Ghana - Agricultural Extension

 ICRR 10859 Report Number : ICRR10859 ICR Review Operations Evaluation Department 1. Project Data: Date Posted : 08/10/2000 PROJ ID : P000931 Appraisal Actual Project Name : Agricultural Extension Project Costs 21.8 not available US$M ) (US$M) Country : Ghana Loan/ US$M ) 30.4 Loan /Credit (US$M) not available Sector (s): Agricultural Extension Cofinancing US$M ) (US$M) L/C Number : C2346 Board Approval 92 FY ) (FY) Partners involved : none Closing Date 11/30/1997 03/31/2000 Prepared by : Reviewed by : Group Manager : Group : 2. Project Objectives and Components a. Objectives The main objective of the project was to achieve sustained increase in agricultural production and improve the nutrition and incomes of smallholder households through enhanced adoption of technology . More specific objectives were: (a) to improve the efficiency in the management and delivery of extension services; (b) to improve the relevance of technologies and to focus particularly on indigenous technologies; (c) to increase the involvement of farmers in the identification of research; (d) to assist the Department of Cooperatives in organizing farmers into groups for access to inputs, credit, and markets; and, (e) to strengthen human resource development and to improve links between research teaching and extension . b. Components The main components were: (a) strengthening the extension service in all 10 regions through infrastructure, transport, equipment, consultancy services, recurrent cost support, in -service training, and research extension links; (b) strengthening the Technical Departments of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to improve the capacity of the Subject Matter Specialists (SMS), to test the relevance of technologies under farmer conditions, and to establish project M&E; (c) supporting the human resources development of the extension service through facilities, farm and laboratory equipment, transport, upgrading teaching staff at agricultural colleges, provision of textbooks, etc .. c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates None. 3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives: While information in the ICR is limited, most of the objectives appear to have been achieved . Between 1992 and 1996 crop yield increases exceeded the expected 1.5% per annum. However high input and marketing costs are said to have constrained production and farmer income increases . The project made substantial gains in institutionalizing a unified professional extension service in Ghana . However, due to data limitations there are uncertainties regarding the achievement of household level impacts, especially the nutrition objective . 4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts: There was significant decentralization of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture which increased the local control of extension agents.The extension agent to farmer ratio improved from 1: 1500 at appraisal to 1:780 at completion. Five research/extension liaison committees representing the agro ecological zones were established and are functioning effectively. They provided the forum for technology development through on -farm adaptive trials and they undertook joint annual planning sessions . Extension agent training was regular and institutionalized . The Information Services Unit was active in agricultural broadcasting through radio and TV . Staff training was effective. 5. Significant Shortcomings (including non-compliance with safeguard policies): Counterpart funding was a problem . More could have been done in the direction of involving NGOs and private sector groups. There were delays in the human resource development component including significant delays in providing support to the universities and agricultural colleges . There was poor performance by some contractors . Ethnic conflict in northern Ghana affected project implementation in that area . 6. Ratings : ICR OED Review Reason for Disagreement /Comments Outcome : Satisfactory Satisfactory Limited evidence in the ICR to rate outcome Institutional Dev .: Substantial Substantial Sustainability : Likely Likely On balance, and with limited evidence, we accept the likely rating. However, counterpart funding provided by government was insufficient, which raises questions about whether the improvement in the extension/farmer ratio is sustainable. Bank Performance : Satisfactory Not Rated Too little evidence in the ICR to validate the rating. Borrower Perf .: Satisfactory Not Rated Too little evidence in the ICR to validate the rating. Quality of ICR : Unsatisfactory NOTE: NOTE ICR rating values flagged with ' * ' don't comply with OP/BP 13.55, but are listed for completeness. 7. Lessons of Broad Applicability: 1. With limited public resources it is essential to encourage pluralism in extension delivery through the involvement of NGOs. private-sector groups, and community institutions . 2. To improve impact at the household level extension services need to include support for enterprise development and management and marketing advice . 3. To enhance adoption rates extension projects need to be client -focused and use a range of communication methods . 8. Assessment Recommended? Yes No Why? 1. The project is one of a package of 5 in the agricultural sector which would allow a useful sectoral overview. 2. The project appears to have gone well and maybe an instructive example of better practice . 3. The ICR has very limited information and an audit would help to fill this out . 9. Comments on Quality of ICR: Unsatisfactory. While it is commendable that the five ICRs in the sector were packaged together under a sector performance review report, this appears to have significantly short -changed the ICRs themselves . The ICR in this case lacks a number of data tables, for example, on project financing and supervision resources . While brevity, where possible, is commendable, at about two and a half pages of text there is barely enough information to support the ratings given. An assessment of the likely economic returns would have been desirable, perhaps analyzed in conjunction with the research project .