Providing feedback: small small culture change in MoFA
“The Block Farming Program has very good objectives of ensuring food security and employment for youth. However, last year the project was beset by a number of challenges, including the late arrival of inputs such as seed, fertilizer and the like. The late application of these inputs by farmers resulted in substandard yields and low recovery rates of farm produce. This year, it is recommended that all inputs are made available before the commencement of the Block Farming Program with farmers.”
Northern Region DDAs hard at work
This clear, concise feedback to MoFA National project designers was presented by one of the District Directors from the Northern Region at the most recent session of EWB’s DDA Fellowship. The program, which has now had 2 full-day sessions, brings together 8 of the best MoFA District Directors (DDAs) to learn new management tools, develop leadership skills and share both challenges and successes in their districts. In this session, DDAs were asked to put together feedback on the Block Farming program following a particular framework:
1) Empathize
2) State observations
3) State implications of these observations
4) Give recommendations
Districts have a unique on-the-ground experience that is vital to national project design. However, these experiences are rarely solicited, or only solicited as a token gesture without incorporating them into planning processes. In addition, there is no culture of upward feedback that would allow DDAs to voice their experiences even when they aren’t solicited. The culture in MoFA, like many Ghanaian institutions, sees instructions given from the top and implemented at the bottom, missing the critical feedback loop from bottom to top that is essential for success. This results in a significant disconnect between what is going on in the minds of the national project planners and what is really happening in the field. In addition, many of the large agricultural projects (such as the Block Farming Program) are highly political in nature, making it difficult for MoFA staff to speak out against them. One benefit to the DDA Fellowship, identified by the participants, is that they are able to provide feedback as a group rather than as individuals, thereby minimizing their personal risk.
The Block Farming Program is an excellent example of a project that could be greatly improved by incorporating district-level feedback. The project, which seeks to commercialize farming of staple crops while engaging youth in agricultural practices, was rolled out across Ghana in 2009. As mentioned by the DDA above, the project was beset by a number of challenges, including late provision of inputs, lack of mechanized farming equipment (these are commercial-size farms), inadequate funding for monitoring activities and poor storage facilities for harvested produce, among others. In addition, the program resulted in a loss of trust between MoFA and farmers due to the inadequate provision of these resources, which were promised to farmers at the beginning of the program. However, there is no mechanism for districts to share these challenges with the project coordinators at a national level. As a result, the Block Farming Program was lauded as a success for food security and will be scaled up in 2010. As another DDA put it, “the real problem with the expansion of the Block Farming Program is that we have not yet learned from last year’s mistakes!”
The feedback activity above was one of the highlights from the last DDA session. Participants put together clear and concise recommendations for changing the Block Farming Program that were relevant and well-presented. However, what happens when the participants leave the safety of the workshop? We have yet to hear of an example of a DDA providing upward feedback about the Block Farming Program or anything else. We feel that giving this type of feedback is a critical skill for DDAs – but will they use it? What else needs to change for DDAs to start giving this type of feedback to their superiors?
Upper East Region DDAs working on their recommendations
Perhaps the culture change is not yet complete. Simply giving upward feedback is not enough. For this strategy to be effective, two things need to still happen: 1) someone at the top needs to be listening, and 2) the feedback needs to be subsequently incorporated into planning processes so that improvements are made. In this way, the feedback loop will be completed and agricultural projects will be able to benefit from the experience of those on the ground.
Interestingly, this feedback loop could also be seen with DDAs at the top, as it is structured within the District MoFA Offices. In this case the DDA is in charge, followed by the District Agricultural Officers (DAOs), and finally by the Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs), who are the ones actually working with farmers on a day-to-day basis. By the same token, DDAs should be soliciting feedback from their AEAs to contribute to District projects and office functioning. However, the hierarchical culture persists in many District offices. Perhaps the true test of EWB’s feedback workshop from the DDA Fellowship will be how many of the DDAs return to their districts and begin to solicit feedback from those working beneath them.
The challenges are significant, but the culture in MoFA is shifting, starting with these high-performing DDAs who are motivated to make change. We will be following up in the next few months to see how they have given feedback and whether they perceive any changes in the way this feedback is handled by MoFA. We will also continue to work on empowering these leaders to create their own successes in their districts. While a few have already demonstrated this ability, they are all growing in their roles as change agents every day. In addition, this program is not operating in isolation – EWB is tackling the issue from all sides. For example, we recently worked with MoFA National to help them integrate a mechanism for receiving feedback into their Electronic Reporting Template, which is filled out by districts every quarter and submitted to the national office. Hopefully this small change in reporting will give DDAs an avenue to provide feedback, and MoFA National will see the value of integrating this feedback into planning for the future.
Ashley Good
emputnam
erinantcliffe
sarahkgrant
Wayne Miranda
Hi, very interesting article. Are the recommendations from the DDAs available somewhere on the web?
Hi, thanks for the comment! The feedback from the DDAs was as follows:
Empathy
• Block farm concept is a laudable program to create employment for youth, improve farmer income and contribute to food security for the nation.
• Block farming program is an innovative idea that will not only provide gainful employment but will also facilitate MoFA work by way of input delivery and supervision.
• Aims and objectives of block farming program are very good: creation of jobs for youth, economy of scale in production, modernization of agriculture sector, etc.
Observations
• There was no plan to get the inputs ready before time of application.
• Late arrival of inputs: seeds, fertilizer, herbicides, funds, etc.
• Limited number of combine harvesters, arrived late.
• No funds for recovery of harvested crops.
• Bottlenecks in implementation included inadequate and untimely provision of logistics, ie. funds for monitoring block farms.
• Poor quality seed.
• Lack of market for farmers’ produce.
• Storage facilities are not endowed in all the district for recoveries.
• Large-scale farms operated by small-scale farmers as a group but funded by MOFA. The small-scale farmers did not have the capacity to manage large-scale farms as groups.
• Initial targets were ambitious.
• Youth showed little interest in rice production because of low yields and lack of sustainability.
• Most opportunistic farmers must take advantage of the program with little effective management of their fields, because they think government is playing politics with rice production and that it has been the usual situation with politicians.
• The targeted group was the youth in general (interested in rice production or not).
• The capacity of the interested group was not built.
• All farm activities were not done according to schedule.
Implications
• Late application of inputs effected crop stands and yield.
• High pre-harvest loss due to unavailability of combine harvesters.
• Recovery of credit became a serious problem.
• Farmers’ interest in the program dwindled.
• MoFA staff relationships with farmers became weak.
• Recoveries might not be fully collected and stored/secured properly.
• Farmers will no longer trust the Ministry, hence MoFA needs to put his house in order so as to regain the confidence of the farmers.
• Bush fire was not controlled (no creation of fire belt).
• AMSEC tractor services were not used.
• Large areas managed with farmers with the capacity to manage large areas will result in large yields and the rice availability in the country will increase and this can reduce rice imports – but logistics support tainted this ambition.
• The program, from the way it had been implemented, leads to the frustration of MOFA staff and serves as a disincentive to rice production.
Recommendations
• All necessary logistics and resources need to be in place before the commencement of the 2010 program, ie. Minimum guaranteed prices are discussed and agreed upon.
• Combine harvesters and tractors should be procured before commencement of production.
• Only seeds should be provided as credit.
• Government should buy produce off farmers.
• Timely provision of chemicals, fertilizers, etc.
• Input dealers should be giving the inputs to supply to farmers and they should do the necessary direct from farmers.
• Districts should document receipt of inputs and logistics on a website.
• Money for hiring of stores, etc. should be made available for duration of program.
• The program should focus on experienced commercial farmers with some amount of commitment to invest in the block farm program and capacity to manage a large-scale farm.
• The program should target farmers who have the capacity for rice production. The reduction of imports of rice will free sufficient foreign exchange that can be channeled to other sectors of the economy including employment for the youth.
• Only youth already interested in rice production should be selected.
• The capacity of the interested youth should be built.
• The program should also register youth groups with the Youth Employment Program and assist with the necessary logistics to carry out the block farm program. This will be revealing an avenue for employment for the youth.
• There is the need that more logistics are given to MOFA on a timely basis to make effective monitoring and supervision.
• The program needs more effective bottom-up approach rather than the top-down approach. To let the beneficiaries see the project as their own and limit agro-politics out of the program.
• Districts should be given the opportunity to assess their capacity and set achievable targets on their own.
Unfortunately, the program this year seems to be going even more poorly, with untimely provision of inputs being a repeat problem. I hope this feedback will be useful to those making decisions about the future of the Block Farm program.
Thank you guys for such report, but I think most of the programs or iniatives we have in Ghana have been politizes which affect the project and the beneficiaries as well. I hope as you said the feedback will useful to the future of the program…….