Value Chain Development To Benefit Smallholders In Ghana The Effectiveness Of Selected Interventions

Value chain development to benefit smallholders in Ghana: The effectiveness of selected interventions

This study examines interventions in two agricultural development projects in Ghana which aimed to build competitiveness of selected value chains to generate growth and reduce poverty – the Northern Rural Growth Project, implemented between 2009 and 2016, and the Market Oriented Agriculture Programme, which began in 2004 and is still in place. These projects aimed to sustainably increase rural households’ income through the development of inclusive and profitable agricultural commodity and food value chains to generate agricultural surpluses and to benefit from improved access to remunerative markets. In this study, the efficacy of four sorts of value chain interventions implemented by the two projects are examined in the context of the strengthening maize, pineapple, mango, and citrus value chains: • Facilitating interactions among value chain actors to encourage technical and institutional innovations, • Improving the operations of individual actors, such as producers, service providers, traders, and processors; • Helping develop new services for producers or initiating new producer institutions; and • Improving infrastructure. The study sought to identify how, where, and when might it be appropriate to intervene in value chains, particularly to benefit smallholders. While the lessons from this study do not comprehensively answer these questions, a better understanding is provided on the reasons behind the outcomes the projects attained in seeking to strengthen agricultural commodity value chains and some guidance is offered on how interventions aimed at doing so should be designed.

Production and marketing of chili in the Brong-Ahafo area of Ghana

Interventions for inclusive and efficient value chains: Insights from CGIAR research

Efforts to promote the development of agricultural value chains are a common element of strategies to stimulate economic growth in low-income countries. Since the world food price crisis in 2007-2008, developing country governments, international donor agencies, and development practitioners have placed additional emphasis on making agricultural value chains work better for the poor. As value chains evolve to serve new markets, they tend to become less inclusive. For example, if a market for high quality rice arises within an economy, it is inherently easier for traders who sell rice to retailers to source that high quality rice from larger farms that are better able to control its quality than from dozens of smallholder farms. As a result, the normal path of value chain evolution can be biased against smallholders; hence, it is important to understand what types of interventions can make value chains more inclusive while also making them more efficient. In this brief, we summarize studies on five types of value chain interventions that were supported by the CGIAR’s Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) through its Flagship 3 on Inclusive and Effective Value Chains. Figure 1 illustrates a “typical” agricultural value chain, including the five intervention types (in orange). These include interventions that attempt to deal with multiple production constraints; certification; contract farming; public-private partnerships; and “other” services related to trading and marketing agricultural products. Apart from the last category, these interventions all involve production. This reflects the fact that smallholder producers can be considered, in some ways, the weakest link in evolving agricultural value chains (de Brauw and Bulte 2021). Hence, it is sensible to target interventions either at or close to smallholders. However, in some cases, the best way to overcome smallholder constraints may be to help actors at other points in the value chain overcome constraints. Many interventions share a focus on reducing transaction costs to promote smallholder market integration. Ideally, interventions increase both efficiency and inclusion, but we observe that such win-win outcomes are rare. Trade-offs appear to be more common than synergies, and some value chain interventions involve clear winners and losers.