative Strategy CERSGIS Centre for Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Services COVID Corona Virus and Disease CREMA Community Resource Management Area CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research CSLP Coastal Sustainable Landscape Project DAES Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DFAS Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences’ DOC Department of Cooperatives EC European Commission ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States ECOWAP ECOWAS Agricultural Policy FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FASDEP Food and Agricultural Development Policy FBOs Farmer-Based Organisations FCBP Fisheries Capacity Building Project FFS Farmer Field School FIES Food Insecurity Experience Scale FLS Front-line staff FRMP Forestry Resource Management Project FSP Fertilizer Subsidy Programme FtF Feed the Future University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xviii GAP Good Agronomic Practices GASIP Ghana Agricultural Sector Investment Programme the GCAP Ghana Commercial Agricultural Project GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF-SGP Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GLSS Ghana Living Standard Survey GoG Government of Ghana GSS Ghana Statistical Service HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome HLF4 Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness/ ICT Information and Communications Technology IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFDC International Fertilizer Development Centre IFJ Investing for Food and Jobs IP Innovative Performance KBV Knowledge Based View KIS Kpong Irrigation Scheme KLBIP Kpong Left Bank Irrigation Project LM Logic Model MAG Modernization of Agriculture in Ghana MDG Millennium Development Goals METASIP Medium-Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan METSS Monitoring, Evaluation and Technical Support Services MFEP Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning MMDAs Metropolitan Municipal and District Assemblies MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture MSMEs Small and medium-sized enterprises MTADP Medium-Term Agricultural Development Programme MTNDPF Medium-Term National Development Policy Framework NAIP The National Agriculture Investment Plan NARP National Agricultural Research Project NDPC National Development Planning Commission NPCC National Project Coordination Center NEF New Economics Foundation NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations NLSP National Livestock Services Project NORRIP Northern Region Rural Integrated Project NRGP Northern Rural Growth Programme ODK Open Data Kit OECD Economic Cooperation and Development OFY Operation Feed Yourself OFYI Operation Feed Your Industries OLS Ordinary Least Squares OPDP Oil Palm Development Project University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xix PCA Principal Component Analysis PFJ Planting for Food and Jobs PHC Population and Housing Censors PICA Power Innovation in Commercial Agriculture RAFiP Rural and Agricultural Finance Programme R&D Research and Development RBV Resource Base View RELCs Research and Extension Liaison Committees REP Rural Enterprises Programme RFP Rural Finance Project RING Resiliency in Northern Ghana RTIMP Root and Tuber Improvement Programme SADA Savannah Accelerated Development Authority SARI Savana Agricultural Research Institute SCD Supply Chain Development SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SFMP Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project SGDA Shared Growth and Development Agenda SIL Soybean Innovation Lab SL Social Learning SLM Sustainable management of land and environment SME Small and medium enterprises SNV Netherlands Development Organization SRID Statistics Research and Information Directorate SSA Sub-Saharan Africa SSIDP Small-Scale Irrigation Development Project SWLS Satisfaction with Life Scale TFP Total Factor Productivity TIP Trade and Investment Program TIPCEE Trade and Investment Program for a Competitive Export Economy TIRP Trade and Investment Reform Program UAES Unified Agricultural Extension Service UCC University of Cape Coast UG University of Ghana UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Program UNICEF United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund UNSDP UN Sustainable Development Partnership URADEP Upper Regional Agricultural Development Project USA United States of America USAID United States Agency for International Development USAID/UG FtF USAID/UG Institutional Capacity Building for Agriculture Productivity USDA United States Department of Agriculture VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xx WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organisation University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background In this rapidly changing global environment it has become pertinent for the capacities of agricultural producers to be developed to keep abreast with the times. Capacity building has emerged as “an integral part of development assistance and seeks to build the understanding, skills, and knowledge base of individuals and institutions in developing countries” (Gordon & Chadwick, 2007: 15). Capacity building has therefore been a major focus for the development of agriculture in developing countries. This is based on the conviction that building the capacity of individuals for knowledge enhancement is critical in the improvement of agricultural productivity through adoption of new and improved technologies (FAO, 2017c). Farmers’ capacity building to improve their knowledge and skills to improve productivity and reduce poverty in Northern Ghana is core to the goal of the Feed the Future (FtF) Projects selected for this study. The projects are agricultural interventions, which sought to build capacities of stakeholders (farmers and researchers) in terms of human capital development, financial, social among others. These capacities intend to improve their innovative performance which can lead to increased yields and ultimately poverty reduction. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2 According to Nakano et al. (2018) agricultural capacity building is the potential to effectively deal with poverty alleviation in rural communities. In their study, Nakano et al. (2018) observed that technology adoption rate, productivity, and profitability of trained farmers rose immediately after a capacity building which resulted in a wide paddy rice yield difference (3.1 tons per hectare to 5.3 tons per hectare) compared to untrained farmers (2.6 tons per hectare to 3.7 tons per hectare). Takahashi (2017) further indicated that agricultural training is an effective way of disseminating relevant new technologies to increase productivity. In an impact assessment of capacity building and training, Gordon and Chadwick (2007) indicated that human capital development and improved productivity are benefits of capacity building. When an individual’s capacity is improved it adds to their well-being (Gordon & Chadwick, 2007). This implies that, participation in training enhances the social well-being of individuals such as health, child quality, lowers fertility rates, more efficient consumer choices, and lower crime rates. Through capacity building smallholder farmers acquire the requisite knowledge and skills which when utilized enable them to improve their productivity (Chindime et al., 2017). At the same time, smallholder farmers are expected to innovate with the knowledge they have acquired to improve their yields, incomes, food security, and well-being. Farmers’ utilization of knowledge acquired through capacity building and information sharing constitute innovative performance which is expected to improve yields of the farmers. Several studies (Chindime et al., 2017; Adebayo et al., 2017; Meynard, 2016) reveal that capacity building leads to innovative performance which results in improvement in productivity. Higher productivity enables farmers not only to have enough food to feed University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3 their households, but also to acquire income from the sale of the surpluses to meet their non-food needs (ACET, 2017) leading to poverty reduction. Poverty is a global phenomenon but most prominent in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA). Globally about 75% of the poor live in rural areas and depend on agriculture (Bello, 2021). In Ghana for example, about 60% of the population live in rural areas and depend directly or indirectly on agriculture for livelihood and survival (Armah et al., 2011; MoFA, 2013). The pervasiveness of poverty in different continents of the world are major concerns for scientists and researchers. However, with the new implemented sustainable development goals (SDGs), countries have committed to end poverty by the year 2030 (Bello, 2021). This is to be achieved through targeting agriculture (Mozumdar, 2012). Due to the agrarian nature of developing countries’ economies including Ghana, most poverty reduction interventions in these countries have focused on agriculture (Hounkonnou, et al., 2012; Dolinska & d’Aquino, 2016). This is because of its role in addressing poverty in the developing world, in providing livelihoods for most rural dwellers who depend indirectly and directly on it for subsistence (Dolinska & d’Aquino, 2016; Bello, 2021). Agricultural growth through increase in agricultural productivity result in a significant poverty reduction impact in comparison to increase in other sectors (FAO, 2017a; Ivanic & Martin, 2018). According to Bello (2021), income and price are the most important channels through which poverty reduction could be achieved through agriculture. Bello further indicates that growth in agricultural income is important in stimulating the growth University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4 of overall economy and can intensify the well-being of the poor in the effort to end poverty. In this study poverty reduction implies improved incomes, food security and well-being of smallholder farmers. Owing to the importance of agriculture to the economy of Ghana and its role in poverty reduction, governments and development partners over the years have initiated and implemented countless projects and programmes to address poverty and food insecurity in Ghana especially northern Ghana. However, the northern part of Ghana has remained the poorest regions in the country for decades. According to the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) (2012), there are about 41.2% of the economically active people engaged in agriculture countrywide and out of this percentage 72% are in northern Ghana. There is persistent poverty in that part of the country and therefore the people continue to receive attention in addressing the poverty gap between the north and the south of Ghana. In Sub-Saharan Africa agriculture is characterized by low productivity, meanwhile agriculture is the major driver of the economies in SSA because it stimulates sustainable rural development and enhances the living conditions of the rural poor (Corral et al., 2017). Ghana is no exception to low agricultural productivity which affects SSA. In most parts of Northern Ghana for example, low agricultural productivity has resulted in widespread poverty (Muzari, 2016) because of low incomes derived from low crop yields (Wood, 2013). This situation has earned the three Northern Regions an unenviable status of being the poorest regions in Ghana which together contribute over 67.2 % of people living in extreme poverty in Ghana, Ghana Living Standard Survey (GLSS 7; 2018). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5 In Ghana, several factors contribute to low agricultural production leading to poverty of the rural folks. Some of these factors include, the land holding systems, lack of funds, absence of adequate credit facilities from the banks, aging farmers, inadequate pest control measures and post-harvest losses. According to Boahen et al. (2020) Ghana’s agricultural sector which is dominated mainly by smallholder farmers is faced with low productivity which is due to low technology adoption and declining soil fertility, weak infrastructure, low market access, and high transaction cost. In an assessment of the effect of crop productivity on poverty among farm households in Ghana Boahen et al. (2020) noted that crop farmers’ poverty rate is higher in northern Ghana compared to the South. This situation has been attributed to long periods of continuous cropping of the same land without soil restoration as well as adverse weather conditions in that part of the country. The result is low incomes, food insecurity. and poor welfare of the farmers leading to persistent poverty. Also, the farmers find it difficult to acquire and use improved technologies which is of a huge concern. A baseline study of the Agricultural Technology Transfer (ATT) project undertaken in 2014 revealed that yields of maize, rice, and soybean in northern Ghana lagged far behind national averages. This was attributed to famers low use of improved certified seed (IFDC, 2018). Addressing these challenges within the agricultural sector to improve productivity is strategic in the effort to alleviate poverty (Nakano et al., 2018). There is consensus in development theory and agricultural extension practice that stakeholders who are concerned with or affected by a problem, in this case, low agricultural productivity in northern Ghana, can jointly learn their way out of this problem (Nederlof University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6 & Pyburn, 2012). Therefore, the need for capacity-building interventions that will encourage joint learning to enhance smallholder farmer innovativeness in improving productivity cannot be over-emphasized. Participation in capacity building projects/activities is expected to lead to improved productivity, incomes, and reduction in poverty. It is therefore important that effective farmer participation is ensured, and their interests sustained in capacity building projects. This could be achieved by for example building their capacities in good agronomic practices, facilitating their access to improved seeds and other yield enhancing inputs, finance, and access to markets (Etwire et al., 2013; Acheampong et al., 2018). Over the years, several interventions have been implemented in Ghana to mitigate the adverse effect of challenges facing smallholder farmers in agricultural practice. A review of agricultural projects implemented in Ghana under the Medium-Term Agricultural Development Programme (MTADP) by Gyenfie et al. (2014) revealed some projects that did not achieve their objectives. These projects were set to achieve a common goal of accelerating agricultural growth as well as improving smallholder farmers’ income. This was to be achieved through productivity improvement and diversification. These projects include the National Agricultural Research Project (NARP) implemented from 1992 to 1997, Root and Tuber Improvement Programme (RTIMP), the Small-Scale Irrigation Development Project (SSIDP) implemented between 1999 and 2009, Upper Regional Agricultural Development Project (URADEP) which later transformed into Northern Region Rural Integrated Project (NORRIP) because of poor approach (top-down) used under the former (Chambers, 1980, cited in Yaro, 2013). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 7 Under NARP the relatively high cost of the technologies did not make the project beneficial to poor farmers. In the case of RTIMP, the goal of reducing poverty was not achieved due to deficiencies in the design of the project. There were also difficulties in the implementation of planned activities and postproduction and marketing issues were also neglected. In the case of SSIDP, because of the failure of the Government in fulfilling local conditions, incompetence or non-performance of the contractors and lack of supervision (Government of Ghana, 2013), the farmers did not adopt the technologies. This was because of institutional wrangling between MOFA and URADEP which compromised the operations of the organisation. Ambitious project objectives coupled with inadequate funding led to poor execution of project activities. According to Yaro (2013), poor sequencing of activities defeated the whole concept of holistic development of integrated rural development. The failure of these projects has been attributed to the top-down approaches, which does not encourage farmer effective participation in project activities (Wood, 2013). However, there were some project benefits such as infrastructure development in the form of health, education, irrigation, roads, and office buildings. In the area of capacity building, the technical experiences gained by the farmers from the application of technologies are worth mentioning. In addition, government and international donors learned a great deal in project planning and implementation (Yaro, 2013). These are a few examples of interventions that did not make the needed impact on the smallholder farmer, hence the need to find or develop new approaches that will make the necessary impact. The failure of these projects to address smallholder farmers’ challenges mentioned earlier in northern University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8 Ghana is evident in the low incomes, food insecurity, and poor well-being resulting in persistent poverty in northern Ghana. Against this backdrop the United States of America Government initiated the Feed the Future (FtF) Ghana initiative in 2011, which aims at improving economic opportunities and diversify household income in rural northern Ghana by working with the Government of Ghana and other partners such as research institutions, Universities, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and other stakeholders (USAID, 2016). In this regard several capacity-building projects under the USAID FtF initiative have been undertaken in northern Ghana, some of which are completed and others on-going as at the time of conducting this study. The overall goal of FtF in Ghana is to reduce the prevalence of poverty and stunting in northern Ghana by 20%. In this regard, several projects including capacity building projects have either been implemented or are being implemented in northern Ghana to strengthen the maize, rice, and soybean value chains, introduce improved and climate- smart production methods; and to build the capacity of smallholder farmers, and other key stakeholders (USAID, 2016). 1.2 The selected USAID Feed the Future Capacity Building Projects under study Through a consultative process with USAID Ghana, four capacity-building projects were selected for this study. The four selected projects are part of a myriad of projects being funded by USAID under the FtF initiative in Ghana. The rest of the FtF projects have been University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 9 presented in appendix 4 of this study. The ensuing section introduces the selected projects for this study. 1.2.1 Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement (ADVANCE) Project The ADVANCE project is the main value chain project of the USAID Ghana Mission’s FtF program. The project is a five-year project implemented by a consortium led by ACDI/VOCA that started in February 2014. The project’s goal was to increase the competitiveness of maize, rice, and soybean value chains in Ghana. The project supported smallholder farmers to improve agricultural production and linked them to out-grower businesses that provided them with inputs, improved farming technologies and services. Under the project demonstration sites were established for training smallholders in good agronomic practices (GAP). The trainings were conducted in collaboration with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) (Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement (USAID ADVANCE Project II, 2018). Under the capacity building the farmers were introduced to Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) which involved land preparation, use of certified seed, fertilizer application, compost preparation, application of compost and top dressing with inorganic fertilizer, planting in rows, weeding at the recommended times, and FBO dynamics. They were also taught appropriate grain storage mechanisms. Other services provided include the provision of tractor and sheller services. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 10 1.2.2 Agricultural Technology Transfer (ATT) The ATT project was implemented by a team led by International Fertilizer Development Centre (IFDC) from April 2013 to 2018. The overall goal of ATT was to increase the competitiveness of the value chains of the selected crops to foster broad and sustained economic growth and agricultural productivity among small farmer households and agribusiness entrepreneurs in the region. The project was expected to increase yields of maize, rice and soya by at least 100%, 55%, and 40% respectively by introducing newly released seed varieties and new soil fertility technologies or appropriate management practices (IFDC, 2018). The farmers were trained in seed production under the following guidelines: isolating the fields, timely harvesting, no intercropping, field hygiene, destroying off type seeds/plant, removing unwanted materials from the field and fertilizer application in seed. The farmers were also trained in GAPs and were also introduced to the use of cubed fertilizers for the cultivation of the selected crops. The GAPs activities included land preparation, planting in rows and the seed rates, fertilizer recommendation and application, weeds, pests and diseases control, harvesting at the right time, transportation and handling, drying, packaging and storage. They were given matching grants and were provided with shellers. 1.2.3 Sahel Grains - Increase Productivity and Incomes of Farmers in the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority (SADA) Region Sahel Grains Project was implemented by Sahel Grains Company Limited. The overall goal of the project was to contribute towards improving food security and higher income University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 11 in the SADA areas through targeted investments along the maize value chain. The specific objectives were • Provision of farm-level support and aggregation services to smallholder farmers. • Development of bulk handling of maize to enhance efficiency, comprehensiveness and gender inclusion in the quantity, quality, and standards of maize markets. • Improvement in the quantity, quality and standards of maize marketed. • Provision of access to a broader range of market opportunities (Boateng, 2015). Farmers were introduced to GAPs which included use of improved seed varieties, site selection site, water and soil requirement, land preparation (ploughing across slopes), planting in rows and the seed rates, fertilizer recommendation, weeds, pests and diseases control, timely harvesting, transportation, and handling, drying, packaging and storage. They were also provided with post-harvest handling and mechanisation support. 1.2.4 USAID/UG Institutional Capacity Building for Agriculture Productivity (USAID/UG Feed the Future) Project The USAID/UG Feed the Future Project is a collaboration between USAID Ghana and the University of Ghana. The project was awarded to the University of Ghana in February 2015 and scheduled to end in February 2020 but was granted a no-cost extension to March 2021. The overall goal of the project is to “improve sustainable agricultural productivity and food security through the training of scientists in plant breeding, biotechnology, crop and soil University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 12 science, economic policy management, and business capacity building in response to the need for augmenting the human and institutional capacities of targeted Ghanaian institutions for improving service delivery to enhance economic growth” (College of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences (CACS), 2014). The project was implemented in the North East, Upper East, and Upper West regions of Ghana. The farmers were introduced to biochar preparation, biochar compost preparation, biochar and biochar compost application to the soil, land preparation, planting in rows and at recommended spacing for maize, rice, and soybean, Harvesting and post-harvest handling of the produce. They were also trained in bookkeeping, pricing, and marketing. The farmers were supported with the construction of compost platforms for biochar compost preparation. They were also given Kilns for making biochar. The rest of the FtF projects implemented in Ghana have been presented in appendix 4. In this study farmer participation in the USAID FtF capacity building and its influence on their innovative performance and productivity improvement to reduce poverty in northern Ghana was assessed. 1.3 Research Problem To achieve the US Government FtF initiative’s aim of improving economic opportunities, diversifying household income, reducing the prevalence of poverty and stunting by 20% (Lawson et al., 2016) in rural northern Ghana, several interventions have been implemented which include the four selected capacity building projects for this study. The collective University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 13 goal of the capacity building projects is to improve the productivity of the three commodities (rice, soybeans, and maize) in an effort to reduce poverty in northern Ghana. Estimates of yield gaps (between current and potential yields) in cereals is said to exceed 50% in low-income countries and highest (76%) in SSA and lowest (11%) in East Asia (FAO, 2017c). FAO indicates that potential for higher agricultural productivity is yet to be realised in SSA. Generally, Ghana’s agricultural sector is characterised by low yields. For example, the yields of maize, soybeans, and rice are way below potential yields of 5.5Mt/ha, 3.0Mt/ha, and 6.0Mt/ha respectively (Table 1.1). Although high yields have been reported and attributed to activities of the capacity-building projects under study (Amponsah & Takyi, 2019; IFDC, 2018) it is not certain whether the reported yields have reached their potential. The literature reveals that over the years continuous cropping of the land has led to poor soil fertility resulting in low agricultural productivity with crop yields below attainable national averages (Wood, 2013; Kermah et al., 2018). Yields have not reached even half of the potential (acceptable levels) except in the case of soybeans, which may be due to a lack of innovativeness on the part of the farmers. It may also be the case that although the farmers may have been trained, they might not be using the knowledge they have acquired at all or using it inappropriately, which is expected to give them a competitive advantage over non-participant farmers to improve productivity. Among the key challenges facing the Ghanaian agricultural sector is dwindling productivity resulting in low incomes, food insecurity, and poor well-being. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 14 Table 1. 1 Yield levels of maize, soybeans, and rice by regions Average Yield of Selected Crops under Rain-fed Conditions Potential Yield (Mt/Ha) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Maize 5.50 Northern 1.39 1.96 1.97 1.75 1.66 1.70 Upper East 1.38 1.40 1.42 1.73 1.94 2.17 Upper West 1.71 1.86 1.89 1.95 2.45 2.69 Soya Beans 3.0 Northern 1.88 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.84 1.96 Upper East 1.05 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.18 1.24 Upper West 1.35 1.31 1.31 1.36 1.48 1.76 Rice 6.0 Northern 2.12 2.23 2.30 2.40 2.01 2.02 Upper East 2.62 2.78 2.83 2.65 2.78 2.97 Upper West 1.43 1.48 1.54 1.57 2.26 2.94 Source: MoFA facts and figures (2014 -2019)1 Although food insecurity reduced by half in Ghana by 2015, food insecurity still exists in some areas and is more severe in the north of the country (Ecker & Asselt, 2017). During the 2020 lean season, the World Food Programme noted that more than 21,000 people suffered from food insecurity in Ghana, particularly in the northern region (The Borgen Project, 2022). The Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) conducted in Dec 2020 also revealed that those who are food insecure are about 12 percent with the most affected households found in the northern part of Ghana. Researchers from different disciplines have examined different aspects of well-being that 1 Although there are new regions, yields were estimated for only the existing regions before the study. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ghana-Nutrition-Profile_1.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ghana-Nutrition-Profile_1.pdf 15 include physical, economic, social, development and activity, emotional, psychological, and Life satisfaction. In northern Ghana where majority of the poor are found , well-being may be a mirage as a result of poor incomes derived from low productivity (Cotterell et al., 2008, Norsida & Sam, 2009; Muzari, 2016). In northern Ghana, myriad factors are contributing to low productivity. These include erratic rainfall patterns, use of low yielding and uncertified seeds due to poor access to improved seeds, inadequate farmer knowledge about best farming practices, and low use of agricultural inputs (Yaro, 2013; Hasselberg, 2013; Akowuah & Boa, 2012; Ragasa et al., 2014; Poku, 2018; Adomako et al., 2020; Asodina et al., 2021). Key among the listed challenges that affect agricultural productivity is farmers’ inadequate knowledge. According to Luangduangsitthideth et al. (2019), farmers’ inadequate knowledge and poor perceptions about recommended technologies result in low adoption of such technologies. Therefore, the need to improve farmer knowledge cannot be overemphasised. Available data from the Ghana Living Standard Survey (GLSS) indicate that poverty is still pervasive in this part of the country (GLSS, 2018) where agricultural-related activities are the main livelihoods of the people (Acheampong et al., 2018; GLSS, 2018). For example, in 2016/2017 the three regions together accounted for 67.2% of people living in extreme poverty in Ghana (GLSS, 2018). It is obvious from Fig 1.1, that in 2005/2006 poverty incidence was lowest in Greater Accra (13.5%) which declined consistently to 2.5% in 2016/2017. Similar trends could be observed for Central, Eastern, Ashanti, and Brong Ahafo regions except in the Western region. However, poverty incidence in northern Ghana (five regions) has consistently remained high over the same period although it University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 16 declined in 2012/2013. There is a poverty gap between the northern and southern parts of Ghana with poverty incidence in the north higher than in the south. Worth noting is the fact that farm-level constraints that hinder agricultural productivity may differ in space and time, and this requires farmers to be innovative and in certain situations self-reliant (Critchley & Nyagah 2000, as cited in Bertin et al., 2014). Usually, farmers innovate by reorienting technologies and practices introduced to them to suit their local conditions (Tambo & Wu, 2017). Chindime et al. (2017) posit that the level of innovativeness of farmers drives their performance for productivity improvement and for income increment. A study by Tambo and Wünscher (2018) revealed farmer innovativeness in northern Ghana to address productivity challenges. Fig. 1. 1 Poverty incidence and contribution (cont.) to total poverty by region, 2005/06 –2016/17 (Source: GLSS 7, 2018) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Western Central Greater Accra Volta Eastern Ashanti Brong Ahafo Northern Upper East Upper West P o ve rt y co u n t/ in ci d en ce (% ) Regions 2016/2017 Poverty Incidence 2016/2017 Cont. to total Poverty 2012/2013 Poverty Incidence 2012/2013 Cont. to total Poverty 2005/2006 Poverty Incidence 2005/2006 Cont. to total Poverty University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 17 Farmer innovative performance is important for improved productivity and competitiveness through the utilisation and sharing of information on knowledge (on technologies and practices) introduced to them (Chindime at el., 2017; Lappel et al, 2015; Meynard et al., 2017). There is therefore the need to investigate farmer innovative performance in terms of how resources, including the knowledge and skills acquired during the FtF capacity building activities, were either put to actual use or not and whether that has resulted in the reported yield increases. Farmer participation in the capacity building activities of the selected projects is expected to enhance their knowledge acquisition and use thereby giving them competitive advantage in innovativeness to improve agricultural productivity and livelihood (Adebayo et al., 2017). Etwire et al. (2013) posit that farmers’ participation in agricultural projects positively affects their livelihoods and ultimately helps in the effort to reduce poverty. When firms acquire, utilise and diffuse knowledge the firm’s performance is enhanced (Jiang &` Li, 2009). Through participation in capacity building interventions, FBOs utilise the knowledge and skills and share information which is expected to improve their productivity. Therefore, whether the selected capacity building projects for this study will achieve their objectives or not will depend on farmers’ effective participation in the capacity building activities of the various projects to acquire the relevant knowledge that will enhance their innovative performance to improve productivity, incomes, food security, and well-being. Similar projects implemented in the past were unable to achieve their objectives due to several factors (Wood, 2013; Rutger, 2007). Given that most of the agricultural University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 18 programmes aimed at developing technologies implemented in the past have not lived up to expectation (Freeman, 2014; Wood, 2013), it is necessary for stakeholders in the USAID FtF capacity building projects to find new ways of engagement that will enhance farmer participation in agricultural research and development to meet the needs of smallholder farmers (Muro & Jeffrey, 2008). 1.4 Research Questions The main research question is how have farmers’ participation in the selected USAID FtF capacity building projects implemented in northern Ghana enhanced poverty reduction? The following are the specific research questions that this study seeks to address. i. How have farmers’ participation in the project interventions influenced their innovative performance? ii. How does the innovative performance of farmers affect their crop productivity? iii. What is the relationship between crop productivity and poverty reduction? 1.5 The research objectives The main research objective is to ascertain how farmers’ participation in the selected USAID FtF capacity building projects implemented in northern Ghana enhanced poverty reduction. The following specific objectives will address the research questions: i. To determine the influence of farmer participation in the project activities on their innovative performance. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 19 ii. To ascertain the effect of farmer innovative performance on crop productivity. iii. To ascertain the relationship between crop productivity and income. iv. To determine the relationship between crop productivity and food security v. To determine the relationship between crop productivity and well-being. 1.6 Justification of the Study Over the years several agricultural interventions have been implemented in northern Ghana in an attempt to address the issue of persistent poverty that has plagued that part of the country. There are suggestions that most of the interventions have not made the needed impact due to poor implementation and the fact that farmers lack the capacity to innovate or use technologies introduced to them to improve yield to desirable or acceptable levels. The result is persistent poverty in that part of the country. The selected FtF projects for this study are either in their final stages of implementation or have been completed and therefore it is important to study them to learn so as to help improve the design of future projects and make them more effective. It is important to assess the influence of farmers’ participation in the selected USAID FtF initiative capacity building projects on their innovative performance to see whether productivity has indeed improved as indicated in project reports. This will help funders to appreciate the impact of the projects in helping to reduce poverty in northern Ghana. The outcome of this assessment will inform project designs and future policies on actions and approaches to use in the development and implementation of agricultural interventions in northern Ghana University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 20 and other places across the country to help address the SDGs in reducing poverty and hunger. There is evidence that most development interventions rapidly fail due to lack of widespread adoption and maintenance. There is therefore the need to improve upon formal agricultural research and development and the additional criteria for effective implementation processes. Since funders are now deliberating on whether they should continue funding projects in sub-Saharan Africa, this study seeks to investigate the extent to which the selected capacity building projects have contributed to improvement in agricultural productivity and ultimately poverty reduction. This study will therefore be indicative of the effect of the capacity building activities on poverty reduction in northern Ghana. The study will also bring to the fore things that have worked as far as these projects are concerned that can be learnt to inform the design of poverty reduction projects in the future. It will also help bridge the knowledge gap as to the impact of the FtF Initiative in northern Ghana. It will also guide policy design and future intervention. The study will also add to the growing body of evidence of the potential impacts of agricultural interventions on agricultural development in northern Ghana. 1.7 Ethical Considerations Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the College of Basic and Applied Sciences before the field work involving the survey and focus group discussions. Project participating farmers who were willing to participate in the study were those from whom responses were elicited. This was done with due respect for their privacy. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 21 1.8 Structure and Outline of the Thesis The thesis is organised into seven main chapters. Chapter One presents the background which sets the tone for the thesis. It comprises the general background to the study, the problem statement, the research questions, the objectives of the study and its significance. The chapter also briefly discusses the USAID FtF Initiative capacity-building projects under study. It also defines the key terms of the study. Chapter Two reviews literature related to the study and the theoretical underpinnings of the study. The conceptual framework is presented. Selected government agricultural policies have also been discussed. USAID FtF interventions in Ghana are also discussed. In doing this, the chapter traces the different interventions implemented in northern Ghana. The chapter summarises the findings of existing literature to address the research questions. It explores the effect of smallholder participation in agricultural interventions on their innovative performance, productivity, and the influence of productivity on incomes, food security and well-being. The chapter also helped in identifying variables in the study and the indicators used in measuring them. Lastly the chapter explores methodological approaches used in measuring the identified variables in the study. Chapter Three is devoted to the methodology used to collect data for the study. The mixed design approach was used to collect primary data. Qualitative data was collected through field observation, one-on-one in-depth interview sessions and focused group discussion. Questionnaires were used to collect data from individual smallholder farmers. The study was carried out in at least two districts from each of the five regions of northern Ghana University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 22 which has been the zone of influence of the USAID FtF Projects. Lastly the chapter presents the tools used for analysing the data. Chapter Four This chapter presents the findings and discussions. Subsection 4.1 presents findings of an investigation into how smallholder farmers’ participation in the selected USAID FtF capacity-building projects’ activities influenced their innovative performance. It begins by presenting and discussing the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents. It also discusses the levels of participation of respondents in the various projects as well as whether they exhibit innovative performance or not. Finally, how respondents’ participation affected their innovative performance is explored and discussed. Quantitative data was used and analysed by using principal component analysis, cross- tabulations, and chi-square. Qualitative data was analysed and used to support some of the quantitative results and findings. Subsection 4.2 presents findings of an investigation of the relationship between smallholder farmers’ innovative performance after participation in the USAID Feed the Future capacity building activities and their crop productivity. It begins by presenting and discussing the individual effects of the projects on the yields of their participants. It further examines the relationship between innovative performance and the yields obtained by the project participants. Wilcoxon sign ranked test was used to test statistically significant difference in the yields of the crops before and after participation in the project activities. The Wilcoxon sign ranked test was used to test the statistically significant relationship between innovative performance and crop productivity. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 23 Subsection 4.3 presents results and findings of the relationships between crop productivity and their income, food security and well-being. The chapter begins by presenting and discussing the yields of the three crops namely, maize, rice and soybean before and after the project. This is followed by results and discussions on the income before and after the project intervention. The Wilcoxon sign ranked test was used to analyse the difference in yield before and after the project and also income before and after the project. Ordinary least square regression was performed to show the relationship between crop yield and income of the farmers for each crop. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to identify relationship between crop productivity and food security and then crop productivity and the well-being of the farmers. Finally, qualitative data was analysed and used to support some of the quantitative results and findings. Chapter Five This chapter summarises the findings made regarding the three research questions raised at the outset of the study. The chapter also presents the conclusions drawn from the findings as well as the recommendations made. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 24 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction This chapter explores agricultural development as a panacea to poverty in northern Ghana from the perspective of using participation in capacity building as a tool for increased productivity that is expected to lead to poverty reduction in northern Ghana. The literature review identifies the role of smallholder participation in agricultural research and development (R&D) as a way of ensuring their innovativeness in agriculture and offers explanations for these. Two theories that underpin the study are identified and the various concepts are also discussed in this chapter. The chapter also summarises the findings of existing literature to address the research questions. 2.2 Definition of Terms According to the World Bank poverty is a state or condition in which a person or community lacks the financial resources and essentials for a minimum standard of living. In this study poverty is considered as low incomes, food insecurity and poor well-being. The term “capacity building” has been defined differently by different authors over the years. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2006:14) defined Capacity Building as: “the process whereby people, organizations and society as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time”. The European Commission (EC, 2005: 5) defined Capacity Building as “the process by which people and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 25 organizations create and strengthen their capacity over time”. The United Nations Development Program +-” The first two definitions focused on people and organisations and strengthening of capacity in general. However, the third definition incorporates setting and achieving goals. For the purposes of this study where both institutions and people are expected to use their capacities to sustainably set new goals and achieve them, the third definition will be adopted. Social learning can be defined as learning through participatory schemes like groups, organisations, networks and communities, in conditions that are new, unexpected, uncertain, conflictive and unpredictable (Wildemeersch et al., 1998). Innovative performance According to Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003) innovative performance often consists of “combining knowledge from different domains, that is domain knowledge”. Odonkor (2004) posits that farmers’ innovative performance entails changes expected to have occurred in farmers’ knowledge, attitude and practices and skills and the socioeconomic effect of these changes on their productivity and management within their communities. Innovation performance signifies the ability to convert the inputs of the innovation into outputs, and at the same time transform such outputs into marketable products (Zizlavsky, 2016). It implies that when actors in a system e.g., farmers gain knowledge they should be able to apply the knowledge in ways that may enhance their livelihoods. Jokisaari and Vuori (2014) suggest that innovative performance should not only focus on the networks in which an individual belongs as a source of information but also focus on such an individual as a source of information to others. It is likely when people give information to others, they also acquire some knowledge from others in the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 26 course of the exchange of information, which then supports their innovative performance. In this study farmer innovative performance is defined as farmer’s utilisation and sharing of information on knowledge and skills acquired through participation in capacity building. Productivity is commonly defined as “a ratio measure of output volume and the volume of inputs” (OECD, 2001). According to (Mozumdar, 2012) productivity measures are used for different purposes. As an example, yield or land productivity is usually used to evaluate the success of new technology. In this study productivity is considered as yield (kg) per hectare (Land Productivity). Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (World Food Summit, 1996). The study focused on availability aspect of food security. Well-being is defined by the Canadian Index of Wellbeing as “the presence of the highest possible quality of life in its full breadth of expression focused on but not necessarily exclusive to: good living standards, robust health, a sustainable environment, vital communities, an educated populace, balanced time use, high levels of democratic participation, and access to and participation in leisure and culture” Drabsch (2012). Similarly, the French Commission on Economic Performance and Social Progress defined wellbeing as “involving the simultaneous consideration of dimensions of: material living standards (income, consumption, and wealth); health; education; personal activities including work; political voice and governance; social connections and relationships; University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 27 environment (present and future conditions); and insecurity, of an economic as well as a physical nature”. In this study well-being is considered as general satisfaction with life in terms of economic empowerment. 2.3 Theoretical framework During the literature review, the social learning theory and the knowledge-based theory were identified and that underpinned this study. 2.3.1 Social Learning (SL) theory According to Bandura (1977) “Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. The social learning theory emphasizes the importance of observing and modelling the behaviours, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others”. Bousquet and Voinov (2010) posit that participatory social process to promote social learning. At the same time, theories of SL are useful tools that inform the design of participatory processes Schusler et al, 2003). Miller and Dollard (1941) on a psychological and pedagogical level attempted to define SL and expound a theory by suggesting that individuals after observing other peoples’ behaviour, in their cognitive transformative processes implement that behaviour based on the benefits or rewards or any form of incentive associated with that behaviour. This opened a flood gate of many SL theories of which Bandura’s was considered to be all-inclusive (Kihlstrom & Harackiewicz, 1990). Bandura’s theory of social learning shows the importance of observing others and mimicking them (Nabavi, 2012). Barrantes & Yagüe (2015) opined that SL is effective for sustainable adult learning and innovation. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 28 Social learning was presented as an alternative to the initial thinking that the linear approach was the way to go when it came to development, however it rather opened up the debate that learning through interactions and interdependence of multi-stakeholders is desirable for the future (Leeuwis, & Pyburn, 2002). Khan et al. (2022) suggested that interdependence provides opportunities for the creation of new knowledge, increased information and experience sharing and closer collaborations through active learning. According to Röling and Jiggins (1998) SL is a theory that informs intervention (practice) and is characterized by interactions or participatory ways through which problems are addressed with facilitation serving as a catalyst. They further explain that the interactive nature of SL is observed based on joint learning, resolving conflicts within interactive processes, negotiation, converging goals, theories, and systems of monitoring and concerted action. Marques et al. (2020) indicated that actors’ involvement in SL processes increased their confidence, knowledge, and capabilities to improve productivity. It is not clear how the USAID FtF Capacity Building Projects are shaped to fully utilize the tenets of social learning to make a maximum impact of improving agricultural productivity in northern Ghana which will eventually alleviate poverty. There are certain factors that either enhance or impede SL processes. The factors considered key for the creation of learning environment are representativeness, facilitation, opportunities for openness and interaction (Mostert et al., 2007). Another factor of essence that promotes learning is bringing multiple actors with different perspective together for constructive knowledge exchanges (Schusler et al., 2003). Factors identified that limit/hinder social learning are limited resources and time (Mostert et al., 2007). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 29 Muro and Jeffrey (2008) indicated that the main tenets of SL models are a process in which there is joint or interactive and communicative learning that result in outcomes such as new skills, knowledge, development of trust and relationships, common understanding of the challenge faced, agreement and collective action (Figure 2.1). This enables group consensus building on issues when individual goals are recognised as part of the whole. Under the capacity building activities of the various projects, social learning has a role to play in activities such as field demonstration where farmers observe, learn, and communicate freely with each other and decide to try the innovations either through experimentation or directly on their farms. A review of the SL theory revealed that people and, in this study, farmers must first participate in interactive processes, acquire a set of knowledge and skills agreed upon through collective decision and action (practice) to solve challenges they face. The key variables identified are therefore, knowledge acquisition, its utilisation and possible sharing, and collaborations to solve challenges (social action) such as attracting resources and making resources available to help the community. 2.3.2 Knowledge based theory The knowledge-based theory of the firm considers knowledge as the most strategically significant resource of a firm. This knowledge is embedded and carried through multiple entities including organizational culture and identity, policies, routines, documents, systems, and employees. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 30 Fig. 2. 1 A compound model of social learning adapted from Muro and Jeffrey (2008) The knowledge-based view of the firm is a recent extension of the resource base view (RBV) of the firm (De Carolis, 2002). RBV focuses on the resources and capabilities inside the firm as determinants of the firm’s profit and value of the firm (Grant, 1991). According to Hoopes et al. (2003) this theory is used to explain differences in performance within an industry with several firms. These differences in performance could be attributed to the valuable resources that an organization possesses that other firms do not have. On the other hand, knowledge is perceived as the most important strategic resource under the Knowledge Based Theory (KBV) (De Carolis, 2002). Knowledge as a firm’s resource is important in ensuring competitive advantage and sustainability. This is because resources such as knowledge are not easily imitated and form the foundation for sustainable University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 31 differentiation (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003). Knowledge asymmetries forms the basis of differences in the performance of organisations and as a result the KBV of the firm proposes that the organization exists to create, transfer, and transform knowledge into competitive advantage (Kogut & Zander, 1992, as cited in Burt, 2004). Therefore, in order for firms/organisations to be competitive in today’s economy it is imperative for them to become knowledge based. In the case of the USAID FtF Initiatives, the individual farmer’s farms can be considered as firms or enterprises that could be knowledge based if their capacity is built to enhance their knowledge that will make them gain competitive advantage over farmers’ whose capacities have not been built. In order to improve agricultural productivity in northern Ghana it is important to build the capacity of the farmers so that they are able to innovative and generate new knowledge which they can use to address the numerous challenges they go through in their production processes. The key variables identified during the review of the knowledge-based theory are, knowledge, its transfer, farmers’ competitive advantage in terms of improved yields, improved incomes, food security and well-being. This section of the literature review helped to identify the relevant variables in the theories underpinning this study. The variables include participation in group activities for effective learning and concerted action, knowledge acquisition, its utilisation and sharing which constitute the indicators of innovative performance in this study. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 32 2.3.3 Relationship between the theoretical framework and farmer participation and innovative performance Participation in research and development is one way in which smallholder farmers can break away from the poverty cycle. This is because through participation smallholder farmers acquire knowledge and utilise the knowledge and, in the process, share the knowledge to affect the larger community in which they live. The more people utilise and share such knowledge the more enhanced their innovative performance and this may lead to increased incomes, food security, and well-being. Social learning involves adult learning from experience. Through participation in group activities such as field demonstrations, individual farmers learn from each other. In the process they build relationships, friendship, and trust. They are then able to take collective decisions and find solutions to challenges they face in their farming endeavours. During group activities such as field demonstrations, farmers engage in interactive activities through which they acquire knowledge thereby gaining competitive advantage over those who do not participate in such group activities. The trust and friendship they build amongst themselves enable them to share their knowledge and experiences which may be as a result of their own experimentation. Farmers are known to trust their fellow farmers’ information therefore, enhancing farmer to famer extension. In this study innovative performance is considered as farmers’ utilisation and information sharing of their knowledge and skills acquired from participation in project activities. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 33 2.3.4 The links between social learning and innovation Hargadon (2002) posits that existing knowledge within organisations serve as raw materials for innovation within those organisations. The links between such knowledge and the innovations that emerge are said to occur within a social context where it takes place. Hargadon further indicates that there are suggestions from some researchers that firms that cut across multiple domains may innovate by moving ideas within certain domains where they are known to unknown domains, in the process creating new combinations of existing ideas. Hargadon (2002) explains that to innovate, problem solvers (farmers) should be able to apply knowledge learned in a particular domain to another and observe the value of that knowledge and this involves experimentation. According to George (2007), the ability of individuals to propose innovative ideas depends to a large extent on the social environment. It has been argued that the social environment is an important source of knowledge, advice, and encouragement for the development of innovative ideas (European Commission, 2014). An important characteristic of the social network is how its members are connected. Jokisaari and Vuori (2014) argue that in considering innovative performance, the focus should move from seeing networks as information sources to considering how an individual could serve as a source of information to others. In a study to analyse the impact of the PEDUNE/PRONAF Cowpea project on farmers’ innovative performance in Northern Ghana, Odonkor (2004) found out that farmers trained under the Farmer Field School (FFS) programme engaged in experiments that served as sources of information for University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 34 further research by researchers. A similar observation was made by (Leitgeb, 2011). Farmers also applied the knowledge acquired in the FFS in the cultivation of other crops. 2.4 Conceptual framework The conceptual framework depicted in Fig 2.2 is the logic model (LM), adopted from literature. It presents how the projects could be assessed to ascertain how by its very design the projects can achieve their goals or not. Knowlton and Phillips (2013) in a description of the application of the logic model in planning and evaluation processes described it as a tool that provides the basis for identifying and measuring the outcomes of projects. According to Kellogg (2004) the logic model is a visual presentation that depicts relationships that exist within available resources required for use in a programme, the planned activities and the changes or expected results one hopes to achieve. It describes the ways in which activities are sequenced that result in the expected results. Anderson et al. (2011) explained that LMs establish the links between the components of a project that results in outcomes. In effect LMs enable programme implementers to identify the causal factors of certain outcomes. In the same vein Savaya and Waysman (2005) indicated that the logic model is important when it comes to connecting theory to practice and outcomes during the evaluation of programmes. LM further helps to identify the specific project components and discusses the inputs required to undertake specific activities, the activities to be undertaken, outputs for the activities undertaken, the outcomes, and the factors and assumptions shown in Fig 2.2. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 35 Fig. 2. 2 A Logic Model adapted from Enhancing programme performance with logic models, University of Wisconsin-Extension, February 2003 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 36 In a study to evaluate large research initiatives Trochim et al. (2008) developed and used the logic model to identify the variables that needed to be measured and for integrating various qualitative and quantitative data that resulted. According to them, the logic model serves as a key device for organizing and grouping results from multiple approaches that result in each outcome area and enables such outcomes to be synthesised into findings. This helped them to categorise the results into short term, medium-term and long term. In effect, the logic model served as a framework for developing questions for the evaluation (Trochim et al., 2008). In this study the LM was employed to understand the activities, outputs, and outcomes of the different projects to be able to assess them effectively. During project implementation inputs are used to undertake specific activities which result in certain outcomes both desirable and undesirable as well as intended and unintended. According to Coryn et al. (2011) the inputs include the various resources needed to implement the project. In this study the inputs include materials such as manuals, equipment (e. g. planters, shellers, kilns, etc.), technologies (biochar compost, fertilizers, certified seeds, etc), collaborations with MoFA, Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs) and their interactions during project implementation. The activities may include curriculum development, training workshops, and field trainings to attain certain results. The output is the immediate results of actions taken such as the number of trainings, and the number of people trained or who received the services. Farmers’ participation in the activities such as meetings, group activities and the field demonstration is expected to influence their innovativeness through learning and acquisition of knowledge which they may utilise and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 37 share with other farmers to produce certain outcomes. The outcomes are the expected changes that may occur directly or indirectly as a result of the use of inputs to perform certain activities and outputs that are generated. These outcomes include (changes in knowledge, and practices, or level of functioning that are exhibited at the level of the farmer). These outcomes could be classified into short-term, medium-term, and long-term (Fig 2.2). For this study short-term outcomes include learning and acquisition of knowledge, the medium-term outcomes are the utilisation and sharing of knowledge, decision making after experimentation and the actions (social action) that are taken to address challenges such as attracting resources to the communities and making resources available to aid the communities (Innovative Performance) that eventually produce long- term outcomes such as improved incomes after participati