1 / 12

Ghana: Impact of the Productive Safety Nets Project on Agricultural Productivity

Ghana: Impact of the Productive Safety Nets Project on Agricultural Productivity. Angela Dannson, MoFA Benjamin Botchway, MoLG Osman Gyasi, World Bank Markus Goldstein, World Bank. Project components. Building assets of the poor Labor intensive public works Productive community assets

samara
Download Presentation

Ghana: Impact of the Productive Safety Nets Project on Agricultural Productivity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ghana: Impact of the Productive Safety Nets Project on Agricultural Productivity Angela Dannson, MoFA Benjamin Botchway, MoLG Osman Gyasi, World Bank Markus Goldstein, World Bank

  2. Project components • Building assets of the poor • Labor intensive public works • Productive community assets • Human and social capital development • Improving agricultural productivity • Support to ag. technology packages • Support for technology package development • Disaster preparedness and management • Project management

  3. Priorities for learning • Productive community assets • Support to agricultural technology packages

  4. Evaluation questions • Does the provision of community assets lead to increased marketable output/purchasing power for the poor? • Will providing matching grants increase access to information (knowledge), use of inputs and adoption of new technology and increased productivity?

  5. Evaluation design - 1 • In year 1, randomly select 10 districts (subject to confirmation as to how districts will be targeted – if they are chosen based on the poverty assessment this might not be feasible) for roll out among 38 eligible districts (more districts in subsequent years) • Within projects that pass the screening criteria in each district randomly select 4 proposals for funding in year 1. • Compare beneficiary and pipeline communities among projects that are selected – compare ag productivity and household consumption among those selected with those who are waiting.

  6. Key indicators -1 • household consumption x gender of head • fraction of income coming from different sources (e.g. farm/non-farm, different crops) x gender / age • change in total income x gender / age • food availability: number of months in which people go hungry/reduced food intake x gender of hh head • child anthropometrics – weight for height, arm circumference

  7. Evaluation design - 2 • Among all FBO proposals, randomly select a subset in year 1, then do another call in year 3 and again randomly select a group to support. • This will include some of those in the control group in the first round (as well as new entrants). • After year 3 we will have two treatment groups – long and short, and we can compare these with the controls (both year 1 (old) and year 3 (new) controls).

  8. Key indicators - 2 • Change in the ability to utilize extension services and/or purchase input packages (farmer self report of this ability) X gender / age • Adoption by beneficiary farmers of the major technologies supported under the project x gender / age • Increase in yield/hectare, overall output, changes in cropping choices x gender / age • Changes in food consumption (levels and variability) X gender of head

  9. Data 1. Look at existing poverty studies see what is going on (Ousman) • Look within local government to see what is going on (Ben) 3. See what is being collected as part of the FBO registration (MIDA and CIDA/MoFA) (Angela) 4. Find out what is being done as part of CIDA extension studies – delivery/adoption (Angela). 5. Find out what ISSER is doing as part of their survey. (Markus) 6. Look at existing MoFA data collection (yields) (Angela) Conditional on not finding the data we need: 1. Do a baseline survey 2. Depending on phase in, conduct follow ups at appropriate times 3. Complement this with annual monitoring data

  10. Evaluation timeline • Depends on project preparation • Finalize the concept note during one of the preparation missions/appraisal missions, with workshop in Accra (SRID, M&E officers) • Baseline February/March 2010 • Project implementation – April/May 2010 • Follow up surveys as necessary (likely one before MTR)

  11. Impact evaluation team • MoFA, (PPMED/Statistics Research and Information Directorate) both Accra and regional offices – and sub-contractors for studies (CEPA, ISSER, Dept of Agric Economics and Agribusiness) – Angela Dannson, contact person – second person TBD • MoLG and rural development both Accra and regional offices: contact people PPMED director/Ben Botchway • World Bank (Paavo Eliste/Ousman Gyasi/Markus Goldstein) • Field coordinator – TBD

  12. Budget • Line items, for now: • Survey cost • Cost of any consultancy – sub-contractors, MoFA, evaluation consultants • Cost of the field supervisor

More Related