Sustainable Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Accra, Roman Down Ashaiman

8/7/2019 Sustainable Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Accra, Roman Down Ashaiman

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sustainable-urban-and-peri-urban-agriculture-in-accra-roman-down-ashaiman 1/74

SUSTAINABLE URBAN AND PERI-URBAN

AGRICULTURE IN ACCRA

MSc ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

DPU FIELDTRIP MAY 2010

JUNE 2010

ROMAN DOWN





ROMAN DOWN- ASHAIMAN Sustainable Urban and Peri urban Agriculture

05 Chapter

Next Steps

Strategies and Acon Plans

Monitoring and Evaluaon

06 Chapter

Conclusions

Appendices

Field work plan

Execuve summary appendix 1,2,3,4

Methodology appendixMicro ndings appendix 1,2

Room for manoeuvre appendix 1

Monitoring and evaluaon appendix 1,2

Miscellaneous appendix 1,2

Preface

Abbreviaons

Execuve Summary

01 Chapter

Introducon

Objecves

General background

02 Chapter

Research approachMethodology

Contribuons and Constraints

03 Chapter

Theorecal Approach

Dening Sustainable Urban and Peri-Urban

Agriculture (SUPA)

Research Focus

Theorecal Frameworks

04 Chapter

Findings

Micro-situaonal

Macro-situaonalIdenfying Room for Manoeuvre

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3




This report was prepared by Roman Down group:

Natan Doron

Rylan Henriques

Sara Henry

Rita Lambert

Nidhi Mial

Michael RobertsTaanna Rodrigues

Juichiro Sahara

Daniel Vargas

Ma Wood-Hill

4




PREFACE

The Ashaiman Roman Down acknowledges the

contribuons of the various lecturers, experts and

organisaons who contributed and connue to con-

tribute to this research project in Ghana. A special

menon needs to be made of the contribuon made

by Mr. Nii Ofoe Hansen, the Scheme Manager of the

Irrigaon Development Authority who facilitated

eld research for the team. The Ashaiman Municipal

Assembly, the Ashaiman Stool, the MoFA director

Mr. Sam Nukpor, have all been instrumental in thisproject. This was all made possible by the farmers

of the Roman Down site, to whom this group is

extremely grateful. The DPU Sta, in parcular

Alex Frediani, Adriana Allen, Pascale Homan and

Rita Valencia have been of tremendous assistance

throughout this project. Addionally, the research

conducted by the Ashaiman Group in 2009 was an

invaluable resource in the undertaking of this

project.

Roman Down.

God’s Power.

5




ABBREVIATIONS

AFUP

AMA

AshMA

AWGUPA

CBO

CICOL

CSO

DCMC

DOCDPU

DTCP

EPA

GIDA

GFUP

GLC

GWCL

IDA

IDCILGS

IWMI

JICA

LAC

MDG

MoFA

MPCU

NDPC

NGO

PRA

RD

RUAF

RUWCDA

SUPA

UA

TOR

WHO

WMD

Ashaiman Federaon of the Urban Poor

Accra Metropolitan Assembly

Ashaiman Municipal Assembly

Accra Working Group on Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture

Community-based Organizaon

Civil Society for Coalion on Land

Civil Society Organizaon

District Cizens Monitoring Commiee

Department of CooperavesDevelopment Planning Unit

Department of Town and Country Planning

Environmental Protecon Agency

Ghana Irrigaon Development Authority

Ghana Federaon of the Urban Poor

Ghana Lands Commission

Ghana Water Company Ltd

Irrigaon Development Authority (same as GIDA)

Irrigaon Development CentreInstute of Local Government Studies

Internaonal Water Management Instute

Japan Internaonal Cooperaon Agency

Land Allocaon Commiee

Millennium Development Goals

Ministry of Food and Agriculture

Ashaiman Municipal Policy and Coordinaon Unit

Naonal Development Planning Commission

Non-Governmental Organizaon

Parcipatory Rapid Appraisal

Roman Down

Resource centres on urban agriculture and food security

Rural Urban Women and Children Development Agency

Sustainable Urban and Peri-urban agriculture

Urban Agriculture

Terms of Reference

World Health Organizaon

Waste Management Department

6




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Roman Down site in Ashaiman, a Peri-Urban

area of Greater Accra, Ghana provides fruiul

grounds for research in relaon to:

• The growing importance of Urban and Peri-Ur-

ban Agriculture in Ghana (appendix 1)

• Formal and informal land use

• The potenals for collecve acon in increasing

polical parcipaon

• Rapid urbanizaon and the Peri-Urban interface(appendix 2)

• The unexpected consequences of planned inter-

venons (appendix 3)

• The issue of encroachments (appendix 4)

As the background secon will highlight, the Roman

Down farmers cooperave funcons in a context of

insecure land tenure, threat from encroachments

and a complex web of power relaons involving tra-

dional and governmental authories.

Despite having farmed the area for over 40 years,

the Roman Down farmers cooperave have endured

misrecognion at various intervals from both the

government and the tradional council. The con-

text in which the farmers operate has been radical-

ly overturned in the last few decades due to rapid

urban growth and a surge in land prices. With the

growing recognion of the role of Urban Agriculture

(appendix 1) in the future of Greater Accra, Roman

Down is now very much a point of conict. The sites’

status as a ood plain further complicates an already

contenous issue.

This report proposed that improved capacity for col-

lecve acon would be a crucial instrumental tool to

enhance the capacity of the Roman Down farmers

cooperave to advocate their posion in the context

of land use in Ashaiman. This procedural approach

was enriched by normave principles drawn from

the vast literature on Environmental Jusce.

Consequently, the ndings presented in this report

produced a host of strategies based upon increas-ing the strength of collecve acon within the co-

operave as well as expanding their room for ma-

neuver within the instuonal and social context

of Ashaiman. These strategies aempt to take into

consideraon the expanding civil society network

within Ashaiman as well as the important role which

informal development plays in determining land use

in the area.

These strategies and the ndings which upon they

are based seek to provide a fresh approach to the

study of Urban and Peri-Urban agriculture in Gha-

na. Through the use of an innovave theorecal

approach and community empowerment-focused

methodology it is hoped that lessons from the case

of Roman Down may help develop the debate sur-

rounding Urban and Peri-Urban agriculture through-

out the globe and provide useful direcons for fur-

ther research.

7





01 CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION




CASE STUDY- ROMAN DOWN

Our case study is located in the Municipality of As-

haiman, which is part of the Greater Accra Region

(gure 1.1) Before 2008 this area belonged to the

Tema Metropolitan District.

Tema was developed during the early sixes with

the aim to alleviate the pressure on Accra City; the

land of Tema was acquired by the Government of

Ghana in 1952 from three Tradional Councils. In

the planning of the city of Tema, about 9 km² of land

was set-aside for agricultural purposes. (Boakye,

2008; Grant & Yankson, 2003 ).

The land of RD formally belongs to The Irrigaon

Development Authority (IDA) (gure 1.2), accordingto Boakye, the farmers in RD have no formal tenure

agreement with the IDA but they are allowed to ir-

rigate their farms with water from the dam free of

charge using their own irrigaon equipment on con-

dion that they keep the area around the catchment

of the dam clean and forested to prevent blockage

and silng of the tributaries supplying water to the

OBJECTIVESGeneral Objecve:

The objecve of this study is to analyse the achieve-

ments, obstacles and potenal intervenons in the

development of sustainable urban and peri-urban

agriculture(SUPA) in the Greater Accra Region, Gha-

na. This report is based on the specic case of Ro-

man Down (RD) farmers, in the Municipality of As-

haiman.

Specic Objecves:

• Idenfy the condions/threats and actual/po-

tenal benets from agriculture in the Roman

Down as is perceived by the dierent

stakeholders.

• Recognise the main improvements in the devel-

opment of the agriculture in Roman Down, the

process to achieve those, and the stakeholders

involved.

• Develop strategic intervenons to promote sus-

tainable peri-urban agriculture in RD and more

widely in Greater Accra Region.

TEMA

ASHAIMAN

TEMA

HABOUR

IDA RESERVOIR

AND IRRIGATION

SCHEME

Figure 1.2: Aerial Map showing Ashaiman and Tema

10




dam (Boakye, 2008).

Roman Down Site is an area of land approximate-

ly 0,22 km² in which 60 farmers operate. In 2005,

50% of these farmers formalised into a coopera-

ve known as “Ashaiman Roman Down Cooperave

Farmers Society”.

Roman Down Site (gure 1.3), is a piece of land of approximately 0,22 km2 in which 60 farmers oper-

ate. In 2005, 50% of these farmers formalised into a

cooperave known as “Ashaiman Roman Down Co-

operave Farmers Society”.

TRADITIONAL COUNCIL

In the original design of TDC, the area of Ashaiman

was set aside for the residenal development of the

industrial labourers of Tema. According to Dr Odame

Larbi, Acng Execuve Secretary of the Land Com-mission, this area –Ashaiman- was acquired from

the Kpone Tradional Council, and of the three tra-

dional councils of Ashaiman, it was the only one

compensated (1) The consequences of incomplete

compensaon are manifested in the conict around

the land issue today.

ACCRA

TEMA

GA EAST

GA WEST

DANGME WEST

Figure 1.3: Roman Down boundary

Figure 1.1: Locaon of irrigaon scheme

11

REFERENCES

1) Interview with Dr Odame Larbi, May 2010, Accra, Ghana

2) Boakye, S., 2008, “Sustaining urban farming: Explaining why

farmers make investment in the absence of secure tenure with

new evidence from Ghana”, DSA Conference 2008 Paper.

3) Grant, R. & Yankson, P., 2003, “City prole: Accra”, Cies, Vol.

20, No. 1, p. 65–74, 2003

ROMAN

DOWN





02 CHAPTER

RESEARCH APPROACH




Figure 2.1: Transect walk along boundary of site

Figure 2.2: Focus groups with Roman Down Farm-

ers

Figure 2.3: Planery with GIDA and Roman Down

Farmers

14




Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

January – April 2010 May 1st - 14th 2010 May 19th – June 4th

The work began in January 2010

in London with an extensive liter-

ature review including the project

undertaken by a previous group

of DPU students last year which

covered both the Roman Down

and the GIDA sites in Ashaiman.

In addion, the students also had

numerous lectures from academ-

ics and eld workers engaged in

a variety of capacies relang to

Urban Agriculture and/or poli-

cal/social/economic condions

in Ghana.

Two weeks of intense eld work in Ghana

itself, including four visits to the Roman

Down site during which the group under-

took:

• numerous focus groups (g 2.2, 3, 5),

• informal interviews,

• transect walks (g 2.1, 4)

• parcipatory mapping exercises

bringing the students into contact with

over 57 farmers.

The me that the group had in the eld

was also spent aending numerous lec-

tures from key stakeholders represenng

government bodies, private sector actors,

civil society organisaons as well as aca-

demic research groups.

• Data processing

• analysis

• formang

This phase produced a nal

presentaon for academic

partners at the DPU in Lon-

don as well as this report.

Table 2.2: Field trip Methodology- May 04-13, 2010

As the table 2.2 below showcases, the group em-

ployed a range of qualitave and parcipatory meth-

ods yielding a large amount of data which shall be

represented in the ‘Findings’ secon of this report.

In line with the principles of parcipatory methods

outlined in appendix 1, the group felt it was impor-

tant to reect upon the methodology used. These

reecons can be found overleaf.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

With a strong focus on parcipatory methods (see

appendix 1) and in close partnership with IWMI, this

project had three disnct phases:

15

Transect Walks 7

Participatory Mapping 2

Semi-Structured Interviews 21

Focus Groups 6

Group Interviews 4

Visioning Workshop 1

Stakeholder Presentations and Q&A 9

Basic Information Survey (Farmers) 37

Transect Walks 7

Participatory Mapping 2

Semi-Structured Interviews 21

Focus Groups 6

Group Interviews 4

Visioning Workshop 1

Stakeholder Presentations and Q&A 9

Basic Information Survey (Farmers) 37




gure 2.4: Encroachement mapping

16

Foundaon and walls

on farm land

Complete building on farmland

Mosque

Church

Demolion of houses upstream

along drainage in April 2010Map plong encroachment chronologically

Figure 2.5: Focus group exercise: idencaon of problems with GIDA and Roman Down farmers




CONTRIBUTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS.

This study succeeds in providing a deeper body of

knowledge on urban agriculture in the under-re-searched Roman Down site. Aempts have been

made to map the site and individual plots, arculate

the internal workings of the cooperave ( gure 4.2,

4.3) as well as relaonships with civil society net-

works (gure 4.9), and to conduct further analysis of

the tenuous land situaon. A key accomplishment

was facilitang a meeng between Roman Down

and GIDA farmers to establish a common vision for

the future of urban agriculture in Ashaiman. This

culminated in the prospect of an ‘umbrella organisa-

on’ linking the two sites.

Our chief constraint was inevitably the lack of me

in the eld: only two weeks, and four specic site

visits. As these were all concentrated into the same

period (the beginning of the rainy season) this pres-

ents opportunity for research at other mes of

the year. Much of our research was undertaken in

conjuncon with the RD farmers co-operave. It is

likely, therefore, that other groups in the site, such

as non-co-operave farmers and women, are under-

represented in our study.

In addion the varying levels of prociency in Eng-

lish meant that some farmers were more vocal than

others, possibly signifying unequal parcipaon in

discussions. Consultaons with a broader array of

stakeholders, in parcular the Ashaiman township

residents, might be considered in further research.

Finally our own biases as students of environment

and sustainable development, as well as those of

our facilitators, must be acknowledged.

17

Figure 2.6: transect walk on Roman Down

Figure 2.7: Focus group with RD Farmers

Figure 2.8: Focus group with RD Farmers





03 CHAPTER

THEORETICAL APPROACH




DEFINING SUPA

Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture can be seen as

a two-layered Socio-ecological System (SES). More

than a problem of physical resource management,

a SES refers “to a subset of social systems in which

some of the interdependent relaonships among

humans are mediated through interacons with bio-

physical and non-human biological units.” Although

norms for physical processes are integral to sustain-

ability, this denion highlights the importance of

human interdependency as the cornerstone of Sus-

tainable Urban & Peri-urban Agriculture (SUPA).

At the ground-level, the agricultural system itself is

a SES. Issues of land, water, and waste manifest as

direct physical issues with which Roman Down farm-

ers, cooperave members and non-members alikemust collecvely address. At this level, physical and

social dimensions of the SUPA denion rely on the

adopon of norms of physical processes (water use,

waste recycling, preserving soil structure), as well as

social organizaon around key resources.

However, SUPA must necessarily be placed within a

larger SES – the city itself. At the city level, the is-

sue of resource management is enveloped by con-

icts over the complex land-management system

described above. As land-use planning becomes a

more salient issue for the new municipality of As-

haiman, the social and ecological benets of urban

and peri-urban agriculture have been overshad-

owed by other issues of urbanisaon and the com-

peng interest of residenal development. These

urban issues are not disnct from the problemac

addressed by SUPA, but must be fully addressed in

any mainstream denion.

Therefore, creang a nexus of indicators, broadly

dened through their physical, social, and policalelements, produced the group’s working denion

of SUPA. (Figure 3.1)

Figure 3.1- During a collecve exercise with Ashaiman Irrigaon and Roman Down farmers,

we worked to idenfy elements of their denion of SUPA, which corroborated many of thedimensions of our own denion.

20

Access to

Land

Managing

waste

Access to

water

Farming

Pracce

Access to

Market

Unity of

Co-op

Access to

funds

Parcipaon

Farmer’selement

Our element

Ins-

tuonal

support and

integraon

Reduced

impact on

physical re-

sources

Collecve

management

of resources

Knowledge

sharing

Cooperaon

among stake-

holders

Cross-sector

approach

Social

SUPA

PhysicalPolical




HYPOTHESES

While a great deal of research has been undertak-

en to address the physical sustainability of urban &

peri-urban agriculture, the social and polical links

by which these issues can be addressed has yet to

be examined in-depth.

By accepng the physical un-sustainability of cur-

rent farming pracces, based on secondary research

and the ndings of the 2009 DPU report, as part

of the problemac rather than an issue for further

study, the group focused its hypotheses on the so-

cial and instuonal opportunies and barriers to

mainstreaming SUPA. ( Figure 3.2)

Figure 3.2- Thought process

21

Physical system of farming in

Ashaiman is naturally unsustainable

At ground level, the sense of

stewardship is missing due to the lack of

consensus on the role of agriculture and its importance

A fragmented sectoral approach and lack

of recognion for other actors in service

provision and policy formaon has led to

an instuonal framework with limited

space for cooperaon and collecve input

Sustainable Urban Agriculture is denied

by a social support system and an

instuonal framework that fully

integrate socially produced agriculture

Therefore,

P OL I T I C A L

P H Y S I C A L

S O C I A

L




FRAMEWORK

Focused on the importance of collecve acon to in-

culcate norms of cooperaon, social jusce, and en-

vironmental sustainability, the group developed an

analycal framework that begins at the core social

unit of Roman Down farmers and the ways by which

their pracces interrelate with the broader instu-

onal context.

For inward-looking analysis of the farmers at Roman

Down, the group adapted a raonal choice theory

for collecve acon modeled by Elinor Ostrom

(Figure 3.3).

At the core of this model is the dependence of coop-

eraon, the foundaon of collecve management,

on trust and reciprocity. While a number of vari-ables including reputaon, security, and availability

of informaon are inuences on the development

of trust and reciprocity, the process hinges on the

development of common norms of behaviour, which

dene both physical and social interacons. The an-

alycal benet of this tool is the ability to trace the

exisng norms through their inuence on levels of

trust, reciprocity, and eventual cooperaon while

also idenfying space and opportunity to insll new

modes of behaviour and processes. From the par-

cipatory side, the process allows for arculaon of net benets, which are seen as the driver in propa-

gang the process of cooperaon and collecve ac-

on. The acon of communicang benets, real or

perceived, can both foster the process of collecve

acon and bolster the overall argument for main-

streaming SUPA into the urban agenda.

This model is limited, however, in its capacity to

idenfy and address the instuonal and macro-

social barriers to the long-term inculcaon of collec-

ve management of the SES. By treang instuon-

al adversity as a mere variable in a raonal-choice

model, Ostrom’s theory lacks the normave dimen-

sion necessary to overcome ingrained cultural and

polical barriers that cannot be explained through

pluralism or raonal choice.

As a result, our instuonal analysis was couched

in the broader normave framework of environ-

mental jusce. Applying dimensions of “procedural,

substanve, and distribuve” jusce, environmental

jusce not only pertains to the equitable distribu-

on of environmental services and consequences,but also requires of instuons open and transpar-

ent processes by which producve norms at the

community level can be expressed and appropriated

into the overall urban policy. Distribuve inequies

manifest as symptoms of larger social issues—there-

fore, addressing social and instuonal barriers to

co-producon of space and place must take place

at the intersecon of space for collecve acon and

the inuence of powerful stakeholders.

In order to bridge the collecve space and thebroader instuonal context, the group adopted

the procedural analysis of “room for manoeuvre,”

championed in the work of Caren Levy and Michael

Saer. The aim of room for manoeuvre is to idenfy

the potenal acon space between the aspiraons

of progressive planning pracces and the realies

facing orthodox instuons. This “room for ma-

noeuvre” is analysed along four interrelated dimen-

sions for acon space by which specic barriers and

opportunies can be analysed. (Figure 3.4)

learning and

norm adopng

individuals

Level of trust that

other parcipants

are reciprocators

Level of

cooperaon

Net

benets

Core Relaonships in a Social Dilemma

Figure 3.3- Raonal choice theory for collecve acon by Elinor Ostrom (2)

22




Figure 3.4- Room for manoeuvre (modied from Saer (4))

Technical & Behavioural

-Technically and operaonally sound, resource-ecient

innovaons

-Flexible response to ‘hot’ confrontaons, the skill of

strategic compromise, tenacity and follow-up

-Behavioural ideas and norms

Strategic

-Appreciang local context and available resources

-”manoeuvrability” of scarce resources away from

centres of power

-Achieving net benets.

I n s t u o n a l & I n

t e r - o r g a n i s a

o n a l

- p o l i c a l r e s p o n s i v e n e s s a n d a g e n c y i n v o l v e m e n t

( p o l i c y / s e r v i c e s )

- I n s t u o n a l c a p a c i t y b u i l d i n g

- D i a l o g u e a n d c o o p e r a o n

S o c i a l r e l a t o n s & m o b i l i s a t o n

- C o m m u n i t y e n g a g e m e n t a n d g o i n g‘ l o c a l ’

- I n c l u d i n g

t h e e x c l u d e d

-B u i l d i n g t r u s t a n d r e c i p r o c i t y

Boundary Limit

Current Limit

Exisng

Acon

Space

3) Agyeman, J., Sustainable Communies and the Chal-

lenge of Environmental Jusce, (New York: NYU Press,

2005).

4) Levy, C (2009) “Urbanisaon without social jusce is

not sustainable.” Pallete, UCL Journal of sustainable cit-

ies; Saer (2004) ; Saer, Michael(2002) ‘On esmang

‘room for manoeuvre’’, City, 6: 1, 117 — 132

23

REFERENCES

1) Anderies, J. M., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. A

framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological

systems from an instuonal perspecve. Ecology and

Society 9(1): 18. [online] URL: hp://www.ecologyandso-

ciety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/

2) Ostrom, E. A Behavioral Approach to the Raonal

Choice Theory of Collecve Acon: Presidenal Address,

American Polical Science Associaon, 1997 Source: TheAmerican Polical Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 1 (Mar.,

1998), pp. 1-22







04 CHAPTER

FINDINGS

MICRO

This secon explores the interrelaons between farmers in the Roman

Down site and discusses the role of the co-operave and how farmers

across the site interact with this instuonal presence.

MACRO

This secon reviews the ndings related to the visions of the city in the

context of our Environmental Jusce framework as well as considering the

split between formal and informal development in Ashaiman




COMMON PROPERTY REGIME

Using Elinor Ostrom’s behavioural framework as a

basis for analysis (gure 4.1) it is clear that a series

of norms and ideals can be found between farmers

in RD. Discussions with farmers gave the impression

of a harmonious relaonship between individuals

and the existence of established codes of pracce.

These unwrien rules and the uncertainty surround-

ing the ownership of the land (farmers are certainly

appropriators rather than having a claim to tenure)provide evidence that the RD site can be considered

as a self-organised common property regime (CPR).

The resource being managed in this context is that

of the land.

Two of the focus groups during our eldwork fo-

cused on uncovering the established norms and sub-

sequently yielded results that align with Ostrom’s

categories for rules dening common pool resource

dilemmas.[2] These are presented in table 4.2 and

discussed at length in appendix 1 of this secon.

MICRO-SITUATIONAL: NORMS AND RULES OF THE COMMON

PROPERTY REGIME AND THE ROLE OF THE CO-OPERATIVE

learning and

norm adopng

individuals

Level of trust that

other parcipants

are reciprocators

Level of

cooperaon

Net

benets

Core Relaonships in a Social Dilemma

The rules indicate that within the group of farmers

levels of trust and reciprocity related to the manage-

ment of the land are high. However the extensive

set of choice rules suggest that many farmers work

alone in almost all aspects of producon, free to

choose when and who they buy seeds from, what

they grow etc. Awareness of their collecve power

with regard to buying, selling and markeng produce

is lacking and demonstrated in that despite survey-

ing other farmers to ascertain the relave value of

their crops (concerning quality), farmers sll nego-

ate with customers individually as opposed to col-

lecvely, lowering their bargaining power.

This leaves open many avenues for improving pro-

ducvity/income illustrang that while levels of

trust and unity exist from farmer to farmer, a collab-

orave approach to farming pracces and market-

ing/selling is absent.

Figure 4.1- Raonal choice theory for collecve acon by Elinor Ostrom (1)

26

REFERENCES

1) Ostrom, E. A Behavioral Approach to the Raonal

Choice Theory of Collecve Acon: Presidenal Address,

American Polical Science Associaon, 1997 Source: TheAmerican Polical Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 1 (Mar.,

1998), pp. 1-22




Rule ManifestaonBoundary Rules Individuals must be granted permission from other

users to farm on the RD site

Condions of Use:

No culvang of someone else’s land

If farming another person’s plot recompense is agreed

upon between farmers

No watering of someone else’s land without consent

No harvesng someone else’s crops (stealing)

No tools to be used on a Friday

No building on farm land

Posion Rules Land owners: The State Government

Land custodians: GIDA

Land Appropriators: The Farmers

Co-operave: (Execuve Commiee: Chairman,

Vice-Chairman, Secretary)

Market women

MoFA extension ocers

Guards

Choice Rules The me of year to farmWhen to buy seeds

The types of crops grown

Buying or renng equipment

Which chemicals are used

Who to take loans from: market women (small loan)

or co-operave (larger loan)?

Choice of customer (market woman)

Prices negoated with customers individually, (In ac-

cordance with a survey of produce across all farmers)

Joining the cooperave

Subdividing the plotEmploying labour

Payo Rules If monetary loss has occurred, compensaon is

calculated and paid (by the co-operave)

Co-operave execuves decide outcome of internal

conicts

Thieves, if caught, are taken to the Ashaiman police.

Procedures (in the co-operave) to deal with late loan

repayments

Informaon Rules Informaon concerning levels of produce and incomesis managed individually, there is not evidence of com-

mon informaon management.

RULES FOR THE RD CO-OPERATIVE:

Table 4.2: Rules for the RD co-operave27




REFERENCES

1) Anderies, J. M., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. A

framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological

systems from an instuonal perspecve. Ecology and

Society 9(1): 18. [online] URL: hp://www.ecologyandso-

ciety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/

2) Ostrom, E., Understanding Internaonal Diversity,

(Princeton: PUP, 2005). Chapter 8: ‘Using Rules as Tools to

Cope with the Commons’, pp.219-254.

3) The denion of a co-operave, as provided by the

Internaonal Co-operave Alliance (ICA) is an autono-

mous associaon of persons united voluntarily to meet

their common economic, social, and cultural needs andaspiraons through a jointly-owned and democracally-

controlled enterprise.” – hp://www.ica.coop/coop/in-

dex.html

28

CO-OPERATIVE

The co-operave aempts to provide a means of in-

stuonalizing the CPR by oering greater legima-

cy and links to outside organisaons and state bod-

ies. While the rules are common to most farmers,

whether members or not, the co-operave plays a

parcular role in conict resoluon, oen as a judi-

ciary panel. Roles of the co-operave include a basic

savings scheme and loan-giving (though described

as an arduous process), price control (although

prices are sll negoated individually) and access to

emergency funds if a farmer encounters dicules.

This, however, is the extent of the evidence for co-

operaon. Neo-classical economic theory describes

agricultural co-operaves as being organised aroundthe pursuit of an idened goal, oen maximizing

producvity or economic returns.[3]

RD farmers stated their chief reason behind join-

ing the co-operave as ‘unity’. Currently a common

objecve is absent, shown by the fact that around

half of the RD farmers are not members of the co-

operave because they do not perceive it as worth-

while. Key barriers to joining include a lack of trust

in the leadership. Despite the evidence of trust and

reciprocity on an individual basis, this appears toevaporate once the co-operave is entered into the

equaon. The absence of a common goal means

farmers do not work in collaboraon to co-produce

their own outcomes and realise the potenal net

benets.

POTENTIALS

To comprehend what the farmers’ aspiraons are wefacilitated a group-visioning exercise asking them to

brainstorm their ideal situaon. This was undertak-

en in collaboraon with farmers from the GIDA site.

Table 4.3 illustrates the ideals, as idened by the

farmers, and is contrasted to the current situaon,

as idened through our various research acvies.

The table is intended to provide observaons of the

gap between the two situaons and highlight where

the potenals for improvement lie, which have in-

formed our strategies (page 39). A detailed discus-

sion of this table can be found in appendix 2 of thissecon, along with potenals for further research.

(Table 4.3)

OVERALL

A reciprocal relaonship between farmers is only

present with regard to their use and appropriaon

of the land. A sense of stewardship over the land is

present, but beyond this there is lile evidence of

aempts being made to co-produce outcomes (be

they delivery of water, inputs or collecve markeng

strategies), as idened by the farmers in the vision-

ing exercise.

The co-operave appears to oer its members lim-

ited value beyond the aempts to create legimacy.

This in itself is a valuable pursuit, however, there

is a dierence between collecve representaon,

and collaboraon on a regular basis in an eort to

enhance livelihoods, provide mutual benets, andmaximise the returns from the land. Central to the

future success of the co-operave and the inclusion

and integraon of all farmers is the establishment

of a series of objecves common to each member.




Ideals Current Situaon

An integrated cooperave, with strong collabora-

on with civil society

Largely isolated co-op, with es only to/through

MoFA

Well organised, with a representave strong leader-

ship

Leadership structures present, but some desire a

more democrac leadership.

Collecve bargaining as a group to increase bargain-

ing power with market mommies

While an element of collecve price seng exists,

individual circumstances and negoaons with mar-

ket mommies leads to loss of bargaining power

Easier nancial/crisis assistance from the co-op to

decrease dependence on market mommies

Formal, long process for geng loans from the

co-op, pushing people to get loans from quicker,

informal sources like market mommies

A stronger body for advocacy purposes, potenally

leading to greater polical representaon and par-

cipaon in decision making

Negligible levels of advocacy conducted through

co-op. Representaon of co-op at certain plaorms

through aendance of secretary, but only advocacy

route used it through MoFA

Collecve policies on generaon and processing of

waste

Lack of denite policies when dealing with waste,

and thus lack of sancon on those who fail to deal

with the problem

Irrigaon support through integraon of co-op with

the GIDA scheme

Individual pumping, but with shared pipes. No GIDA

support as not listed with GIDA

Cooperave facilitave of a shi toward more com-

mercial, export oriented farming

Co-op inacve and maintains status quo of quasi

subsistence farming if anything

Beer policies of sharing inputs and resources Lack of cooperaon and coordinaon regarding

resource/infra sharing

Documented meengs, lists of produce and beerrecord keeping

Complete lack of inventories/records of any sort(aside from some kept by MoFA extension ocer)

IDEALS VS. ACTUAL SITUATIONS IN ROMAN DOWN

Table 4.3: Ideals vs. actual situaon in Roman Down

29




ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The normave Environmental Jusce (EJ) aspect of

our theorecal framework draws upon what Agey-

man dened as the three components of EJ; namely

the procedural, substanve and distribuve aspects

(Ageyman, 2005). Through the mapping and focus

group exercises undertaken with the Roman Down

farmers, we established fairly concrete evidence to

display the decit that the farmers enjoyed in terms

of the substanve and distribuve aspects of EJ.

A good visual representaon of the substanve and

distribuve decits menoned can be seen in map

4.4 and image 4.5 as it examines the physical rep-

resentaons of the water quality issue as eected

by waste disposal upstream from the Roman Down

site.

MACRO-SITUATIONAL: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

AND FORMAL AND INFORMAL DEVELOPMENT

Map 4.4 Waste from informal selement upstream eecng Roman Down water quality

Informal selement along

reservoir dumping solid

waste

Waste owing downstream

and collecng as in the

photo above

Water quality reaching Roman

Down farm severely reduced

as a result

Figure 4.5: Image showing accummulaon and

blockage at bridge

30




The procedural aspect of EJ however is the aspectmost strongly invesgated in our theorecal ap-

proach and as such it informed our research meth-

ods and subsequent ndings. It was upon what

Ageyman refers to as the “meaningful involvement

of all people” (Ageyman, 2005) that the focus on

room for manoeuvre and collecve acon were de-

veloped.

This perspecve was further enriched with reference

to Anna Stanley’s work upon exploring procedural

aspects as the “…polics of meaning that structureenvironmental pracce.” (Stanley, 2009) In the con-

text of our study and parcularly in Ashaiman, these

normave principles brought us to invesgate the

noons of vision in terms of the planning process

for the municipality.

It was with these noons that our interacons with

key stakeholders such as the Ashaiman MuncipalAuthority (AshMa), the Tradional Council or ‘Stool’

as well as the Ministry of Food & Agriculture (MOFA)

and the Ghana Irrigaon Development Agency

(GIDA) (1,2, 3,4) sought to uncover what visions of

Ashaiman’s future development amounted to, and

furthermore, what place SUPA would have in these

visions.

Figure 4.6 represents our ndings in terms of which

visions of Ashaiman are represented in the planning

process and how these visions translate in relaonto Urban Agriculture. As can be seen from the in-

formaon provided through interviews with Ashma

and Tradional Council (2,4), they both share a vi-

sion of a vibrant commercial centre which conjures

up images of Urban North America as opposed to

that of Peri-Urban West Africa.

AshMa

• Vision: Millenium City

• Implicaon: UA gives

way for human habita-

on

Stool

• Vision: 24 hour City;

indigenous Ga farmers

(30-50%)

• Implicaon: Encroach-

ment and evicon of

non-Ga farmers

MOFA

• Vision: Food security

• Implicaon: UA pro-

tecon and pro-demo-

lion stance

IDA

• Vision: Carrying for-

ward the legacy of the

naonal pilot irriga-

on scheme

• Implicaon: UA pro-

tecon and scale-upVision of Ashaiman

Figure 4.6- Vision of Ashaiman and its implicaons on Urban Agriculture

31




THE RIGHT TO THE CITY

The discussion of visions of the city plays into some

of the extensive literature on the ‘rights to the city’.

David Harvey in parcular advocates the formaonof a mass social movement to ensure the access

of the urban poor to the right to “to instute new

modes of urbanizaon” (Harvey, 2008). Even with

social movements considered, in the context of As-

haiman, the discussion of what modes of urbaniza-

on are dominang the planning process cannot

however simply be examined as an issue of engag-

ing just with the formal planning process. This is evi-

denced by conservave esmates that at least 70%

of all development in Ashaiman is of an informal na-

ture (2) (See gure 4.7).

The focus on the formal/informal split nds prac-

cal engagement in the subsequent secon un-

folding the ‘room for manoeuvre’ framework. The

stakeholders introduced in that secon in the way

of NGOs, Market actors and the exploraon of their

part in advocacy strategies in relaon to Urban Ag-

riculture in the Ashaiman municipality is evidence

of an aempt to engage with the informal develop-

ment in the region. It is worth stang that any future

research into the viability of Urban Agriculture in

Ashaiman must beer invesgate the nature of this

informal development as well as understanding the

power relaons which inform such processes.

It is with such ideas in mind that the macro-situa-

onal consideraon of ocial sphere stakeholders

must be unpacked in terms of the formal/informal

divide and parcularly along the borderline which is

assumed to be a lot more uid then the visual repre-

sentaon in gure 4.8 suggests.

As gure 4.8 represents, the Stool plays an impor-

tant role in straddling the formal divide in the plan-

ning process as our research provided evidence thatsome of the development in the Jericho region of

Ashaiman and therefore possibly other areas of de-

velopment were encroachment in the eyes of o-

cial actors even though land had been obtained in

transacon from representaves of the stool. In Fig-

ure 4.8, MOFA and GIDA are closer to the line of in-

formality and this is in the sense that Roman Down

is sll technically an informal use of the land, as seen

in the failure of GIDA to register the Roman Down

farmers on their ocial records along with the GIDA

farmers (1,3,6,7).

32

Figure 4.7- Demolion of informal selements along Ashaiman drain




REFERENCES

1) Meeng with Ministry of Food and Agriculture

(MOFA) Director, Sam Nukpor , 4th May

2) Meeng with Chairman of ASHMA Policy Coordi

naon Unit, ASHMA, 6th May

3) Presentaon by GIDA Irrigaon Policy Director,Hotel Paloma followed by discussion, 7th May

4) Meeng with the ASHAIMAN Stool, Tradional

Council Palace, 8th May

5) Meeng with ASHMA Assembly man, Anobu

adongo Thomas, 11th May

6) Meeng with James Akatse Ghana Irrigaon

Development Authority, GIDA, Irrigaon Develop

ment Centre, 11th of May

7) Informal discussions with team facilitator, Nii

Ofoe Hansen, IDA, 3rd-13th May

f o

r m a l

i n f o r m a l

Stool

AshMA

MOFA

GIDA

Figure 4.8- Ocial sphere stakeholders and the formal/informal dimensions of planning

33




ROOM FOR MANOEUVRE

The process of esmang room for manoeuvre be-

gan with rst working with the farmers to idenfy

their exisng acon space, and then invesgang

deeper the stakeholder relaonships at various lev-

els. A focus group idened key stakeholders with

whom the farmers currently interact, arculang

levels of inuence, proximity and the qualitave im-

pact of these interacons. (gure 4.9)

This, coupled with the cooperave execuve com-

miee interviews, resulted in four key stakeholders

being idened as highly inuenal, with parcular

regards to the land conict and the mainstreaming

of urban and peri-urban agriculture. Most proxi-

mate to the farmers are GIDA and MoFA; while di-

rect interacon with the Stool and AshMA is limited,these are seen as highly inuenal on the land se-

curity issue and a signicant barrier to long-term

agricultural pracces. Further invesgaon also

revealed the presence of a civil society actor, the

Ashaiman District Cizen’s Monitoring Commiee

(DCMC), who has had direct contact with the farm-

ers of Roman Down and may play a key role in open-

ing inter-organisaonal dialogue.

Figure 4.9- Stakeholders mapping

34




Actor Acons supporng RFM Acons constraining RFM

MoFA • Technical support.

• Support against encroachment.

• Mediatory role for farmers in physi-

cal and instuonal relaonships.

• Inconsistent approach towards

technical support and resoluon of

the land issue.

• Transparency called into queson.

GIDA • Knowledge exchange between GIDA

scheme farmers and RD, and IDC

support.

• Opposion to building develop-

ments

• Interdependency of GIDA scheme

and RD sites.

• RD site labelled a ‘buer zone’ ac-

cording to ocial GIDA policy.

• RD farmers not formally registered

under the GIDA scheme.

Stool • Tradional Council have expressed a

willingness to clarify the situaon.

• Recognion of a need to maintainthe municipality’s farming history.

• Selling of land and construcon on

farming sites.

• Confrontaon and threats of violence from Stool in defence of

building sites.

• The Stool quesons the legimacy

of farmers’ appropriaon of the

site.

AshMA • Demolion of some encroachments

in Spring 2010, especially around

waterways.

• Inadequate aempts to prevent

encroachment on farmland.

• Apparent indierence concern-

ing the need for housing vs. food

security.• Do not consider RD as farming

land.

• RD status as a ‘buer zone’ means

plans for development are deemed

permissible.

• Policy and planning has lacked the

input of mulple stakeholders (es-

pecially those directly implicated).

Civil Society (DCMC) • Agricultural budget tracking project

(directed by ‘Send-Ghana’).• Acve advocacy on behalf of farms

over encroachment issues aecng

Ashaiman.

• Proposal to demarcate farmland

from the city.

• Successes of the Ashaiman Federa-

on of the Urban Poor (FUP) work-

ing in collaboraon with the Stool

and AshMA for slum upgrading.

• Opportunies for network-building

across civil society groups.

• Limited resources available for

advocacy.

35




FOOT NOTE

1) interview with stool 8 May

SUMMARY OF POTENTIALS for Room for

Manoeuvre (gure 4.10)see appendix for a fuller analysis:

MoFA is in a unique posion to foster dialogue across

mulple sectors of governance. Given current ins-

tuonal constraints, this open dialogue is necessaryto the connued existence of UPA in Ashaiman.

GIDA and the RD farmers need to work together to

realise the potenal of the land. The oodplain not

only plays a crucial (and under-appreciated) role in

the municipality’s drainage, but also has the poten-

al to go beyond a passive acvity of ‘buer’ land,

harnessing the character of the area to enhance

producvity and protect the urban environment.

Second, by linking the farmers of both cooperaves,GIDA has the potenal to expand the social acon

space for all users. While this is already happening

on an unocial level, the role GIDA plays in recog-

nising this link will be crical in mobilising social

pressure to mainstream SUPA.

Interacons between the Tradional Council (Stool)

and the farmers are currently antagonisc; however

the Stool could be a key ally in supporng the long-

term vision of SUPA. While the Stool’s long-term

vision for Ashaiman is for a commercial “24-hour”

city, the Regent recognises the need to maintain

the municipality’s farming history and engage the

indigenous Ga community in farming. Of parcular

interest for him is the need for gainful employment

that might be met with Urban Agriculture, instead of

seeking “white-collar jobs that don’t exist.” 1

In order to balance this vision for urban develop-

ment with custodianship for Ashaiman’s land and

people, strategic and open negoaon must be pos-sible with all stakeholders. These negoaons must

not be driven by threat of violence or forced evic-

on, or else the long-term social and instuonal

mainstreaming of SUPA will be untenable. However,

it must be recognised that farmers at Roman Down

will also need to accept the need for strategic com-

promise, as any soluon with the Stool will not end

with exisng lines being redrawn.

As a new municipality, AshMA has the opportuni-

ty to make advances in its vision for a sustainable

city. To date, however the process has been guided

from within the planning instuon without the sus-

tained input of other stakeholders in the city.

Only in the past 12 months have civil society actors

made contact with Roman Down. The Ashaiman

DCMC, a new entrant to UPA issues is composed of a

network of NGOs and CBOs led by Braimah Abdulai

of the Rural-Urban Women and Children Develop-

ment Agency and includes parcipants from health,

educaon, and women’s groups as well as repre-

sentaves from the municipal assembly, tradional

council. Secretary Bae of the RD cooperave is also a

representave on the commiee, potenally provid-ing a direct access point for advocacy and dialogue

between UPA praconers and instuonal actors

One of the biggest barriers, according to Abdulai, is

the limitaon on resources for advocacy. However,

the group has yet to fully employ the social resourc-

es at its disposal. The potenal for this kind of re-

source-building was present during our eldwork on

11 May, when farmers of Roman Down and the GIDA

scheme collecvely met to build their own vision

for SUPA. Also in aendance was a member of the

DCMC as well as Charles Zukka, the Ashaiman leader

of the Ghana Federaon for the Urban Poor (FUP).

As all present talked about the importance of Unity,

Zukka presented the case of the (FUP), where the

group was not only successful in its saving schemes,

but was able to partner with the Stool and AshMA to

iniate a community-led slum upgrading scheme. If

it can build on this kind of social resource, the DCMC

can play a key role in bridging the gap between aspi-

raons for SUPA and the praccal realies of policy-makers.

36




KEY OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS TO ROOM FOR MANOEUVRE OF SUPA

Figure 4.10- Key opportunies and barriers to Room for Manoeuvre of SUPA

37

+Physical dependency of

GIDA and municipality on

Roman Down as drainage

ouall

Exisng

Acon

Space

TECHNICAL & BEHAVIOURAL

- Lack of material support

to develop new producve

norms

-Top-down process of

disseminang knowledge

and technical procedures

- Farmers not united for

potenal negoaons

+Physical interdependency

of GIDA and RD

STRATEGIC

-Advocacy routes too

narrowly focused on MoFA

and encroachment, ratherthan planning instuons

I N S T I T U T I O N A L & I

N T E R - O R G A N I S A T I O N A L

- G I D A a n d M o F A h a v e n o t

“ o c i a l l y ” s u p p o r t e d R D i n

t h e f a c e o f t h e S t o o l

- A b s e n c e o f t r a n s p a r e n c y

i n

r o u t e s t o a c c e s s i n s t u o

n a l

d i a l o g u e

+ C

i v i l S o c i e t y n e t w o r k

a l r e a d y i n p l a c e

+ P

r o c e s s o f l i n k i n g f a r m e r s

h a

s a l r e a d y b e g u n

S O

C I A L R E L A T I O N S & M OB I L I S A T I O N

- S t o

o l q u e s o n s l e g i m a c y

o f R D f a r m e r s





05 CHAPTER

NEXT STEPS




STRATEGIES AND ACTION PLAN

Following the ndings based on our theorecal

framework, our strategies were designed as a pro-

gressive process. Beginning with strengthening the

collecve unit, the strategy follows to idenfy and

expand collecve acon space through social net-

works, and nally engage with instuonal stake-

holders.

The nal eld visit was conducted at the GIDA co-

operave meeng point featuring over 40 represen-

taves from both the RD and GIDA farmers’ coop-

eraves. During a back-casng exercise, all farmers

agreed upon a vision of a posive future which in-

cluded polical representaon. The desire of the

farmers coupled with our diagnosis that the farmers

must advocate more eecvely have strongly inu-enced the formulaon of these strategies.

A collecve exercise to idenfy barriers and oppor-

tunies to their own denion of SUPA as well as

STRATEGY : FORMALISING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COOPERATIVE me limit: within 1 month

potenal strategies to overcome them revealed the

importance of collecve unity and polical repre-

sentaon to both groups. This process played a key

role in linking our nal strategies to both our frame-

workand the needs and aspiraons of UPA praco-

ners on the ground.

The inial strategy is linked back to the ‘social’ hy-

pothesis. The raonale is that if one accepts the

farmers as engaged in a reciprocal relaonship with

the land, then it is in the interests of both the co-

operave and the condion of the land that the

farmers’ capacity for stewardship be built upon. The

strategy is therefore intended to develop the already

established direcon and aim of the cooperave by

bringing its members greater unity, harmony andwith it, order to maximise benets for themselves

as well as the surrounding natural and social envi-

ronment.

40

WHY (Movaons) WHO HOW

Arrive at consensus among all

farmers for improved coopera-

on and coordinaon in dealing

with common problems. Such

acvies can extend the basic

trust and reciprocity that already

exists in the site to fully involveall farmers with the co-opera-

ve, in parcular the recent

non-members.

RD Farmers Cooperave Execu-

ve Commiee, involving co-op

and non co-op farmers. This

could be overseen/facilitated

by relevant personnel from the

GIDA.

(1) Hold a meeng involving all

members of the coop as well as non-

coop members; discuss purposes/

bylaws of the cooperave, but allow

only members of the co-op to con-

tribute to the process while allowing

non-members to join up on the spot.(2) Above to be followed up by

robust procedures, including strong

record keeping, informaon gather-

ing regarding inputs, outputs, aen-

dance, membership etc.

(3) The elecon process/protocol

should be reviewed in light of the

outcomes of the above meengs.




The second strategy, “Linking Cooperaves”, is to

link all farmers in Ashaiman under an umbrella as-

sociaon. Through the focus group exercises, it has

been established that the farmers are willing to unify

because of shared problems . This union not only

reinforces the stance and representaon of RD, but

of all the farmers in the Ashaiman region. Through

increased numbers and organisaon,

STRATEGY : PROBLEM IDENTIFICAITON/ PRIORITISATION WITH A VIEW TO

COMMON SOLUTIONS

me limit: within 1 month

all farmers in Ashaiman can in theory enjoy greater

access to polical representaon. In this regard the

umbrella associaon can priorize common prob-

lems and issues of the farmers in the region, while

advocang for posive change in which all Ashaiman

farmers can reap benets.

41


Arrive at consensus among allfarmers for improved coopera-

on and coordinaon in dealing

with common problems. The

idencaon of commonalies

and sympathies can strengthen

basic trust and reciprocity

between farmers. A united co-

operave can enhance leverage

with other actors and develop

bridging capital.

RD Farmers Cooperave Execu-ve Commiee, with input/facil-

itaon from the relevant person-

nel from the GIDA, and inclusion

of the MoFA extension ocer.

Hold an open meeng among allfarmers to raise and share issues

among the RD farmers to have a

common understanding and agree

upon which issues need to be tack-

led rst. This will be decided through

majority

STRATEGY : CREATE A COMMON VISION BETWEEN THE ASHAIMAN IRRIGATIONAND ROMAN DOWN COOPERATIVES THROUGH A MEETING OF THE TWO GROUPS

TO PRIORITIZE PROBLEMS AND COMMON ISSUES.

me limit: within 2 month


Sharing the vision and nding

common vision will be the basis

for (1) forming an umbrella asso-

ciaon and trust and reciprocityand (2) forming and understand-

ing the ‘one voice’ necessary

for advocacy in reaching out to

various stakeholders.

RD and AI Farmers Cooperave

Execuve Commiee, relevant

personnel from the GIDA, AFUP

(1) Personnel from the GIDA and

AFUP facilitate meengs between RD

and AI Farmers to be aended by all

farmers

(2) RD and AI Farmers share their

visions with ALL farmers, nd and

priorize the common visions and

come to an agreement within the

cooperave and with each other.

(3) AFUP assists recording the min-

utes and producing the common

vision.




The third strategy, “Expanding The Network”, uses

the umbrella associaon to link with other civil soci-

ety actors. Civil society support is needed to connect

with communies at large. As revealed through our

research, Ashaiman has a budding civil network,

willing to parcipate with and represent the in-

terests of the farmers. For instance: the FUP helps

to create and mobilize savings groups, which arepowerful and vital to advocacy and building collec-

ve strength; while the DCMC provides a plaorm

to connect with policy makers. Further to this, our

work in the macro-situaonal context revealed that

in light of the majority of development in Ashaiman

being of an informal nature, it is important that any

advocacy aempts must also engage with the con-

stuents of these such developments. This strategy

speaks directly to this nding.

42

The negoaon and collaboraon with key instu-

onal actors is to advocate and ensure that policies

bring legimacy to UA in Ashaiman. This has short,

interim, and long-term implicaons. Channels of

communicaon and cooperaon need to be well es-

tablished in order for the long-term goal to be real-

ized.

STRATEGY : ESTABLISH AN UMBRELLA ASSOCIATION OF ALL FARMERS IN

ASHAIMAN

me limit: 4 months (aer agreeing on common vision)


Establishment of an umbrellaassociaon of all farmers in

Ashaiman will give the farm-

ers the necessary strengths in

numbers to voice their concerns

by having the power to mobilize

people whenever needed for in-

teracons with stakeholders and

instuon in advocacy pracces.

RD and AI Execuve Commit-tee, relevant personnel from the

GIDA, AFUP

(1)Personnel from the GIDA andAFUP facilitate meengs between RD

and AI execuve commiee and any

other farmers in Ashaiman interest-

ed in joining the associaon.

(2)AFUP assists recording the min-

utes and producing agreement for

formaon of an umbrella associaon

(3)With support of the GIDA, mem-

berships are given and recordedto those farmers willing to join the

associaon.

(4)RD and AI execuve commiee

share the informaon with ALL farm-

ers and agree within cooperave and

with each other.

(5)RD and AI execuve commiee

report the progress and results to

GIDA, Stool, DCMC, AshMA, MoFA



ROMAN DOWN- ASHAIMAN Sustainable Urban and Peri urban Agriculture 43

STRATEGY : PARTNER ASSOCIATION WITH THE FEDERATION OF THE URBAN POOR

(FUP) TO EXPLORE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCALED UP ORGANISATION AND

MOBILISATION.

me limit: Within 4 months


In parallel with Ashaiman farm-

ers coming together under an

umbrella associaon, partnering

with experienced organizaon

such as AFUP will further en-

hance and empower collecve

capacies of the associaon for

advocacy and inuencing policy

making and decision process by

combining numbers of farmers

and knowledge and experienceof AFUP.

RD and AI Farmers Cooperave

Execuve Commiee, Umbrella

associaon, AFUP

(1)AFUP facilitates a open parcipa-

on meeng between AFUP, exisng

AFUP members and any AI and RD

farmers to explain the potenal of

joining the AFUP.

(2)Informaon about AFUP is shared

among all farmers in the associaon.

(3)Umbrella associaon and AFUP

meet to decide on potenal areas of future cooperaon

(4)Umbrella associaon conrms

consensus among members to part-

ner with AFUP and disseminates the

decision to all famers.

(5)Umbrella associaon and AFUP to

sign an agreement (MOU) to become

partners, specifying specic areas of

cooperaon.




Realisaon of the nal strategy, “Engaging with In-

stuonal Actors”, is seen as the nal step toward

integrang SUPA into the city’s physical, social and

polical agenda. Once the farmers gain increased

representaon, they can work in tandem with the

polical/tradional systems to provide an alternate

land plan for Ashaiman that includes space for UA,

while not impeding on development objecves.

44

Through implementaon of the strategies, it is nec-

essary to have all the ingredients present to support

SUPA; dually providing a space for farmer’s coopera-

ves in polical representaon whilst allowing for

collaborave eorts regarding land planning in

Ashaiman.

STRATEGY : THROUGH THE DCMC, CREATE A FORUM FOR THE ASSOCIA-

TION OF ASHAIMAN FARMERS TO ENGAGE WITH POLICY MAKERS.

Time limit: 6 months


Building on the capacies thatthe farmers posses within and

the support they have from

AFUP, providing a plaorm for

farmers to voice their interests

and engage in dialogue and

cooperaon with the relevant

stakeholders will give farmers

the real opportunies to actually

have their voices heard and pos-

sibly to inuence policies and its

formulaon processes.

DCMC, Umbrella associaon,AFUP

(1)AFUP facilitates meengs be-tween DCMC and Umbrella associa-

on to (i) share exisng issues and

visions and (ii) discuss about creaon

of a forum including agendas, its

role, members, policies, etc.

(2)Umbrella associaon shares the

informaon with all farmers and

reach consensus among the mem-

bers about establishment of a forum.

(3)DCMC and Umbrella associaon

signs an agreement (MOU) concern-

ing the formaon of a forum, speci-

fying specic roles, members and

policies.

(4)DCMC, Umbrella associaon,

AFUP facilitates a meeng with key

stakeholders (GIDA, MoFA, AshMA,

Stool, etc ) to explain about the cre-

aon of a forum.

(5)With assistance from AFUP, an-

nouncement regarding the forum to

be made to the public.




STRATEGY : COLLABORATION WITH STOOL

Time limit: 2 months


As Stool is the most importantinformal instuon for farmers’

land tenure, improved relaon-

ship for future collaboraon on

land tenure issues is of utmost

importance.

RD and AI Execuve Commiee ,Relevant personnel of the GIDA,

DCMC, MoFA

(1)MoFA facilitate meeng withStool, RD and AI Execuve Commit-

tee and DCMC to discuss about land

tenure issues.

(2)Stool and RD Execuve Commiee

agree on future cooperaon and pro-

duce agreed minutes which will be

shared among all RD and AI farmers

STRATEGY : ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICIAL LEGAL BOUNDARIES FOR GIDA

FARMING AND BUFFER ZONES, PROTECTED BY OFFICIAL RE-ZONING

Time Limit: 1 year


Since land tenure is such a basic

necessity yet one of the most

dicult issues to solve, ensuring

land security for the farmers,

through advocacy of importance

of UA in Accra and recognion

of themselves as the legimate

farmers on agricultural land, will

give them hope for the future

and basis for their right to the

city.

GIDA, Umbrella associaon,

DCMC

(1)GIDA conducts an extensive map-

ping of RD and GIDA site and collects

all relevant farmer records.

(2)GIDA shares legal documentaon

for acquision and compensaon

of stool land with Stool, TDC, MoFA,

AshMA.

(3)DCMC facilitates open consulta-

ons in the forum for UA and land

security.

(4)GIDA meets the Stool to discuss

and explain technical issues of build-

ing on waterways and buer zones.

Any discussions on demarcang

boundaries of agricultural and stool

land are to be mediated by MOFA so

that UA sites are protected.




MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The progress of the strategies will be monitored by

the indicators relevant to the previously menoned

strategies, based on the framework analysis usingRoom for Maneuver, to link Collecve Acon and

the

Strategy Monitoring

Indicators By Who When Disclosure

Formalising the

constuon of the

cooperave

• Agreed minutes of

the meengs

• Agreed document

on constuon• Conrmaon on

open parcipaon by

all available farmers

on the nal decision

• RD Farmers Co-

operave Execuve

Commiee

• Relevant person-

nel of the GIDA

• Aer agreement

or every meeng

• Agreed min-

utes/ documents

shared among all

farmers

Problem idenca-

on / priorisaon

with a view to com-

mon soluons


the meengs

• Agreed document

on priorized list of

problems and issues

• Conrmaon on

open parcipaon byall available farmers

on the nal decision

• RD Farmers Co-

operave Execuve

Commiee

• Relevant person-

nel of the GIDA

• Aer agreement

or every meeng

• Agreed minutes

/ documents

shared among all

farmers

MONITORING AND EVALUATION: STRENGHTENING THE COOPERATIVE

46

visions of the city outlined in the micro and macro

ndings respecvely. The details of Monitoring and

Evaluaon, including indicators; those responsiblefor monitoring; ming and disclosure plans, are

shown in the tables below.

STRATEGY : FORMATION AND SUBMISSION OF AN ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT

PLAN FOR LAND IN RD

Time limit: Within 2 years


Aer building their capacies as

an eecve and inuenal as-sociaon, forfying their posion

within network of stakeholders

in Accra and establishing their

rights to the city, for the farmers

to develop and submit alternate

development plans for Ashaiman

RD area will further advocate the

importance of UA and recognion

of themselves as the legimate

farmers on agricultural land.

AFUP, RD and AI Farmers Coopera-

ve Execuve Commiee , DCMC

(1)AFUP to acquire the exisng land

development plans.

(2)AFUP to survey and map the exist-

ing RD land.

(3)AFUP and RD and AI Execuve

Commiee to review and analyze the

exisng plans. Through DCMC and the

forum, discuss with stakeholders about

alternave land plans.

(4) AFUP and RD Execuve Commiee

draw up alternate development plan,

publicly announce the nalizaon of

the plan and submit to DCMC, AshMA,

T&C Planning, Stool, GIDA, MoFA.




Strategy Monitoring


Create a common

vision between the

Ashaiman Irrigaon

and Roman Down

cooperaves through

a meeng of the two

groups to priorize

problems and com-

mon issues.


the meengs be-

tween two coopera-

ves about common

visions

-and/or-

• Agreed documents

lisng the common

visions

• Conrmaon on

open parcipaon by

all available farmersand transparency on

the nal decision

• RD cooperave

execuve commit-

tee

• AFUP

• Aer agreement

or every meeng

• Agreed min-

utes/ documents

shared among all

farmers, GIDA,

MOFA

Establish an umbrella

associaon of all

farmers in Ashaiman


the meengs be-

tween two coopera-

ves about establish-

ment of an umbrella

associaon

• A formal documentstang the establish-

ment of an umbrella

associaon

• Developing an of-

cial membership list

• Conrmaon on

open parcipaon by

all available farmers

and transparency on

the nal decision

• RD cooperave

execuve commit-

tee

• AFUP

• Aer establish-

ment or every

meeng

• Agreed minutes

shared among all

farmers, GIDA,

DCMC, FUP,

MOFA, ASHMA

MONITORING AND EVALUATION: LINKING COOPERATIVES

47




MONITORING AND EVALUATION: EXPANDING THE NETWORK

Strategy Monitoring


Partner associaon

with the Federaonof the Urban Poor to

explore the potenal

for scaled up organ-

isaon and mobilisa-

on

•Agreed minutes of

the meengs andsigned MOU between

Federaon and RD

cooperave

• Random interviews

among the associa-

on members on the

performance of AFUP

• RD and AI coop-

erave execuvecommiee and

AFUP

• RD and AI coop-

erave execuve

commiee

• Aer each

meeng

• Every 6 months

• Agreed minutes

shared among allfarmers

Through the DCMC,

create a forum for

the associaon of Ashaiman Farmers to

engage with policy

makers

• Agreed minutes

of the meengs

between DCMC andassociaon


the joint stakeholder

meengs


among the associa-

on members on the

changes brought

about aer the cre-

aon of the forum.

• DCMC, asso-

ciaon representa-

ves

• RD and AI coop-

erave execuve

commiee and/or

AFUP

• Aer each

meeng

• Every 6 months

• Agreed min-

utes/ documents

shared among allfarmers, GIDA,

DCMC, STOOL,

MOFA

48




MONITORING AND EVALUATION: STRENGTHENING LINKAGES TO FORMAL AND

INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS

Strategy Monitoring


Collaboraon with

Stool

• Agreed minutes

of the meengsbetween Stool and

cooperaves


among the associa-

on members on the

changes brought

about aer re-

connecng with the

Stool.

• RD cooperave

execuve commit-tee

• Personnel from

the GIDA and AFUP

• Aer each

meeng

• Every 3 months

• Shared among

all farmers, GIDA,DCMC, ASHMA,

MOFA

Establishment of ocial legal boundar-

ies for GIDA farming

and buer zones,

protected by ocial

re-zoning

• Sharing of legaldocumentaon for

land among GIDA,

Stool, TDC, MOFA,

ASHMA, RD


the meengs be-

tween GIDA, MOFA

and Stool on demar-

cang boundaries and

any other technical

issues• Random interviews

among the associa-

on members on the

dierence before and

aer the establish-

ment of legal bound-

aries.

• GIDA

• GIDA, MOFA

• GIDA and RD andAI cooperave ex-

ecuve commiee

• Aer eachmeeng

• Every 3 months

for a year

• Shared amongall farmers, GIDA,

DCMC, TDC,

ASHMA, MOFA

Formaon and sub-

mission of an alter-

nate developmentplan for land in RD

• Surveying and map-

ping of the land

• Consultaon meet-ings at the forum

• Submission of an

alternate develop-

ment plan

• Follow up on (1) the

progress of inclusion

of the alternate plan

in ocial plans and

policies and (2) inu-

ence the alternate

plan had on instu-onal processes.

• RD Farmers Co-

operave Execuve

Commiee

• RD and AI coop-

erave execuve

commiee, AFUP

and DCMC

• 6 months

• Aer eachmeeng

• 1 year

• Every 3 months

• Shared among

all farmers, GIDA,

DCMC, ASHMA,MOFA

49





06 CHAPTER

CONCLUSIONS




CONCLUSIONS

Roman Down is the locus of a mounng conict near-

ly universal to cies around the world facing rapid

urbanisaon. While many actors have characterised

this conict as an issue of protecng farmland from

urban “encroachment,” the crux of the SUPA ques-

on is how urban agriculture can be woven into the

urban fabric. It is important to recognise that ad-

vocacy for SUPA cannot reject the expansion of the

built environment or the inherent need to build suit-

able selements—rather, it is about fostering mean-

ingful dialogue to represent the needs and aspira-

ons of all urban dwellers.

So long as allies and advocates set UPA against other

processes of urbanisaon, priority in pracce will

relegate agriculture to the fringe. This is evident inthe supporve discourse for UPA among key instu-

onal stakeholders that is unreected in policy and

acon.

While there is as of yet a gap in social mobilisaon

around UPA, we found that some of the assumpons

in our hypothesis regarding social consensus sur-

rounding agriculture were confounded by a largely

posive noon of UPA by farmers and community

members alike. At the same me, instuonal nd-

ings corroborated our hypothesis regarding the ab-sence of polical support for SUPA. Moreover, the

single sector approach manifested not only in top-

down policy implementaon, but was equally con-

stricve to boom-up aempts at advocacy.

The strategies which came out of these ndings are

intended to facilitate a process by which SUPA can

be mainstreamed into the social and polical dis-

course. These strategies are not a “road map” to

sustainability, but are the rst step in inculcang

new norms and procedures that can lead to a larger

context of urban sustainability.

• Beer collecve organisaon can bolster liveli-

hoods and beer protect UPA’s economic as well as

polical prospects within the city

• By “speaking as one” UPA praconers can assert

themselves as a legimate constuency of the mu-

nicipality

• A well organised collecve can increase the e-

cacy of new norms for physical sustainability• Linking groups through civil society can direct the

role of social instuons to foster beer dialogue

across sectors of the urban populaon

• By using civil society as a facilitator, the UPA con-

stuency can have a clearer voice in dialogue with

instuonal stakeholders crical to mainstreaming

SUPA

This research was far from comprehensive, but of-

fers a good grounding for aempts to uncover and

beer understand a complex situaon. The interre-

laon of the instuonal and physical processes af-

fecng Roman Down began to come to light through

our research. By harnessing these social and po-

lical processes, further research can beer explore

the physical relaons of the urban farm to the en-

re city’s environment. If these social and physical

processes can be linked, Roman Down could be anexemplar for integrang SUPA into the greater ur-

ban fabric.

• Linking groups through civil society can direct

the role of social instuons to foster beer

dialogue across sectors of the urban populaon

• By using civil society as a facilitator, the UPA con-

stuency can have a clearer voice in dialogue

with instuonal stakeholders crical to main-

streaming SUPA

This research was far from comprehensive, but of-

fers a good grounding for aempts to uncover and

beer understand a complex situaon. The interre-

laon of the instuonal and physical processes af-

fecng Roman Down began to come to light through

our research. By harnessing these social and po-

lical processes, further research can beer explore

the physical relaons of the urban farm to the en-

re city’s environment. If these social and physical

processes can be linked, Roman Down could be an

exemplar for integrang SUPA into the greater ur-

ban fabric.

54




Physical system of farming in

Ashaiman is naturally unsustainable

At ground level, the sense of

stewardship is missing due to the lack of

consensus on the role of

agriculture and its importance.

A fragmented sectoral approach and lack

of recognion for other actors in service

provision and policy formaon has led to

an instuonal framework with limitedspace for cooperaon and collecve input.

Sustainable Urban Agriculture is denied

by a social support system and an

instuonal framework that fully

integrate socially produced agriculture

- Community members and farmers alike do arculate

posive views about the role of UPA

- However, advocacy tends to focus on protecng UPA

from the city rather than integrang

- Producve norms toward physical sustainability are sll

stymied by lack of resources and instuonal support

- Sectoral approach apparent in both policy formulaon

and ground-level acvism

- Disorganisaon and lack of accountability within

instuons such as the tradional council compound

eorts to mainstream SUPA

- Sectoral approach creates direct tension between

urban development and agriculture with limited

capacity to integrate the two

H y p o t h e s e s

Therefore,

Figure 6.1: Hypothesis validaon






APPENDICES




FIELD WORK PLAN

56







EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

APPENDIX 1

Urban Agriculture has grown in importance in Gha-

na over the last few years. Thanks to the hard work

of NGO actors such as IWMI, the importance and

contribuon of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculturein Ghana has been highlighted and changed its sta-

tus in the polical arena. This shi was conrmed in

2005 when the naonal Ministry of Food and Agri-

culture (MOFA) declared:

“We call for the promoon of a shared vision on

Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (UPA) that takes

into account the specic needs and condions in

the country and urge Policy makers, in partnership

with Development Partners, to develop gender sen-

sive policies and appropriate instruments that will

create an enabling environment for integrang and

supporng UPA into our economies”

APPENDIX 2

The Ghana Year 2000 Populaon Census Report es-

mated the populaon of Ashaiman to be 150,312

with a growth rate of 4.6 per cent, which is higher

than the 2.6 per cent naonal growth rate (1). The

Peri-Urban interface has been acknowledged by Si-mon, McGregor & Thompson as having no single

denion that will t all circumstances but they cite

Phillips et al denion of the Peri Urban interface as

being characterised by “... strong urban inuences,

easy access to markets, services and other inputs,

ready supplies of labour, but relave shortages of

land and risks from polluon and urban growth” (3).

APPENDIX 3

The port of Tema, built in the 1960s to alleviate the

large volumes of trade coming through the port of

Accra had a profound impact upon the develop-

ment of Ashaiman. The rapid growth experienced

in Ashaiman was an unexpected consequence of the

development of Tema as a major commercial port.

Though some provision for low cost housing was

developed in the 1960s by the Tema Development

Commission (TDC) this was unsasfactory and as

such Ashaiman experiences incredibly high volumes

of informal housing development (5).Similarly, the GIDA farming site was developed in the

1970s as an ocial government irrigaon scheme.

The area known as Roman Down was intended to be

le vacant as a ‘potenal’ irrigaon area whilst also

performing its important physiological funcon as a

ood plain. The intensicaon of farming upon the

Roman Down site was an unexpected consequence

of the development of the GIDA site as a major gov-

ernment irrigaon scheme.

APPENDIX 4

As the encroachments map on page 16 shows, the

issue of encroachment upon the RD farming site has

been growing in signicance over the last decade

and has heightened the current climate of conict

over the land use. Whilst the RD farmers coopera-

ve claims the land as government farming land and

therefore any residenal development as encroach-

ment, the Tradional Council maintains that as long

as the RD farmers are not ocially recognised gov-

ernment farmers, they are the encroachers upon

the land.

The conict goes back to disagreement over the orig-

inal terms of agreement between the TDC and the

tradional council. This issue is further addressed in

the ‘Background’ secon of this report.

1) hp://www.statsghana.gov.gh/

2) David Simon, Duncan McGregor & David Thompson;

‘Contemporary Perspecves on the Peri-Urban Zones of

Cies in Developing Areas’ in The Peri-Urban Interface,

2006, Earthscan, London

3) Phillips et al; Literature Review on Peri-Urban Natural

Resource Conceptualisaon and Management Approach-

es; Final Technical Report; 1999; University of Nong-

ham and University of Liverpool

4) The above is based upon informaon from:

Boakye, S., 2008, “Sustaining urban farming: Explaining

why farmers make investment in the absence of secure

tenure with new evidence from Ghana”, DSA Conference

2008 Paper.

5) Grant, R. & Yankson, P., 2003, “City prole: Accra”, Cit-

ies, Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 65–74, 2003

58

REFERENCES




METHODOLOGY

The principles of parcipatory methods are drawn

from the work of Paulo Freire (1) and based on the

basic premised that “the poor and marginalised are

capable of analysing their own realies and that

they should be enabled to do so”. (2)

The basic principles of such methods as dened by

S.Kumar in ‘Methods for Community Parcipaon’

are that:

• The poor and the marginalised are capable of

analysing their own realies

• They can and should be empowered to analyse

• The outsiders should act as convenors, catalysts,

and facilitators

• Self-crical awareness of the facilitator is an

essenal prerequisite. The facilitators should

reect crically on their concepts, values, a-

tudes, behaviour, etc. on a regular basis.

• Learning should be experimental in nature and

based on principles of adult learning.

One of the central ideas in the use of these methods

are that those being studied gain something from

the process of research and this was one of the cen-

tral concerns of the group whilst carrying out our

eldwork. It is hoped that despite our limitaons

and with necessary humility that this is something

which was to some extent achieved.

REFERENCES

1) Paulo Freire, ‘Pedagogy of the oppressed’, Connuum,

1981

2) S.Kumar, ‘Methods for Community Parcipaon: A

complete guide for praconers’, ITDG Publishing

An example of a focus-group plan

This focus group will aempt to draw answers for

the following two quesons:

1. What potenal tensions exist across stake

holder groups?

2. What are the barriers and opportunies

to foster trust and reciprocity across stake

holder groups?

The focus group will begin by brainstorming the dif-

ferent stakeholders. These stakeholders will be writ-

ten on cards as they are idened. Any stakeholders

59

Focus

Groups

OtherVisioning

Workshop

Interviews

4 x RD Co-op

Members

7 x Transect Walks

4 x Focus Group

DiscussionsRD and GIDA

Co-op farmers

1 x RD Co-op

Non members

1 x RD Co-op

Members and

Non-members

37 x Basic

Informaon Surveys

9 x Presentaon

Mapping

2 x Parcipatory

Mapping

1 x Joint Plenary

Group Discussion

RD and GIDA

Co-op Farmers

21x Informl

semi-structured

-InstuonalStakeholders

-Farmers

Landguards

4x Group Interviews

-Co-op Exec

Commiee

-Tradional Council

-NGOs

-Market Queens

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: MAY 4-13, 2010




indened in Michael’s map that haven’t been listed

by the farmers will be suggested and added with the

consent of the farmers.

The stakeholders will then be arranged into a spec-

trum of posive and negave interacon. The stake-

holders will also be placed according to how closely

they interact with the cooperave. The farmers willbe invited one by one to place them and give a short

explanaon as to why they are placed in these posi-

ons.

Stakeholders:

• Castle/ Parlaiment

• MoFA

• Regional Coordinang Council

• AshMA

• Ashaiman Tradional Council

• (G)IDA

• Ashaiman Irrigaon Scheme Cooperave

Society (IDA farmers)

• Ashaiman District Cizens’ Monitoring Com

miee

• Ashaiman Roman Down Farmers’ Coopera

ve

Once the stakeholders are arranged into the spec-

trum, we will make sure everyone is happy and thenask if there have been any specic tensions or possi-

ble points of conict with any of the stakeholders. If

so, these will be wrien onto post it slips and added

to the stakeholder card. If there is a spaal element

to any of the quesons, these will be added by post

it onto the map.

At this point we can introduce the concept of trust

and reciprocity and interrogate whether the more

posive relaons display signs of trust and reciproc-

ity. Hopefully this can be agreed fairly easily.

The claricaon of trust and reciprocity then move

into idenfying barriers and opportunies to in-

crease trust and reciprocity for each stakeholder.

Each card will be reversed and barriers opportuni-

es will be listed.

We then move onto to generate strategies for mov-

ing the negave relaons up the spectrum.

Outcomes

• The farmers reveal that they are registered with

the department of cooperaves since April 7th

2006. Apparently they have a cercate.

• IDA farmers organise group meengs for train-

ing workshops. They are involved with RomanDowns when they need addional farmers re-

garding meengs.

• Market Mommies: reciprocity, but lile trust –

women need to behave more honestly.

• Stool: not trustworthy, but farmers accept that

their support is crucial and therefore they will

have to work together to ensure their security.

MICRO FINDINGS

APPENDIX 1

CPR Rules (The Co-operave)

Analysing the Common Property Regime in Roman

Down

Introducon:

Through extensive empirical research and analysis

Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues idened seven

generic rules that can be applied to common-pool

resource situaons. These seven condions (espe-

cially the rst four) are perceived as those most con-

ducive to eect self-organisaon, while the absence

of any one category of rule might indicate where im-

provements in the system can be made.

Boundary Rules:

Boundaries are simply dened by the granng of

permission to use the land. As this is arranged from

within the CPR it is the farmers themselves who

collecvely (and individually) determine who can

use the land. This explains why we nd pockets of

families in the site – farmers most commonly grant

permission to their relaves and friends to culvate

the land. In instances where a person from outside

the present arrangement (an individual not alreadyinvolved in the CPR) wishes to farm some land they

can negoate with a farmer to use a poron of land

60




if the farmer is willing to give it up. Such an agree-

ment usually involves the new individual paying the

farmer in the form of a cut of the prots made from

the produce, or a proporon of the produce itself.

The condions for use are self-explanatory, and all

prohibit certain acvies. They ensure that a bal-

anced relaonship is maintained between farmers

as they retain a great degree of autonomy over theculvaon of their own crops. Forbidding farmers to

use tools on a Friday is a custom of the Ga people,

who believe that the use of tools on this day will po-

tenally damage the crop. Younger farmers and oth-

ers who are not from this ethnic background, how-

ever, do use tools on Fridays. There is no penalty for

this behaviour as many farmers believe that those

defying the rule will suer from a poor harvest.

Posion Rules:

Ostrom refers to ‘posion rules creang monitors’,

however under this heading the dierent ‘posions’

within the CPR will be examined.

Formal posions within the CPR are unclear. The land

tenure issue is confused, but this should not greatly

inuence the workings of the site as CPR. The obvi-

ous posions on the site then are those of the co-

operave and the co-operave execuve commit-

tee, however even this is voluntary and the CPR canfuncon adequately without it, though many farm-

ers choose to be members of this organisaon.

One formal posion is that of the MoFA Extension

Ocer. His role, we have surmised, is to communi-

cate to the farmers new informaon and legislaon

from the government (presumably from the naon-

al level), to provide technical support concerning

new farming and irrigaon techniques, and to keep

a track of the types of crops grown on the site, and

possibly esmaons of the quanes produced. It

was observed that he has closer es with the co-

operave than the group of farmers as a whole. Fur-

ther research is required in order to fully understand

the various elements of his role.

There is not a formal arrangement for night guards

in RD, however guards are put in place aer thes

have occurred for the following few nights to make

sure they do not happen again. Security in RD is

therefore reacve and never proacve and system-ac in approach.

Finally the market women, while not present on

the site at all, have an informal role not only as cus-

tomers, but as money lenders for short term loans.

Farmers have close es with their respecve cus-

tomers who it seems can dictate what they grow

and provide money for inputs. Again, more research

is required to clarify the extent of this relaonship.

Choice Rules:

The lengthy series of choice rules indicates that the

freedom of the individual farmers to act is fairly ex-

tensive. Because farmers can decide when to sow

their seeds (described to us as being ‘whenever the

land is ready’) they purchase them as individuals

and make no aempts to store them or haggle over

the price. The types of crops grown are decided by

the farmer, but possibly inuence, as menoned, by

the desires of the customer. Many farmers own wa-

ter pumps (petrol-driven), and can choose whether

to buy their own pump or rent from a friend. The

seven underground irrigaon pipes are co-managed

by groups of around 5 individuals who benet from

their use however this is as far as a collaborave ap-

proach to irrigaon goes.

While farmers are free to choose whether they use

chemicals and which ones they use, governmentsubsidies are usually provided to the co-operave

(oering a discount in the region of 30%). This may

demand that farmers use a parcular type/brand of

chemical, and requires follow-up.

Farmers negoate prices with their buyers as indi-

viduals rather than collecvely. This is parcularly

surprising given that farmers meet each season in

order to reach consensus over the quality of the

produce and in doing so, the prices relave to on

another. This illustrates not only a lack of awareness

of their collecve power, but also the strength of the

farmers’ bonds to their customers, hinng at levels

of dependency.

Farmers are free to decide whether or not they join

the co-operave. Membership demands a registra-

on fee and a monthly contribuon. The fact that

not all of the farmers are members of the co-oper-

ave suggests that the actual benets it provides

are either minimal or not well recognised across thewhole groups of farmers.

61




Farmers have further choices concerning whether

to allow another individual to culvate all or part

of their land, recompense for this agreement might

be arranged as described above (under ‘boundary

rules’). Farmers are also free to employ labourers to

assist on their plots, although in most cases farmers

preferred not to do this, instead acquiring help from

friends and family.

Payo Rules:

The co-operave plays perhaps the greatest role in

internal conict resoluon, acng as a sort of judicial

council when wrongdoings have been commied. It

is not clear whether this posion is only recognised

by co-operave members, or by all RD farmers. First

of all if a thief is caught he is taken to be dealt with

by the Ashaiman municipal police.

The co-operave, or perhaps the enre group of

farmers (this will require further research for clari-

caon) have several procedures in place to combat

individuals who break the rules of the CPR (though

not necessarily the law). If one of the ‘condions

of use’ is broken, for example, oenders will be ex-

pected to reimburse the aected party with com-

pensaon in the form of money or crops. Failure

to do so with a specied meframe may result inthe oender being thrown o the land. The same

pracces apply when a farmer has taken a loan from

the co-operave and if they fail to pay it back within

three months. However, if the banished farmer can

remunerate the aected party/pares and prove

that the lesson has been learnt, they will be granted

access to their plot once again (the plot having been

le untouched in the meanme).

The co-operave (or perhaps the rest of the farmers

on the site; more research is needed) has the means

to provide crisis funding to a farmer if his crops

have failed for any reason. There is also evidence

that where plots have been lost, increasingly to en-

croachment in the northern part of the site, farmers

are reintegrated into the system. This can be as a la-

bourer on another farmer’s plot, being granted per-

mission to use part of another farmer’s plot for their

own culvaon (see ‘boundary rules’), or another

posion within the CPR arrangement. One exam-

ple of a role that we encountered, currently beingperformed by a farmer whose plot had been lost to

encroachment, was that of lier-picker on the site,

though it was not clear who was responsible for pay-

ing the individual.

Informaon Rules:

Informaon regarding the types and numbers of

crops grown, when they are harvested and the rev-enues received are all kept by individual farmers.

Such informaon is not collated by the co-operave

or anyone else within the CPR. One of the tasks of

the MoFA Extension Ocer to the site might be to

record what is being produced and approximately

how much of each crop, but this needs further clari-

caon. The absence of collecve data gathering

concerning the crops and harvest might be recogn-

ised as a factor liming collecve bargaining power

with the market customers.

Scope and Aggregaon Rules:

We found no clear evidence of any scope of aggrega-

on rules present in the Roman Down site.

Areas for further exploraon:

There is a clear need to rafy these rules and to un-

derstand them in greater detail, as has been men-oned in the text above. We ran three group exer-

cises specic to this secon. The rst was a focus

group to understand the norms and ideals present

between the farmers, and included members of the

co-operave and non-members. The second exer-

cise was a group interview in order to further clarify

details about the rules of the RD site, and only in-

cluded co-operave members, whereas the third ac-

vity was a group interview with non-co-operave

farmers aimed at uncovering why they were not

member of the co-operave. We therefore did not

hold a specic acvity with non-co-operave farm-

ers over the norms and rules of the site, and there-

fore our ndings may be slightly biased in favour of

the co-operave.

We also understood when we were in the eld that

a formal document of rules does exist, however we

were unable to gain access to the document while

we were there. It is also unclear whether this rule

set refers only to the co-operave or the whole site(the CPR), and who it was originally wrien by. Final-

ly it must be acknowledged that irrespecve of ev-

62




erything we were told there is a dierence between

spoken norms and rules and performed norms and

rules. Detailed examinaon and assessment of this

requires a dedicated and lengthy study and as such

is well beyond the scope of this assignment.

APPENDIX 2

Analysis of farmers’ ideal situaon versus their

present situaon

Introducon:

The nal future-visioning exercise conducted along

with the GIDA group, involved farmers form the Ro-

man Down cooperave and farmers from the GIDA

cooperave, where they described their utopian vi-

sions for the future of agriculture in Accra, and as-

pects which they thought would exist in the ideal sit-

uaon. These visions were contrasted with exisng

condions, revealed by interpreng evidence gath-

ered from previous focus groups and interviews, ex-

posing the gaps between what is and what ‘should’

be. It is by analyzing these gaps that our strategies

were developed. A brief explanaon of these are as

follows.

Integrated Co-operave

There was a general consensus that farmers should

organise themselves into a much more inclusive,

cohesive interacve cooperave. This was reected

both by the GIDA and RD farmers both suggesng

that they form an umbrella organisaon for the

farmers in Ashaiman as well as by their willingness

to respond to suggesons made by the CBOs present

that they culvate linkages with them to beer gain

legimacy and to beer advocate for themselves.

There is a desire for the RD farmers to be included in

the list of the GIDA farmers, both to access the ser-

vices provided by the GIDA scheme (irrigaon etc.)

and more importantly, to get legimacy as farmers

in the eyes of the tradional chiefs

Leadership Structure

A well organised and structured co-operave with

representave leadership is desired. As things stand,

the cooperave is perceived by the non-coopera-

ve farmers as being organised without a purpose,making it not worthwhile joining, as the perceived

benets are very few. Furthermore, these farmers

expressed views that the leaders have been incum-

bent over the last few years and have not taken part

in a wholly inclusive elecon. This cricism is moot

as the views expressed indicated that the non-coop-

erave farmers seemed to want to have a say in the

vong in spite of not being a part of the co-op. They

also wanted a leadership that would listen to the

views of both co-op as well as non-coop farmers.

Collecve Markeng

Currently, while relave prices are collecvely set

by the farmers, each farmer sll enters negoaons

with the market mommy, thus reducing his bargain-

ing power and the money he makes. If the co-oper-

ave collecvely set a price and stuck to it, it would

benet all the farmers together in the long run. The

farmers were aware of this with some farmers of-

fering loans to their neighbours rather than leng

these needy farmers borrow from market mommies

and lose control of their prices, which would then

drive their own prices down to compete.

Financial Assistance

An ideal co-operave would make it easy for mem-

bers to access funds in seasonal mes of need and in

crisis situaon. Currently, the dependency on marketmommies for funds leads to a loss of independence,

and loss of price seng ability on the part of the

farmers. Loans from the co-op are available but the

lengthy process involved in obtaining them means

that they are only accessed for very large loans.

Polical Parcipaon

The farmers acknowledged that there was a need for

direct polical representaon and some expressed a

desire to see their children becoming policians. As

things stand there are very limited advocacy chan-

nels and avenues of polical representaon, mainly

consisng of channels through the MoFA.

Farming Pracces

The farmers envisaged a future where there was bet-

ter collaboraon and cooperaon among the farm-

ers on various procedures and pracces conducted.

These included beer policies of sharing inputs such

as water (and its pumping), buying seeds/ferlizerscollecvely as well as beer policies and norms on

the producon and processing of waste. There was

63




also a small but growing number of farmers who

were saw the future being more commercially ori-

ented farming, with exports playing a major role in

this vision.

These visions of the future described, oen led to an

idencaon of deciencies in the current state of aairs, and these thus went on to inform the strate-

gies we arrived at.

REFERENCES

1) Ostrom, E., Understanding Internaonal Diversity,

(Princeton: PUP, 2005). Chapter 8: ‘Using Rules as

Tools to Cope with the Commons’, pp.219-254.

ROOM FOR MANOEUVRE

APPENDIX 1

Unabridged version of Room for Manoeuvre

Secon,

RFM

The process of esmang room for manoeuvre be-

gan with rst working with the farmers to idenfy

their exisng acon space, and then invesgang

deeper the stakeholder relaonships at various lev-

els. A focus group idened key stakeholders with

whom the farmers currently interact, arculang

levels of inuence, proximity and the qualitave im-

pact of these interacons. This coupled with the co-

operave execuve commiee interviews, resulted

in four key stakeholders being idened as highly in-

uenal, with parcular regards to the land conict

and the mainstreaming of urban and peri-urban ag-

riculture. Most proximate to the farmers are GIDA

and MoFA; while direct interacon with the Stool

and AshMA is limited, these are seen as highly in-

uenal on the land security issue and a signicant

barrier to long-term agricultural pracces. Further

invesgaon also revealed the presence of a civil so-

ciety actor, the Ashaiman District Cizen’s Monitor-

ing Commiee (DCMC), who has had direct contactwith the farmers of Roman Down and may play a key

role in opening inter-organisaonal dialogue.

MoFA

The primary point of contact with MoFA is the Ag-

ricultural Extension Ocer, through whom Roman

Down farmers receive regular technical guidance.

While MoFA’s claims to support urban agriculture

through support programmes such as “Block Farm-

ing”, Roman Down farmers do not qualify for this orany other support programmes, and are therefore

dependent on vouchers for subsidized ferlizers

through MoFA.

The farmers of Roman Down consider their interac-

on with MoFA posive not only because of techni-

cal support, but also as an ally in the encroachment

issue. It is clear that MoFA plays an important me-

diatory role for the farmers both in physical and in-

stuonal relaonships, but our experience in the

eld calls to queson the transparency of that pro-

cess. Both in terms of technical processes and re-

solving the land conict issue, the current acons of

MoFA have propagated an asymmetry of knowledge

and inuence that has severely restricted the “room

for manoeuvre” of farmers.

However, MoFA is in a unique posion to foster dia-

logue across mulple sectors of governance. Given

current instuonal constraints, this open dialogue

is necessary to the connued existence of UPA inAshaiman.

GIDA

The farmers of Roman Down are most directly de-

pendent on GIDA, as their claim for land security

depends on GIDA’s ownership—during one focus

group some farmers went so far as to describe GIDA

ocials as “like fathers.” Direct relaonships with

GIDA depend largely on the knowledge exchange

between Ashaiman Irrigaon Cooperave farmers

and Roman Down cooperave facilitated with the

the support of Nii Ofoe Hansen of IDA.

One of the key bargaining chips provided through

GIDA is a leer deploring both the exisng resi-

denal construcon on land around the irrigaon

scheme and the Roman Down site, and the resultant

consequences such as black-ow and ooding of

the irrigaon scheme if Roman Down, which is situ-

ated on a ood plain was developed. While the let-ter arculates the physical interdependency of the

two sites, it also emphasizes the technical role GIDA

64




plays in UPA.

Implicitly, the farmers at Roman Down act as stew-

ards for the ood plain, protecng crops, facilies,

and livelihoods upstream. However, according to

ocial GIDA policy, the Roman Down site is an im-

portant passive “buer zone,” where farming is a

secondary acvity, placing Roman Down farmers ina subordinate posion to the physical plant of the

GIDA scheme.

The situaon of GIDA presents two crical oppor-

tunies to expand room for manoeuvre. Neither

GIDA nor Roman Down farmers have capitalized

on the physical role the ood plain plays in the city.

Not only does this aect the future of the irriga-

on scheme, but as the only drainage ouall in the

area, the future of Roman Down will have an eect

on the water and waste management for the enre

municipality [map 4.4]. Farming in the area has the

potenal to go beyond a passive acvity on buer

land, but incorporate new producve norms to har-

ness the environmental character of the ood plain

while acvely protecng necessary open space.

However, this process requires not only investment,

but increased polical will from both Roman Down

farmers and GIDA itself.

Second, by linking the farmers of both cooperaves,GIDA has the potenal to expand the social acon

space for all users. While this is already happening

on an unocial level, the role GIDA plays in recogn-

ising this link will be crical in mobilising social pres-

sure to mainstream SUPA.

Tradional Council

Though the farmers of Roman Down recognise the

vital importance of the Stool in securing the future

of agriculture on site and their right to farm, inter-

acon with the instuon has been categorically

negave. The source of immediate conict has been

sale of land and construcon on farm sites—farm-

ers who have resisted this process have been con-

fronted with “land guards,” who defend the building

sites with weapons. Though the land guards have

not been directly ed to the chiefs, some of the land

sales have been linked to members of the Stool.

An arcle was published in February 2010 reporng

an aempted assault against the farmers and pressby landguards, with specic reference made to the

involvement of the newly appointed Chief has led

to increased tensions between the stool and Roman

Down farmers.

The queson at hand, according to the stool, is

whether Roman Down farmers are in fact legally

farming the site. Since the compulsary purchase of

the land by GIDA in 1977, farmers at Roman Downhave connued working under agreement with GIDA,

no longer negoang with the Stool. In spite of last

years’ meeng among the Stool, MoFA and GIDA

facilitated by DPU researchers, where GIDA claimed

Roman Down farmers as part of their scheme—the

chief holds their lack of formal registraon as a sign

of illegimacy. The Stool has expressed willingness

to negoate the situaon, but this lack of formal

support, compounded with the ulmatum regarding

the rejoinder has placed the Roman Down farmers

into a limited space for acon.

Though interacons are currently antagonisc, the

Stool could be a key ally in supporng the long-term

vision of SUPA in Ashaiman. The stool’s long-term

vision for Ashaiman is for a commercial, “24-hour,”

city, but the Regent recognises the need to maintain

the municipality’s farming history and engage the

indigenous Ga community in farming. Of parcular

interest for him is the need for gainful employment

that might be met with Urban Agriculture, instead of

seeking “white-collar jobs that don’t exist.”

In order to balance this vision for urban develop-

ment with custodianship for Ashaiman’s land and

people, strategic and open negoaon must be pos-

sible with all stakeholders. These negoaons must

not be driven by threat of violence or forced evic-

on, or else the long-term social and instuonal

mainstreaming of SUPA will be untenable. However,

it must be recognised that farmers at Roman Down

will also need to accept the need for strategic com-promise, as any soluon with the Stool will not end

with exisng lines being redrawn.

AshMA

On the ground, focus on AshMA has been on the

enforcement problem of encroaching selement on

farmland and GIDA property. Study of the instu-

on revealed that this construcon is only a physical

manifestaon of a deeper policy issue at play.

The Municipal Coordinang Director for AshMA por-

trayed the struggle with encroachment as the com-

65




peon between the need for housing in a growing

city and the need to grow food. Though apparently

commied to protecng agricultural land, the basic

line from the Municipal Assembly is that urban de-

velopment takes precedence.

Some aenon has been paid to issues of encroach-

ment, demolion had taken place in the Spring of 2010 of informal housing around waterways, includ-

ing the drainage leading to Roman Down as part of a

naonal exercise, but the major focus is on housing

development around the GIDA reservoir. The Chief

Excecuve and planners alike have espoused a com-

mitment to protect the GIDA scheme, but like the

tradional council, the planners of AshMA do not

consider Roman Down as farming land.

As stated earlier, plans are already in place to build

on parts of Roman Down, this is permissible through

AshMA’s Town and County Planning policies because

Roman Down is not classied as acvely farmed

land, but rather an undeveloped buer zone.

As a new municipality, AshMA has the opportunity

to make advances in its vision for a sustainable city.

To date, however the process has been guided from

within the planning instuon without the sustained

input of other stakeholders in the city.

Civil Society

It has only been in the last year that civil society

actors have made contact with Roman Down. The

Ashaiman DCMC, a new entrant to UPA issues, be-

gan the process with an agricultural budget tracking

project at the behest of Send-Ghana. The DCMC is

composed of a network of NGOs and CBOs led by

Braimah Abdulai of the Rural-Urban Women and

Children Development Agency and includes parci-

pant from health, educaon, and women’s groups

as well as representaves from the municipal as-

sembly, tradional council. Addionally, Secretary

Bae of the RD cooperave is also a representave

on the commiee, potenally providing a direct ac-

cess point for advocacy and dialogue between UPA

praconers and instuonal actors.

Though Send-Ghana, a naonal NGO charged with

monitoring pro-poor policies at all levels of govern-

ment, directed the formaon of the DCMC and pro-

vides direcves on projects, the DCMC idened

encroachment as a pressing issue for smallholder

farmers of Ashaiman and have connued to remain

acve advocates. From this perspecve of advo-

cacy, one of the soluons proposed by the group isa barrier to demarcate the farmland from the city.

Though the DCMC does contain representaves of

the approach again shows a narrow focus on en-

forcement issues without addressing the underlying

threats to UPA in the city.

One of the biggest barriers, according to Abdulai,

is the limitaon on resources for advocacy. How-

ever, the group has yet to fully employ the social re-

sources at its disposal. The potenal for this kind of

resource-building was on display on 11 May, when

farmers of Roman Down and the GIDA scheme col-

lecvely met to build their own vision for SUPA.

Also present was a member of the DCMC as well as

Charles Zukka, the Ashaiman leader of the Ghana

Federaon for the Urban Poor. As all present talked

about the importance of Unity, Zukka presented the

case of the Federaon for the Urban Poor, where the

group was not only successful in its saving schemes,

but was able to partner with the Stool and AshMA to

iniate a community-led slum upgrading scheme. ,If it can build on these kind of social resource, the

DCMC can play a key role in bridging the gap be-

tween aspiraons for SUPA and the praccal reali-

es of policy-makers.

66




Table of farmers’ relaonships with key stakeholders. The X axis indicates posive (right) and negave (le)

relaons. The Y axis indicates their proximity to the Farmers (the nearer the boom the closer)

67




MONITORING AND EVALUATION

APPENDIX 1

Web of Instuonalisaon

68




APPENDIX 2

Key Actors: Discourse, Policy and Acon on

Urban Agriculture

69



ROMAN DOWN- ASHAIMAN Sustainable Urban and Peri urban Agriculture70




MISCELLANEOUS

APPENDIX 1

Newspaper Arcle in Metro News

71




APPENDIX 2

GIDA LETTER

72






Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	the-bartlett-development-planning-unit-ucl
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Sustainable Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Accra, Roman Down Ashaiman

Documents